American Gun Ownership: The Positive Impacts of Law-Abiding Citizens Owning Guns

[ammodotcom]

Click here to listen to the podcast!

In this week's episode, Sam and Dave discuss the positive impacts of law-abiding citizens owning firearms. It’s no secret that mainstream press coverage of gun ownership in the United States tends to be in favor of gun control. Journalists focus on how many people are killed by guns, how many children get their hands on improperly stored firearms, and how many deranged individuals go on shooting sprees.
 
This anti-gun news bias is widespread among urban elites who have very little personal experience with guns and yet have no problem opining about the subject for influential newspapers like The New York Times or The Washington Post. Despite this bias, gun ownership has significant positive impacts on American society that often go unreported.
 
There is actually a sort of semi-official policy regarding this: “if it bleeds, it leads.” This means, in short, that the more death and destruction, the higher up on the news the story goes. Nothing moves units quite like tales of gun violence, so the media complies by wallpapering coverage of tragic events like mass shootings, despite the fact that such events are rare and comprise a small number of the total deaths in America.
 
What’s more, the media almost never reports on context when it comes to mass shootings, such as the well-documented connection between prescription antidepressants and shootings. Even when SSRIs are involved, there is a serious problem with mental healthcare in the United States, which has one of the lowest rates of involuntary commitment in the world. In other words, it is incredibly difficult to get someone who is clearly a danger to themselves and others locked away even for a short observation period.
 
Of course, other, more tangential causes like the breakdown of civil society and the destruction of the family are never even considered.
 
Before proceeding further, it is finally worth pointing out that despite any talk of “weapons of war on our streets” by politicians and the media, it is primarily the police who hold such “weapons of war.” The possession of heavy weapons by local, state and federal law enforcement is not an abstract or philosophical question: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms alone offers a number of examples of the deadly consequences of a heavily armed police force.
 
You can read the full article American Gun Ownership: The Positive Impacts of Law-Abiding Citizens Owning Firearms at Ammo.com

[Cnut237]

the positive impacts of law-abiding citizens owning firearms

Certainly you have a valid argument with the quote below, but a frontier setting in the 1700s is somewhat different to a modern metropolis where millions of people live in close proximity to one another.

In the 18th century [...] Settlers used them to put food on the table and also to fight off what were sometimes constant raids by a hostile native population.

the media almost never reports on context when it comes to mass shootings, such as the well-documented connection between prescription antidepressants and shootings. Even when SSRIs are involved, there is a serious problem with mental healthcare in the United States, which has one of the lowest rates of involuntary commitment in the world. In other words, it is incredibly difficult to get someone who is clearly a danger to themselves and others locked away even for a short observation period.

Maybe we shouldn't be selling guns to people with mental health problems? Just an idea.

Scenario: Someone with severe mental issues is waving a gun around in a public place, shooting at people.
You have two choices. Should you
A) Take the gun off them, or
B) Give them a voucher for a free psychological evaluation?

In 1997, Wales and England saw a nearly 50 percent increase in homicides immediately after implementing a ban on handguns.

I don't think this is much of an argument. The data show a very jagged line indicative of very low values. You can't extrapolate a rising trend from this.


https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/UK-Firearm-Homicide-Rate.png

Besides which...

Gun-related homicides as a % of all homicides is much lower in England/Wales than in the US.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081

And the overall homicide rate is also vastly lower in England/Wales than in the US.

https://ourworldindata.org/homicides

[BernyJB]

The whole problem with the "gun control argument" is that nobody is ever honest about it. Everybody minimizes each other's point, and don't even try to understand it.

Guns don't kill people. Guns are tools. True. But it's also true that only 2 countries in the world (the US and Yemen) give their citizens a "right to bear arms", and one of them has one of the highest rates of homicide by firearm in the world, while the other one is in the middle of a civil war.
Yeah, law abiding citizens carrying guns are (or can be) great. But the fact is that everyone is a law abiding citizen until they are proven to have broken the law (notice I didn't say "until they break the law"), and most mass shootings are carried by guys with no prior record.
Just to make things clear: I'm not against people carrying firearms. I'm against people treating me like I'm an idiot.
Gun control doesn't mean "banning guns": it means allowing those that can be sane and responsible enough to wield that kind of power to wield it legally, while at least attempting to keep others from getting access to them.

[ammodotcom]

But it's also true that only 2 countries in the world (the US and Yemen) give their citizens a "right to bear arms", and one of them has one of the highest rates of homicide by firearm in the world, while the other one is in the middle of a civil war.
Yeah, law abiding citizens carrying guns are (or can be) great. But the fact is that everyone is a law abiding citizen until they are proven to have broken the law (notice I didn't say "until they break the law"), and most mass shootings are carried by guys with no prior record.
Just to make things clear: I'm not against people carrying firearms. I'm against people treating me like I'm an idiot.
Gun control doesn't mean "banning guns": it means allowing those that can be sane and responsible enough to wield that kind of power to wield it legally, while at least attempting to keep others from getting access to them.

The U.S. doesn't give its citizens any rights. Our Bill of Rights merely acknowledges that we're born with certain rights and prohibits the government from infringing them.

As far as gun control is concerned, I'm finally unequivocally against it. Reasonable measures sound reasonable to normal people. The "activists" who are really pushing for gun control are only going to be content when the only remaining armed Americans are employed by the government.

[Cnut237]

As far as gun control is concerned, I'm finally unequivocally against it.

You are a representative of a website that sells ammunition for guns though, so this is to be expected.

Reasonable measures sound reasonable to normal people. The "activists" who are really pushing for gun control are only going to be content when the only remaining armed Americans are employed by the government.

I'm not American, and to an outsider the obsession with guns just looks bizarre. I appreciate that a lot of it is tied up in history, and claiming the continent, with dangerous wildlife (bears, etc.) and conflict with the native population... but how does any of this apply to the modern world? I can't see that "we should be free to own guns because we want to" is a particularly compelling reason. And I understand the second amendment, but again this is an anachronism, it's something that may have been valid in the US a couple of hundred years ago. Why would someone see this as important now, other than because "we want to have guns".... what other reason is there to have them? Why would someone who lives in, say, Manhattan need a gun? Other than to defend themselves against other people who have guns, which isn't really much of an argument.

Not trying to be confrontational, just genuinely interested in the issue as someone who is looking at it from the outside.

[Tellek Garing]

Am of the opinion that gun control should be enforced and at the same time the use of firearms by non trained individuals should be ban and any one that most own a gun will have to go through training and mental test. If possible the gin license should be renewable every year.

[BernyJB]

But it's also true that only 2 countries in the world (the US and Yemen) give their citizens a "right to bear arms", and one of them has one of the highest rates of homicide by firearm in the world, while the other one is in the middle of a civil war.
Yeah, law abiding citizens carrying guns are (or can be) great. But the fact is that everyone is a law abiding citizen until they are proven to have broken the law (notice I didn't say "until they break the law"), and most mass shootings are carried by guys with no prior record.
Just to make things clear: I'm not against people carrying firearms. I'm against people treating me like I'm an idiot.
Gun control doesn't mean "banning guns": it means allowing those that can be sane and responsible enough to wield that kind of power to wield it legally, while at least attempting to keep others from getting access to them.

The U.S. doesn't give its citizens any rights. Our Bill of Rights merely acknowledges that we're born with certain rights and prohibits the government from infringing them.

As far as gun control is concerned, I'm finally unequivocally against it. Reasonable measures sound reasonable to normal people. The "activists" who are really pushing for gun control are only going to be content when the only remaining armed Americans are employed by the government.

That's semantics, so let me fix that for you: in only 2 countries in the world their citizens have an unrestricted right to own and bear firearms, and in both of them a good percentage of people seem to think most problems can be solved with one.
Meanwhile, 95% of the world's population lead full, happy(ish) lives without having that right, and you don't hear or read about some bozo taking a firearm to a school and opening fire on kids because he can.
But then again, nobody is talking (as far as I know) about banning guns (which is the argument the pro-gun crowd has been pushing forever), but about allowing access to those that are qualified to use them, same way you do with cars, and many other things.
The whole "pro-gun" argument makes no sense whatsoever, but it's backed by a lot of money and a lot of lobbying power, and the results are clear. Lots of people are gonna keep on dying, and nobody's gonna give a damn about it. 

[Gyfts]

...

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-ownership-by-country

I only look here because the gun ownership statistics by country varies so much with how the gun laws/regulations are, and so US at the top with the most gun ownership and firearms per capita. Though, some European countries also make the list. So consider that the US has the most number of gun and that statistically there would be more chances for someone to do something terrible with those guns.

Given most gun deaths are related to suicide, a self inflicted wound and individual decision, strike out those number of deaths. How many gun related homicides are you left with, and how does that compare to other countries. I imagine still a lot. Then begin to factor in confounds, like poverty or income level. I know India has a number of firearms floating around, but their poverty levels are even more than the US. So still, it's not entirely correct to create a causal factor between poverty and gun violence.

[Cnut237]

consider that the US has the most number of gun and that statistically there would be more chances for someone to do something terrible with those guns.

Yes, that's my point. Take away the guns, and the number of people killed by guns will drop.

Given most gun deaths are related to suicide, a self inflicted wound and individual decision, strike out those number of deaths.

The figures I shared were for homicides, which doesn't include suicide. So the high number of gun-related suicides are additional deaths; they dramatically increase the problem.

begin to factor in confounds, like poverty or income level. I know India has a number of firearms floating around, but their poverty levels are even more than the US. So still, it's not entirely correct to create a causal factor between poverty and gun violence.

Yes, deprivation will increase all sorts of bad outcomes, gun deaths no doubt included. But people in bad situations who don't have guns, don't shoot themselves or others. I imagine - and this is just speculation - that one issue with gun violence is that it is easier because there is a degree of abstraction... I mean, with a knife, you have to physically stick it into someone, but a gun murder is more like pressing a button, the act can be separated more easily from the effect.

How many gun related homicides are you left with, and how does that compare to other countries. I imagine still a lot.

Yes, the US is a notable outlier.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[ammodotcom]

You are a representative of a website that sells ammunition for guns though, so this is to be expected.

I'm not American, and to an outsider the obsession with guns just looks bizarre. I appreciate that a lot of it is tied up in history, and claiming the continent, with dangerous wildlife (bears, etc.) and conflict with the native population... but how does any of this apply to the modern world? I can't see that "we should be free to own guns because we want to" is a particularly compelling reason. And I understand the second amendment, but again this is an anachronism, it's something that may have been valid in the US a couple of hundred years ago. Why would someone see this as important now, other than because "we want to have guns".... what other reason is there to have them? Why would someone who lives in, say, Manhattan need a gun? Other than to defend themselves against other people who have guns, which isn't really much of an argument.

Not trying to be confrontational, just genuinely interested in the issue as someone who is looking at it from the outside.

I'm certainly what you claim. It's no coincidence whom I work for, however. I sought out Ammo.com because it aligns with my personal beliefs.

I appreciate your civility. As a pro-gun American I can only give you my own opinion on the matter.

The Second Amendment is a safeguard against government tryanny. It does not provide complete protection against government tyranny, as the American government continually demonstrates. But if the government were to start sending secret police to people's doors in the dead of night, they'd have a very hard time gathering enough volunteers because those people would know the barrel of a loaded firearm could be pointed at them through any closed door. If the government starts putting people in internment camps – like they did in WWII, on both sides – they'll have a much more difficult time doing so when those people are armed with semi-automatic rifles. I could go on, but the basic gist of it is that an armed populace is far harder to dominate than one which cannot fight back against its own military and police. Pretending that a government cannot turn tyrannical over the course of a few years is willful ignorance at best.

On the other hand, there is self-defense. I have a right to defend myself against anyone who means to do me immediate bodily harm. I am not some kind of action hero – in a fight against a man holding a knife, or two unarmed men, I'm nearly certainly done for. That's why I carry a revolver. And if someone breaks into my house in the dead of night, my chances of survival are much higher if I grab my shotgun as opposed to calling the police, who will take over 10 minutes to arrive at my home. If everyone in Manhattan carried a firearm for self-defense, instead of only criminals, I believe violence would decline. Criminals are far less likely to choose victims that are able to fight back.

There you have it!, foreign friend!

[af_newbie]

Click here to listen to the podcast!

In this week's episode, Sam and Dave discuss the positive impacts of law-abiding citizens owning firearms. It’s no secret that mainstream press coverage of gun ownership in the United States tends to be in favor of gun control. Journalists focus on how many people are killed by guns, how many children get their hands on improperly stored firearms, and how many deranged individuals go on shooting sprees.
 
This anti-gun news bias is widespread among urban elites who have very little personal experience with guns and yet have no problem opining about the subject for influential newspapers like The New York Times or The Washington Post. Despite this bias, gun ownership has significant positive impacts on American society that often go unreported.
 
There is actually a sort of semi-official policy regarding this: “if it bleeds, it leads.” This means, in short, that the more death and destruction, the higher up on the news the story goes. Nothing moves units quite like tales of gun violence, so the media complies by wallpapering coverage of tragic events like mass shootings, despite the fact that such events are rare and comprise a small number of the total deaths in America.
 
What’s more, the media almost never reports on context when it comes to mass shootings, such as the well-documented connection between prescription antidepressants and shootings. Even when SSRIs are involved, there is a serious problem with mental healthcare in the United States, which has one of the lowest rates of involuntary commitment in the world. In other words, it is incredibly difficult to get someone who is clearly a danger to themselves and others locked away even for a short observation period.
 
Of course, other, more tangential causes like the breakdown of civil society and the destruction of the family are never even considered.
 
Before proceeding further, it is finally worth pointing out that despite any talk of “weapons of war on our streets” by politicians and the media, it is primarily the police who hold such “weapons of war.” The possession of heavy weapons by local, state and federal law enforcement is not an abstract or philosophical question: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms alone offers a number of examples of the deadly consequences of a heavily armed police force.
 
You can read the full article American Gun Ownership: The Positive Impacts of Law-Abiding Citizens Owning Firearms at Ammo.com

There are absolutely no positive impacts of law-abiding citizens owning guns on crime rates.  Law-abiding citizens are not the ones committing crimes so they cannot have any positive impact on the crime rates.

So you can put your Rambo, protect my turf, wet dream to rest.

Gang culture is what drives the crime rates up.  Drug abuse and associated drug distribution are what drive the crime rates up.

The solution is to legalize illegal drugs and dismantle the gangs.  I mean go after them hard, military-style.  Take them out.

It does not matter if you own guns or not.  If you own them and use them to defend yourself, you will get into a lot of trouble, at least in Canada as we are not allowed to use guns for self-defense.  I owned guns for 30 years and using them for self-defense never crossed my mind.  It is not like I don't have the skills, I did PPC and IPSC for years.

[Cnut237]

Pretending that a government cannot turn tyrannical over the course of a few years is willful ignorance at best.

Yes, but you could use the willful ignorance argument in respect of the gun-free democracies of western Europe remaining stable and non-tyrannical over the course of the last 75 years.
And in any case, if the government wanted to forcefully subjugate the people, then a revolver or shotgun is not going to be much defence against the full weight of the US military.

If everyone in Manhattan carried a firearm for self-defense, instead of only criminals, I believe violence would decline. Criminals are far less likely to choose victims that are able to fight back.

They're also far less likely to shoot someone if they don't have a gun to shoot with.
I think the figures and charts I've presented suggest that violence - and in particular, deaths - would decline significantly if there were no guns (or at least far fewer guns).


But as I say, I'm not from the US, it's just an outsider's perspective.

[tvbcof]

...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Per 100,000.  Lol!  In other words, no problem.

When I lived in the U.S. I was in one of the most highly armed areas of the country (and I still own 8 or 10 guns there.)  It's would be unusual for a household to NOT have at least ne gun kicking around somewhere.  Very very unusual to hear of someone getting shot either accidentally or on purpose.  But for suicides, almost without exception the injured or killed 'victim' richly deserved what he got and had usually been terrorizing people for much of his miserable life.  Most of the time it was one dirt-bag tweaker shooting some other dirt-bag tweaker, but again, it was pretty unusual.  When it did happen I consider it a savings of tax money and there for an added efficiency to the social fabric.

There were a fair number of incidents of a homeowner protecting his/her family and property, but rarely were shots fired.  Most of the problems were with tweakers, and even being high on meth they still tried to avoid confrontations and did their (almost daily) property crimes only when they thought nobody was around.  But sometimes they made a mistake.

[Cnut237]

Per 100,000.  Lol!  In other words, no problem.

Well, I suppose whether it is a problem or not is subjective.
Looking at that last chart, the total for the US would be around (3.5+6.5=) 10 per 100k population. If the US population is 300 million, that's 30,000 deaths from guns per year. To me that seems quite a lot.

[mu_enrico]

If the argument is about death, murder rate, accident, etc., for sure gun control is favorable. BUT, does gun control lower crime rate? For example, I've read somewhere that a robber will avoid house where its owner owns a gun. Also, without a gun, people can't defend themselves from tyrannical government, as @ammodotcom pointed out. The argument will be you give up your liberty for a false sense of security. Maybe it's not "false" but more of "temporary" because it's secure as long as your leaders have decent morality (which is unlikely in the long run). When or if Hitler 2.0 appears, I bet it won't be from the US. #NotTrump

[tvbcof]

If the argument is about death, murder rate, accident, etc., for sure gun control is favorable. BUT, does gun control lower crime rate? For example, I've read somewhere that a robber will avoid house where its owner owns a gun. Also, without a gun, people can't defend themselves from tyrannical government, as @ammodotcom pointed out. The argument will be you give up your liberty for a false sense of security. Maybe it's not "false" but more of "temporary" because it's secure as long as your leaders have decent morality (which is unlikely in the long run). When or if Hitler 2.0 appears, I bet it won't be from the US. #NotTrump

If the meth-heads in my area knew they wouldn't have to face an armed homeowner, it would be carnage.  I can promise that.  Meth turns a person into a complete psychopathic animal, or at least a lot of the people who would be drawn towards it's use in the first place.

I don't have much patience for the typical gun nut who thinks they are going to stand their ground against the tyrannical government.  It's not the right tool for the job, and the govt are at least on the cusp of having/using weapons which most of these morons could not imagine.

No, the big 'threat' of a citizenry keeping and bearing arms is that the ability exists to have relative peace and safety WITHOUT a lot of 'help' and 'support' from the government.  The government (and the lefty idjuts) cannot stand this!

I did the calcs one time and my area had something like an average of 1.5 sheriffs deputies covering like 1200 square miles at any given time.  My area was a minimum of 1/2 hour away from a cop car starting immediately and traveling at full speed.  And again, confrontational crime was almost non-existent.  Most of it which was was domestic disputes, and these involve any tool which is handy meaning if someone doesn't have a gun they would substitute with an axe.  To the degree that a gun is an effective weapon it might serve to limit escalation to a degree.  In other words, they girl/guy might pick up a chunk of wood before he/she would pick up a shotgun were it available.  Would be an interesting study.

[Gyfts]

The figures I shared were for homicides, which doesn't include suicide. So the high number of gun-related suicides are additional deaths; they dramatically increase the problem.

But if someone decides to kill themselves, they'll end up doing it regardless of the method, most likely. Having a gun around makes it easier, probably makes it more efficient too. But that doesn't make guns the issue, just makes mental health the problem. The US doesn't give any mental health care help to anyone as far as I'm aware and if you do end up institutionalizing yourself, it's just an insane asylum where they hold you against your will. And today the solution to depression or mental illness is to pump as many drugs into the person as possible.

Banning guns may be easier then taking away the anti-depressants big pharma wants to pump into people.

[Cnut237]

I did the calcs one time and my area had something like an average of 1.5 sheriffs deputies covering like 1200 square miles at any given time.  My area was a minimum of 1/2 hour away from a cop car starting immediately and traveling at full speed.

This is a valid point. I can understand why someone living in a remote area with no prospect of immediate assistance might want to protect themselves.
We just don't have that in my cramped little country, where everyone is geographically close to everyone else. I travelled coast-to-coast across the US some years ago, and to someone from the UK, the sheer space is unbelievable.

if someone decides to kill themselves, they'll end up doing it regardless of the method, most likely. Having a gun around makes it easier

I'd argue that if a gun makes it easier, then it also makes it more likely. If your options are A) pull a trigger, or B) jump off a high building, then I'd suggest that if you remove the gun, there are people who might decide against the whole thing if the jump is the only choice.
Data (albeit from 2002) do suggest a strong correlation by state between suicide and gun prevalence. Appreciate there are many complicating factors though, and this isn't clear-cut.

[mu_enrico]

I don't have much patience for the typical gun nut who thinks they are going to stand their ground against the tyrannical government.  It's not the right tool for the job, and the govt are at least on the cusp of having/using weapons which most of these morons could not imagine.

No, the big 'threat' of a citizenry keeping and bearing arms is that the ability exists to have relative peace and safety WITHOUT a lot of 'help' and 'support' from the government.  The government (and the lefty idjuts) cannot stand this!

That's true, and it's the same concept. Don't imagine tyrannical government will do full scale (civil) war against its own citizen. But more of removing individual freedom and thus gaining more power over time. Gun is for protection, to protect life and property. If guns are removed, people then delegate the job to the government (aka police) thus more power for the government. The idea of a free state is limited power of government, hence carved on the constitution.

If we see from the history, the power grab occurs gradually. After removing rights to protect themselves, the government can just remove more rights, including rights to go outside, opt-out from vaccine, socialize, etc. For instance, I don't think what happened in Australia can happen in Texas.

[suchmoon]

And if someone breaks into my house in the dead of night, my chances of survival are much higher if I grab my shotgun as opposed to calling the police, who will take over 10 minutes to arrive at my home.

Unless that someone has a gun, which they are very likely to have, and shoots or otherwise disables you first, which they're are more likely to do if they think you can have a gun.

If everyone in Manhattan carried a firearm for self-defense, instead of only criminals, I believe violence would decline. Criminals are far less likely to choose victims that are able to fight back.

I've been robbed at gunpoint. If I had a gun and tried to use it, I'd be likely dead or severely injured. Most people have no chance to succeed in self-defense against well-prepared attackers. Not something a gun/ammo seller would tell you though.