An article published on rollingout.com claims to “debunk” myths about guns with “real data”. All the “real data” used is from advocates who oppose the ownership of guns.

If you skip to the end of the article, the source listed for the numbers used in the article is Everytown Research. Everytown Research is one of the propaganda arms of the anti-Second Amendment organization Everytown for Gun Safety, financed by Michael Bloomberg, a staunch anti-Second Amendment advocate. To use such a source to “debunk” myths is similar to asking the Flat Earth Society to “debunk” myths about gravity.

The pitch starts with the presumption that some nebulous entity called “the gun industry” has “spent decades convincing people that danger lurks around every corner”. This is a peculiar and highly dubious statement. Gun makers are shut out of most major media. You do not see ads for guns on major television shows. There are no ads for guns at the Super Bowl. You hardly see any ads showing guns used defensively against crime. Most social networks vigorously ban advertisements of weapons. To claim otherwise is a Marxian fantasy. The old dominant media often parrot anti-Second Amendment myths. Such dominance is fading.

Having grown up in the gun culture in the decades referred to in the article, there is some truth about the danger of crime to families being overemphasized. It isn’t by the “gun industry”. It is largely attributed to the old media, including movies and television shows, as well as the emphasis on violent crime in the media.  This correspondent recalls many television shows that would have become much shorter if the “victims” were armed.

Yes, the gun culture in the United States has shifted from hunting to personal protection, target shooting, and protection from government tyranny. It is a reasonable shift that accompanies the transition from a rural culture to an urban culture.

The society in the USA has become much more affluent and fractured. People are more concerned about safety. The number of firearms in society is not related to the number of homicides and violent crimes in society.

A significant number of gun owners see guns as an insurance policy, similar to a fire extinguisher in your home. The writer at Rolling Out notes that violent crimes have dropped in recent years. Crime and risk from crime are highly individual and specific. Violent crime rises and falls. Risk depends on individual circumstances as to whether a firearm is useful or not. Your risk depends significantly on your circumstances and the neighborhood you live in. As with a fire extinguisher, a firearm for personal protection may never be needed. If it is, the need is often immediate and severe.

The article leans heavily on the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which does not ask about defensive gun uses. The defensive use of a firearm is only discovered if the defender self-identifies as a victim of a crime. Unsurprisingly, it is an outlier in surveys about how often firearms are used defensively. The author tries to make a point about how most perpetrators of crime are not armed with guns. This is true, but it points out exactly why guns are so effective for defense.

The article cherry picks statistics from victimization surveys and from anti-Second Amendment activists.

Unsurprisingly, the article ignores research that contradicts the narrative that “guns are bad”.  There is no mention of minority women in crime-ridden urban centers benefiting the most from being able to legally defend themselves with weapons. No mention of gun “buybacks” being associated with small, but statistically significant increases in crime. No mention of homicide rates rising in countries where bans on guns are imposed. There is no mention of suicide rates persisting when gun bans are put into effect, and other methods are substituted. No mention of a correlation between the legal carry of guns and decreased homicide rates. These effects are debated, but there is debate. To ignore these findings is intellectually dishonest.

This correspondent has read most of the academic literature in the debate about whether ownership of firearms has a positive or negative effect on safety. The largest drivers of suicide and homicide rates are cultural. England had much lower rates of homicide than the United States when the United States had stricter gun control than England did, about 1914. The homicide rate in England rose as they instituted more gun control.  Gun control in England was about political control, not crime.

The ownership of firearms plays a relatively small role in suicide and homicide rates. Firearms are popular because firearms increase personal power. They can play major roles in individual circumstances. A 100 lb woman with a gun is on par with a 250 lb man.  Firearms even out power imbalances created by muscle, mass and age. Firearms are great equalizers for women.

In the United States, the debate about small effects on safety is winding down. It is becoming irrelevant because rights protected by the Second Amendment are being restored. If a person thinks they cannot responsibly handle firearm ownership, the are not required to own a gun. Police officers, who deal with criminal violence on a regular basis, reject this notion.

The Rolling Out article ignores the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment renders their argument superfluous.  There are over 500 million firearms in private hands in the United States. Firearm ownership is popular and becoming more popular. Firearms are fun, firearms are effective, and firearms are often used to protect the innocent.  The repeal of the Second Amendment is a totalitarian wish, which would render the Constitution toothless.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.