Opinion

A paper published in the Psychology of Violence is interesting because of what it did not find.

The paper did not find any correlation between legally carrying a gun and four psychopathic measures. The four facets are “affective” (lack of empathy), “interpersonal” (manipulative), “lifestyle” (impulsive), and “antisocial”.  “Carry a weapon sometimes for protection” is defined in the four measures as “antisocial.”   When carrying a gun for protection is defined as “antisocial,” it is unsurprising the paper found a correlation between illegally carrying a gun and the antisocial trait. This is an example of circular reasoning.

The paper found carrying a gun, both legally and illegally, was correlated to firing a gun in self-defense. Carrying a gun illegally was more strongly correlated to firing a gun in self-defense.

The paper is titled Psychopathy, Gun Carrying, and Firearm Violence. It was published by the American Psychological Association (APA) in the publication Psychology of Violence. It was published for the first time online on August 22, 2024.  The authors are Sophie L. Kjærvik and Nicholas D. Thomson. The paper is seven pages long.

The paper did not measure any actual criminal or violent incidents. The researchers recruited a group of adults at an urban hospital in Virginia. The adults were in the emergency room or the hospital because of injuries inflicted on them by violence from other individuals. There were 343 participants. 53% had gunshot wounds. 38% were victims of an assault. 9% had a stab wound. 254 of the participants were men. All the participants were 18-75 years old. The participants identified themselves as 65% black, and 12% white. The rest, 23%, were classified as “other”. Prisoners and minors were not recruited.

The participants were paid $160 to complete questionnaires for the study. The questionnaires took about 2 hours to complete per participant. 339 of the 343 participants participated, and 17 of the questionnaires were incomplete.

The study consisted of compiling the results of the questionnaires to look for correlations between four facets (traits) associated with psychopathy and behavior with guns. The behavior with guns included three questions about behavior with guns. The three behaviors were: carrying a firearm with a permit, carrying without a permit, and firing a gun for self-defense.  Using a gun for self-defense without firing was not measured. Aggressive behavior with a firearm was measured on a separate scale, which included eight items. These eight items were the study’s measure of “Firearm Violence.”

The items were:

1. Once in a while I get the urge to shoot at another person.
2. Given enough provocation, I may shoot a gun at another person.
3. If somebody hurts me, I may shoot a gun at them.
4. I fire a gun with the intention to hurt somebody a little more than the average person.
5. If I have to resort to shooting a gun at someone to protect my rights, I will.
6. There are people who pushed me so far that I fired a gun at them.
7. I have threatened people I know with a gun.
8. When I get angry, I shoot a gun.

The eight items were adapted from the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire, which has nothing to do with firearms or weapons.

Readers will note items 2,3,5, and possibly 4,6, and 7 are all dependent on context, which is not measured in the questionnaire.  For example:

2. “Given enough provocation, I may shoot a gun at another person.”

If a person is threatening to kidnap a mother’s 3-year-old child, most people would believe the provocation would be enough to justify shooting at them.  Or:

7. I have threatened people I know with a gun.

If the person you are threatening has threatened you in the past, you have a restraining order against them, and they are attempting to break into your home, in most jurisdictions, you would be justified to threaten them with a gun.

1 and 8 are not reasonable. 4 is problematic. However, if you are well-trained and aware, living in a dangerous environment, it could be reasonable to say:

“4. I fire a gun with the intention to hurt somebody a little more than the average person.”

It is illogical to fire a gun at someone without the intention to hurt somebody. Your primary objective would be to stop the attack.

The paper lacks a definition of what “gun violence” or “firearm violence” is. The term “firearm violence” is in the title, and appears eight times in the paper. The term “gun violence” appears 21 times in the paper.  The term “gun violence” appears to mean different things on different pages.  It appears to mean all homicides, accidents, suicides, and injury in which a firearm is involved when referenced in the first sentence of the body of the paper. It seems to mean only criminal behavior with a gun on page 2. “Firearm violence” appears to mean some measure of “firearms aggression” by use of the eight measures on the “firearm aggression” score on page 3, table 1.  The two terms appear to be used interchangeably.  Gun violence, as used in the first sentence and in the conclusion, is an Orwellian, emotionally laden term.

The sample is far from representative of society at large. All participants were recovering from violent injury. It seems likely victims of interpersonal violence, with over half suffering from gunshots, would see the value in shooting at a person who “hurt them” or “provoked them” or “to protect their rights” in completely moral and justified ways.

None of John Lott’s research is included in the references, nor is the recent major survey on gun ownership and use by Professor English. Critics of John Lott, Hemenway and Azrael, are included in two references.

The study assumes two highly disputed premise, based on two individual papers. The two premises are:

“Carrying guns increases the risk of injury and death (Branas et al., 2009) and is a well-established precursor to subsequent gun violence (Pardini et al., 2021).”

Both premises are disputed. Increased carry of firearms has not increased homicide or suicide, as shown in many states. Increased injury or death, if it happens, which is highly disputed, is not always bad.

The implication is that self-defense is bad. Increasing the risk of injury or death to violent human predators would be considered a public good by most people. “Gun violence” is not necessarily evil or wrong. To assume so is an extension of the emotional belief that “guns are bad.”

On the last page of the study, this sentence appears:

Enhancing firearm access restrictions for individuals with a history of violence, coupled with education and training programs for firearm owners, may contribute to reducing the risk of gun-related indicine.

This correspondent was unsure what it meant.  Definition of indicine: of or relating to Asian cattle of the species Bos indicus.

In spite of the biases in the study, the conclusions reinforce the results of research by John Lott and Professor English.

People who legally carry guns are intensely law-abiding. Self-defense is a primary motivation for carrying a gun. Self-defense with a gun is common.

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.