One of the most bizarre things about this debate is the culture of guns in the US. More to the point, the level of acceptability of gun violence and its defense when the subject matter is brought up. It's almost second nature. And this is not to poke a stick at anyone, but it is merely an observation from someone across the wide pond.. I don't quite understand the need or desire for guns. I understand the Constitutional rights argument, but that still does not explain what gun ownership has come to mean for so many people. A friend of mine, who lives in Arizona, boasted to me how his 8 year old daughter got a gun for a present last Christmas. And I thought, why in the hell would you give a gun to a child that young? My response to him was to ask if he was planning on moving the family to Afghanistan or Iraq.. Suffice to say, it didn't go down well. But apparently she needs a gun, because it is her Constitutional right to own one. It's even hot pink. And that's the crux of this issue. People need one because it is their right to own one.
Self defense? Err okay. From what and whom?
You are more likely to be attacked and killed by someone you know.
In 2009, 24.2 percent of victims were slain by family members; 53.8 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 43.9 percent of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2009. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 10.)
Of the female murder victims for whom their relationships to the offenders were known, 34.6 percent were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Tables 2 and 10.)
Of the murders for which the circumstance surrounding the murder was known, 41.2 percent of victims were murdered during arguments (including romantic triangles) in 2009. Felony circumstances (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 22.9 percent of murders. Circumstances were unknown for 35.4 percent of reported homicides. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 12.)
So I think to myself,
is it wise to bring a gun into a household where one partner is abusive? For self defense?
According to federal data collected from police departments, in 2005 approximately 40% of female homicide victims ages 15 – 50 were killed by either a current or former intimate partner. In over half (55%) of these cases, the perpetrator used a gun.
Among male victims 15 – 50 years of age, 2% were killed by either a current or former intimate partner. About 37% of the male intimate partner homicides involved a gun.
Compared to homes without guns, the presence of guns in the home is associated with a 3 - fold increased homicide risk within the home. The risk connected to gun ownership increases to 8 - fold when the offender is an intimate partner or relative of the victim and is 20 times higher when previous domestic violence exists.
A study of risk factors for violent death of women in the home found that women living in homes with 1 or more guns were more than 3 times more likely to be killed in their homes. The same study concluded that women killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative were 7 times more likely to live in homes with 1 or more guns and 14 times more likely to have a history of prior domestic violence compared to women killed by non-intimate acquaintances.
Family and intimate assaults with firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm assaults. This research suggests that limiting access to guns will result in less lethal family and intimate assaults. A study of women physically abused by current or former intimate partners revealed a 5-fold increased risk of the partner murdering the woman when the partner owned a firearm. In fact,
Homicide risks were found to be 50% higher for female handgun purchasers in California compared with licensed drivers matched by sex, race, and age group. Among the women handgun purchasers who were murdered, 45% were killed by an intimate partner using a gun. In contrast, 20% of all women murdered in California during the study period were killed with a gun by an intimate partner.
Obviously not.
Kittamaru said:
Seems to me that most violent crimes occur without firearms then... or am I misreading that?
Pay particular attention to the second paragraph:
The total prevalence of violent crime in America in 2010, according to the National Crime Victimisation Survey, was 10.8 per 1,000 people; that is, you had about a 1.1% chance of being a victim of a violent crime. In England and Wales, according to the British Crime Survey, it was 3.1%. This makes England's violent crime rate three times as high as America's, not five times. That's still a striking difference. But counterintuitively, "violent crime", in both America and Britain does not include homicide. (Violent-crime stats are usually based on survey data rather than police reports, since many crimes are never reported to the police; but homicide victims tend not to respond to surveys.) Homicide is a separate category, and here the difference is startling: as we reported this summer, the homicide rate in America is four times as high as that in England and Wales. There were 622 homicides in England and Wales in 2011. In America, with a population 5.5 times as large, there were 14,022.
How much of that difference should be chalked up to the presence of guns? Well, gun-rights advocates often argue that there's no point taking away people's guns, because you can kill someone with a knife. This is true, but in practice people are nowhere near as likely to get killed with a knife. In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms. In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn't simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents. Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents. That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.
There are links to the studies mentioned embedded in the actual article if you wish to read them (just click on the link to the article to access them).
But in other words, you are more likely to die if a firearm is involved in a violent crime than if a knife is involved, for example. Of course there are other violent crimes. But you are more likely to die if there is a firearm involved.
