Gun Protection–Best-Case Scenario
So you’ve read my latest post on Almost Diamonds, on how poorly a gun protects you in the home, and you’ve said to yourself, “Self, those numbers are pretty far apart, but hell, that’s just robbery.” And you’re right.
Now, there are some reasons I looked at robbery, including the one stated at the top of the post. Protecting the family from home invasion really is a classic, fear-and-testosterone-fueled fantasy scenario for gun nuts. The home is also where the most people have the most access to their guns. It makes some sense.
However, it is not the whole picture. So, using the same sources, and turning the assumptions all the way up in guns’ favor, here’s the best-case scenario for the protective power of guns in the U.S. in 2006.
- Violent crimes attempted (reported and unreported) = 3,808,000
- Percent of attempted violent crimes resisted with weapons = 2.0%
- Percent of weapons assumed to be firearms = 100%
- Assumed efficacy rate of resistance = 100%
- Violent crimes successfully resisted with firearms = 76,000
- Firearms deaths = 31,000
- Firearms suicides that would succeed by other methods = 4,000
- Remaining firearms deaths = 27,000
- Best-case protective ratio = 76,000 / 27,000 = 2.05
So, yes, by assuming all weapons used to resist violent crime are guns and that all instances of resistance are successful, we can achieve a scenario in which the violent crimes prevented greatly outweigh firearm-specific deaths. However, we’re still comparing crimes to deaths. If we take this back to injuries (28% of violent crimes), we have a ratio of 21,000 / 27,000.
Even in a best-case scenario, guns are responsible for more deaths than they prevent injuries.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010 at 8:26 am and is filed under Stephanie Zvan. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.