The University of Connecticut’s Daily Campus ran a commentary titled “Gun Nuts’ [sic] Have No Real Excuse“. Given that he (or his editor) apparently doesn’t know how to use an apostrophe, I found it interesting that the author, Robert Schiering, calls gun enthusiasts stupid.

At first glance, the term “gun nut” would appear to be nothing more than an ad hominem against the more enthusiastic weapon owners of this country. However, as one reads the literature espoused by gun nut organizations, the reasoning behind this term becomes startlingly clear. Gun nuts are called as such because they are incontrovertibly insane.

Now, Schiering has established for us his open-mindedness. He went into this expecting that the term “Gun Nut” was an ad hominem attack. So, when he turns around and says gun enthusiasts are “incontrovertibly insane”, you know he’s got the evidence to back it up. Right? I mean, “incontrovertibly” means “not open to question or dispute” (Source: Dictionary.com). That must mean he’s got some very good evidence.

The gun lobby has adopted the same attitude toward politics as Rush Limbaugh: “Don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve got my mind made up!” Gun nuts are so obsessed with opposing gun control laws that no amount of factual evidence against their position will sway them. Some call this “sticking to your guns.” I call it “deliberate stupidity.”

Two can play this game.

The gun control lobby has adopted the same attitude toward politics as Michael Moore: “Don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve got my mind made up!” Gun control nuts are so obsessed with supporting gun control laws that no amount of factual evidence against their position will sway them. Some call this “sticking to your guns.” I call it “deliberate stupidity.”

Of course, the problem is that I have evidence to back my version of the game up. For providing that, I feel like I need to thank Heaven for England (and Kevin Baker).

The National Rifle Association (NRA) claims that a society that owns guns is a safe society. Throughout the pages of gun magazines are various ads which depict Joe Average wielding a hand cannon, defending his helpless family from a masked intruder who has invaded his home in the dead of night. Ignore for a minute that the probability of encountering a burglar dumb enough to enter your house while you are there is incredibly slim and look at the FBI’s study on gun violence. In 1993, of 39,595 firearm-related deaths, only 251 were determined to be justifiable homicide. That is less than 1 percent of all firearm deaths for that year. Furthermore, studies in 1994 found that you are much more likely to be murdered by someone you know, not some masked boogey-man with an eye for your wife’s jewelry. Suicides, homicides and accidental deaths far outnumber instances where someone has successfully used a firearm to defend themselves or their loved ones. Either these findings have not reached the NRA, or they are deliberately turning a blind eye to them.

Comparing the number of “justifiable” homicides to the overall gun deaths is simply building a straw man. If innocent people carrying guns deters criminals from even trying, one wouldn’t expect “justifiable” homicides to go up — one would expect the crime rate overall to drop. Since Schiering is the one who made the assertion that his position was incontrovertible, the burden of proof is on him — where are the numbers?

Schiering notes that 251 of 39,595 firearm-related deaths were “justifiable homicides,” without giving us any relevant facts. The NRA claims that a society that owns guns is a safe society. Schiering thinks this is an insane position. Therefore, he must believe there is incontrovertible evidence that our society would be safer if we restricted gun usage. My only real response to that is this: Answer the question.

According to Just Facts (they cite: Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pages 1, 11, 43), Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals about 760,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 15 nationwide polls done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. Not all of those 760,000 result in death for either the criminal or the would-be victim, obviously.

A rational mugger would prefer to give up and flee should his activity lead to conflict (as murder comes with a much higher cost than mere robbery, while the benefit is relatively minute), but statistics point out that in the U.S., victims that put up a fight are typically killed.

Really? Where are those statistics, then? I want to see the statistics that show that defending one’s self is a virtual death sentence. To be meaningful, we should also have statistics showing that crime victims who don’t defend themselves have a much higher survival rate. While we’re at it, I’d like to see the survival rates of criminals when they’re faced with victims in each group. If criminals also die more often when their target defends himself (and logic would tell us that should be the case), then that gives us another variable to analyze in considering whether guns are a useful self-defense tool, because there is likely an inverse proportion between the rate of crime and the rate at which those committing crimes die during the act.

Maybe I should repeat myself: According to Just Facts (they cite: Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pages 1, 11, 43), Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals about 760,000 times a year.

If people defending themselves are “typically” killed (indicating that it happens more often than not), why, we should have at least 380,000 deaths in these cases. Far more than the number of deaths that Schiering cited in 1993, and that was the year with the worst statistics since 1973.

When the chips are down in the debate on crime, a gun nut will always fall back on the Constitution. Gun nuts love to quote the Second Amendment, or at least they love to quote the second half. In its entirety, the Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This does not, in any way, clarify the issue of personal gun ownership. It is vague, leaving one to wonder whether or not gun ownership rights should be extended to the individual without mandatory enrollment in a “well organized militia.”

The amendment isn’t vague unless you want it to be vague. “A well-regulated Militia” is necessary for the security of a free State, but that clause doesn’t modify the one following it: “…[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As I understand it, there’s also historical evidence that the founders considered “the militia” to be “the adult male populace,” but that’s beside the point, since giving the reason for a right isn’t the same thing as qualifying it.

Owning an arsenal is not a “way of life,” it is a mental disorder.

What’s the name of this disorder? If I buy a gun, can use that as a basis for applying for Social Security Disability benefits?

It is an unjustifiable paranoia that leads to thousands of unjustified deaths every year. Let’s put this in perspective. Annually, about 17,000 people die of illicit drug use (illegal), 0 people die of marijuana use (also illegal), 20,000 people die of sexual behaviors (not illegal, but frowned upon), while some 29,000 die in a firearm related incident, 1 percent of which result in a “bad guy” eating a lead sandwich.

The unjustifiable paranoia leads to all of those gun deaths, you see. None of those deaths has to do with the criminals who are dealing the drugs that kill 17,000 people. None of those deaths have to do with gangs, robbery, greed, jealousy, or just plain and simple anger. Paranoia causes all of them.

But… if unjustifiable paranoia causes all these deaths, why don’t we just outlaw that, instead?

I want them to face the fact that they are much more likely to kill their wife and children than defend them.

Everyone knows that, when you buy a gun, you’re spinning a Roulette Wheel. Why, you might save your family, but you might also go insane and murder them. Please.

I want them to realize that the only crime wave in this country is in homicide, a crime inextricably linked with firearms.

Inextricably linked with firearms? Tell that to the 3,000 people murdered on September 11th, 2001 — 3,000 people who died without a single shot fired. Tell that to JonBenet Ramsey, murdered in her family home without the use of a gun. Tell that to Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, both killed with a knife. Those determined to commit murder will commit murder regardless of whether or not they have a gun.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, guns were used in approximately 70% of murders in 1993. Since 1973, guns have been used (on average) in 64.4% of murders. That percentage is high, but it seems to disprove the supposed inextricability of guns from murder. Many of these murders likely would’ve happened with or without the gun — the statistics can’t provide any evidence on that one way or the other.

Perhaps when gun nuts stop living in Charlton Heston’s movies they will pursue a safer, more reasonable route to gun ownership and use.

What, exactly, is that “more reasonable” route? According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics page mentioned above, 581,697 gun-related crimes occurred in 1993 (Schiering’s chosen sample year — I wonder if it’s a coincidence that it’s a peak year for gun crimes (and crime in general)). For the sake of argument, let’s assume that a different gun was used for each of those crimes. More than 200,000,000 guns exist in the United States today. (Just Facts says between 200,000,000 and 240,000,000. I chose the lower number because it hurts my argument the most.) Given our assumptions above, that tells us that 0.29% of guns are involved in crimes.

I also tried to research the number of gun related accidents, but I couldn’t find any relevant statistics (comparing “casual” gun owners to “enthusiasts”, who’re more likely to be careful with their weapons). However, Just Facts does provide data that says there were 1,400 fatal accidents with guns — of the 200,000,000+ guns, that’s 0.0007%. (citation: “ILA Research & Information Division Fact Sheet.” National Rifle Association of America – Institute for Legislative Action – Research & Information Division, 3/1/98. Source Cited: The National Center for Health Statistics.) The NRA and other such groups tend to advocate gun safety, including training for gun owners. That’s a good example of the “insanity” of “gun nuts”.

In closing, let’s go back to the end of Schiering’s opening paragraph. “Gun nuts are called as such because they are incontrovertibly insane.” Given that the word ‘insane’ implies that one suffers from a mental disorder, Schiering’s failure to provide any evidence of a mental disorder (much less one that affects all gun enthusiasts purely by virtue of their inclusion in that group) is merely another ad hominem attack, despite his claims to the contrary.

—–

Additional reading: Further comentary on Schiering’s piece can be found at The Ten Ring and Say Uncle. ( þ The Smallest Minority)