It's hard to get accurate figures for anything as new as 2016 but here is one study that may give you higher numbers than you think and from an anti-gun group.
A
new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.”
That comes to an annual average of 67,740....
The V.P.C. also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of criminal gun homicides in the same year: 8,275.
As the V.P.C. paper states, “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.”
Well, I don't consider 67,740 annually is a nothingberger or a 'rarely' as they say.
And that is only the ones that were reported to the FBI. As the report points out not all law enforcement reports to the FBI, [especially if there was no death or a criminal arrested.]
We don't know how many actual lives were saved or protected from injury by each of those one incidences. Just one rapist stopped, just one criminal with a gun, a knife, a ligature,... stopped....how many lives?
Hi hank,
Thanks for the info. I agree that it's tough to find reliable statistics that make the point. However, even if we allow the numbers to stand as they do, we're looking at 67,000+ against a total number of violent crimes of over 29 million. The statistics are obviously problematic. Many of these 'self-protective' acts could well be a spouse shooting another spouse even when the attacking spouse doesn't have a firearm. Not to say that it's a bad thing to shoot an attacking spouse, but just that it doesn't address the issue of someone owning a firearm stopping someone who does.
Some statistics that I think we can trust are according to this site:
https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/
The U.S. has a 25% higher rate of gun homicides than the average of all such gun deaths of other developed countries. It would seem, based on this statistic, that others carrying firearms to prevent gun deaths doesn't seem to be working very well, although it is readily admitted that it may save a few lives. When I read such a statistic, and there are dozens of studies that confirm similar numbers, I have to ask, 'Why?' Are we just angrier people than the rest of the world? If people in Great Britain were as angry as we are, would they have similar gun death rates?
On average, there are more than 12,000 gun homicides in the U.S. every year. Erin Grinshteyn, an assistant professor at the School of Community Health Science at the University of Nevada-Reno, writes, "These results are consistent with the hypothesis that our
firearms are killing us rather than protecting us," in a journal news release. That's pretty much how I feel about the issue.
We can decry that our right to own a firearm is a protected constitutional right and I would not deny that. But, the question, as I see it, is whether we should be satisfied that the protection of such right is going to mean that a lot of people die? While surely some gun deaths are within criminal enterprises where a bad guy kills another bad guy is likely pretty acceptable by many of us, what about those who are innocent. Children out playing in their yards who are caught in some criminal crossfire. People just enjoying a movie. People just sitting in their places of worship wanting nothing more than to worship God. A crowd of people gathered to enjoy an evening concert. A couple out for the evening who have the misfortune of meeting some thief with a gun who decides to shoot.
Why is it that we're ok with all this unnecessary death and violence just to be able to crow about our right to bear arms?
Obviously, you and I have a different take on the goodness or our individual right to bear arms. That's ok and I'm often in discussion with such folks. As I said before, I'm often in the minority on this subject. However, I just can't help looking at nations that have much stricter gun laws than we do enjoying much more secure lives as regards being killed for just being out and about. For me, and yes, I've heard the argument that it's just a cultural thing, I can't help looking at the nation of Japan. They enjoy a fairly free life under their government. The Japanese government for many, many years has never been charged with abuse of their citizens because their citizens don't have firearms. Their citizens get to work at jobs and many of them make decent incomes and there is an organized criminal element within the nation of Japan. Yet, here's a nation with 1/3 the number of people that we have, living in a land mass that is much, much, much smaller than ours and so one would have to think that they can get pretty [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed at one another from time to time, but their death count by guns is generally less than 50 people a year. For many, many, many years their gun death total could be counted on one's fingers. Yes, they have suicides and yes they have homicides, but it's really kind of hard to kill 20 or 30 people waving a sword.
But even if we allow for all forms of killing someone, in 2014 Japan reported 395 violent deaths vs. the U.S., in the same year, over 15,000. Some 12,000 of those U.S. deaths were by guns.
Here's another site that, I believe, is worth a look:
America’s unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and charts
I'm sure that you and I will not likely come to agreement on how best to resolve this issue. Heck, you may not even feel that it needs to be resolved. Perhaps you're ok, in order to preserve your right to own a gun, that 12,000 people die every year. I'm not. In 20 years we can revisit the issue.
God bless you,
In Christ, ted
