America’s gun culture and 2nd Amendment rights are juxtaposed with a perceived public risk or threat of death from those very guns. The fury has reached an all-time high as both sides brace for a long, hard fight and millions who find themselves on the fence are searching for answers to questions like, do guns save lives, really?
The issue is so divisive that very few people would scoff at the idea of a new civil war erupting over it. But what are we really talking about here? How many lives are saved by firearms each year? And how many people are killed in this country whose deaths would otherwise be prevented by new, tougher laws?
And that last question in particular must be answered because it’s the very crux of the issue. Progressives want more, tougher laws and claim it will prevent more deaths. They’re so adamant about it that they risk civil war and are willing to chip away at our very foundation, the Constitution.
Proponents of gun rights argue the opposite, that guns directly protect millions of victims every year and deter or foil many more crimes than are ever reported by progressive-led main stream media. Supporters of the 2nd Amendment cite overwhelming evidence to support their claim and reveal the sinister truth behind progressive power-grabbing politics.
Number Of People Saved By Guns
Let’s look at some self-defense statistics and get a better idea first of how many people really are saved or helped by guns, or by someone else having a firearm and preventing or stopping a crime.
We have to look for information from all sources in order to get an accurate set of data from which to work. So first lets look at the information that President Obama commissioned when he issued 23 Executive Orders in 2013 in order that we have a better understanding of firearm-related violence.
The overarching body of data and evidence in this discussion can be found in the report titled “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence“, and which was investigated, researched and written by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council under funding provided by the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the CDC Foundation.
Here’s an excerpt from page 15:
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
So they’re saying in this report that somewhere between 1/2 million to upwards of 3 million Americans used a firearm in self-defense, compared to about 300,000 crimes in which the criminal used a firearm. Someone do the math for me here… how many more people were saved by a weapon than harmed by one?
Well, that paints quite a picture doesn’t it. And imagine a scenario in which victims don’t have a firearm thanks to the progressive power-grab… how many more innocent people would be an attempted victim? You or someone you love? The report goes on to write:
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies or none at all.
That last paragraph adds even more evidence to this growing body of data that makes it fairly clear that guns save lives and that taking them away would harm more people than it would help, and all the while it would be literally depriving people of their natural-born right to self-defense. And that is the data coming from the White House itself so it’s difficult for progressives to dispute their own findings on research for which millions of dollars were spent.
Guns Used In Self Defense – NRA Data
For their part, the NRA seems mostly concerned about civil rights and of course, about the safety and welfare of all Americans. To that end we often find statements like this one:
The value of guns for self-defense isn’t measured in the number of criminals killed, but in the number of violent crime victimizations prevented.
See, for the progressives it’s 100% about power and control, as in virtually every facet of their reign. For the NRA and 2nd Amendment supporters it’s about a persons right to be armed and to defend themselves.
Gun laws have been proven without question to NOT prevent or reduce crime. Gun ownership, on the other hand, has been shown to do just that.
Progressives almost always respond with, ‘but the data is clear, many more people are killed by a criminal with a gun than criminals are killed by a citizen with a gun.’
If the logic they use weren’t so silly (and effective) I’d have to laugh. But it does work. Little progressive minions all over can be spotted spouting off the same false information.
Check out this infographic to get more visual information on the question of “do guns save lives“.
As we already know (as shown above) and can prove through legitimate and extensive research ordered by Obama himself, just because a citizen didn’t “kill” the criminal doesn’t mean that a rape, robbery or murder attempt wasn’t prevented. Often, flashing the gun is enough to end the attempted crime.
Well known Criminologist Gary Kleck wrote that “Combining the defensive killings and reported non-fatal woundings [accounts for] less than 1% of DGUs [defensive gun uses]. The vast majority of DGUs, then, involve neither killings nor woundings but rather misses, warning shots fired, or guns used to threaten, by pointing them or be verbally referring to them.” See his book here:
Do you understand what he’s saying here? That FBI data that gun-grabbers cites as their evidence, reflects just a lowly 1% of the actual defensive gun uses. I mean, come on! Doesn’t a single one of the progressives in the liberal media have a spine?
Debunking Liberal Media Bias Regarding Gun Violence
In that government report cited above, here’s an excerpt which states, in the opinion of the Obama-sanctioned and progressive-supporting experts, that these ridiculous studies that are being tossed around to support their claims are not just ridiculous, but borderline lies.
They write that the National Crime Victimization Survey (which is the one most oft cited and alleges that a mere 180,000 defensive gun uses occur) is faulty because… wait for it…
The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year [as cited by supporters of the 2nd Amendment] is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 [the faulty progressive data] is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
Like Katie Couric’s lie about gun owners, the data used by progressives from the National Crime Victimization Survey is also an outright lie because these progressive present this information to the world as “reputable research”, and they didn’t even ask about defensive gun use on the survey, the very question the issue is about!
That’s not me saying it or the NRA, that’s Obama’s own administration and researchers saying it.
Or we could point to the any other mountain of data and research. Take for example the report from the U.S. Department of Justice and National Institute of Justice, titled Armed Criminal in America – A Survey of Incarcerated Felons. The government conducted a lengthy survey of violent, incarcerated felons and among other things they found that:
Analysis indicated that three-quarters of the men had owned at least one gun in their life and just over half of the men were armed during the crime for which they were in prison. Having and carrying firearms was a central part of their daily existence, in part because of their concern for survival in a hostile and violent world. Gun theft had a critical role in the firearms supply for these criminals; from 40 to 70 percent of weapons used in committing crimes were stolen or borrowed from others.
That report went on to give us this valuable insight from the minds of our worst criminals:
- 82% of the sample agreed that “Gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens; criminals will always be able to get guns.”
- 88% agreed that “A criminal who wants a handgun is going to get one, no matter how much it costs.”
- In states with widespread gun ownership and tough punishment for gun misuse, criminals surveyed were often unarmed when they committed crimes: 54% in Oklahoma, 62% in Georgia, 40% in Maryland, 43% in Missouri, and 35% in Florida. In Massachusetts, however, only 29% of the felon-respondents were unarmed. In that state, it is difficult to lawfully acquire a firearm, and the illegal carrying of a firearm [i.e. regular citizen with no permit], rather than the criminal misuse of a gun [i.e. the criminal using the gun], is subject to the mandatory penalty. The survey data indicate that the criminals’ fear of an armed victim relates directly to the severity of the gun laws in the state surveyed. Where gun laws are less restrictive, such as Georgia and Maryland, criminals think twice before running the risk of facing an armed victim; they are much less concerned in Massachusetts.
- 56% of the felons surveyed agreed that “A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.”
- 74% agreed that “One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot.”
- A 57% majority agreed that “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”[Stop.Listen.Think]
- In asking felons what they personally thought about while committing crimes, 34% indicated that they thought about getting “shot at by police” or “shot by victim.”
Stop. Listen. Think
My friend. My fellow American. If you are one of the millions who are unsure about all of this you must, you owe it to your country, to your family and friends, and to yourself, to really, truly step back from the smoke and think about an important issue like for yourself. Do guns save lives?
Stop. According to the best research data (you know, that which is backed by 19 different national surveys) shows that up to 3 million Americans use a gun in self-defense every year.
Listen. That is 8,200 Americans EVERY SINGLE DAY using a firearm to defend themselves or someone else.
Does it sounds prudent to you that you would give up your right to defend yourself and your loved ones? Does it sound prudent that outlawing guns will stop gun violence, just like we did with the trillion-dollar War On Drugs? Are there not MORE drugs on our streets than 30 years and trillions of dollars ago? And simply making guns illegal will fix it right up?
What does it take for sensible Americans to stop and think for themselves?
Even if it means being a rebel and not agreeing with the cool progressive crowd, stand up and be heard.
Demand honesty and authenticity.
I’d like to find out what you think… do guns save lives or do we need to enact tougher laws?