ABC NEWS: Do We Really Need Guns For Self-Defense?

Peace Love Happiness
ABC NEWS: Do We Really Need Guns For Self-Defense?
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC – -(Ammoland.com)- On April 14 2013, ABC News carried a column that asked if we really need guns for self-defense?

Columnist Adam Geller doesn't argue with the fact that we once did, but asks whether today's lower crime rates undercut the need for them anymore.

According to Geller:

In the weeks since the Connecticut school massacre, some of the most intense debate has swirled around how to keep guns from criminals without infringing on the ability of lawful gun owners…to protect themselves and their families.

Indeed, protection is now the top reason gun owners cite for having a firearm, a new survey shows [48 percent of] gun owners give this as a reason, a figure that has nearly doubled since 1999.

But even after years of study, there is little clarify on how, exactly, Americans use guns to protect themselves in a moment of jeopardy–or how often.

Geller then goes on to explain that with dropping violent crime rates, the need for having a gun in the first place may be gone anyway.

He cites Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck's contention that crime has dropped because more and more people have chosen to arm themselves. With crime down, Kleck says armed citizens have gone from using guns for self-defense approximately 2.5 million times a year 20 years ago to approximately 1.25 million times a year now.

Geller counters Kleck with director of Harvard University Injury Control Research Center David Hemenway's claim “that many of the incidents people characterize as self-defense are dubious.”

Toward the end of his column Geller quotes University of Texas criminologist Mark Warr, who says the world may not be as dangerous as American gun owners are led to believe. Rather, people watch violence on TV and arm themselves after “buying into the idea that the world is a really, really dangerous place.”

It's worth noting Geller's piece began with emphasis on “the Connecticut school massacre”–a violent crime of the worst magnitude, committed in real life against unarmed people. It was not a TV show.

About:
AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for RedCounty.com, for Townhall.com and now AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.

His southern drawl is frequently heard discussing his take on current events on radio shows like America's Morning News, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Ken Pittman Show, and the NRA's Cam & Company, among others. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (summer 2010), and he holds a PhD in military history from Texas Tech University.

If you have questions or comments, email him at [email protected] You can find him on facebook at www.facebook.com/awr.hawkins.

10
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
9 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
ExNukeDaveGinOlyIvan PistovStu ChisholmMike Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
ExNuke
Guest
ExNuke

Do you need a gun? Maybe you will, maybe you won’t. But if you do it will be too late to go try to get one.

DaveGinOly
Guest
DaveGinOly

“pepe” is on target. Geller shoots himself in the foot with his self-contradictory argument.

Ivan Pistov
Guest

Having a weapon (gun in this case) to defend is not any different than having health insurance, life insurance, car insurance, home insurance. If you need it ONCE and don’t have it then that’s the end of the game. I would prefer to be able to play again at a future time if necessary.

Stu Chisholm
Guest
Stu Chisholm

The logical flaw in this article is apparent at the outset: violent crime is down; guns have been used for self-defense. This does not, then, lead to “time to get rid of the guns.” This is akin to living in a flood zone, and then saying: flooding is down and streets are dry; sandbags have been used to keep flooding at bay; time to get rid of the sandbags. There is plenty of data on how often guns are used in self-defense, but many ideologues cherry pick which studies they consider “valid” and which they do not. To me, the… Read more »

Mike
Guest
Mike

Should be communist Adam Geller. Really? Lets ask this question the next time someone enters his home a threatens to kill him, his wife and his children..I wonder what his response would be then? We hope we never need to use lethal force, but in order to stop the threat, sometimes a weapon is in need. What a complete idiot! Would you like him fighting next to you? I would not.

Jeffrey
Guest
Jeffrey

People like that moron make me sick!!!! I would rather have one and not need it rather than need one and not have one!!!
Let the dweeb defend himself with his mouth against 4 criminals breaking in with guns and see how far his pleading gets him!!!
He would be another statistic !!!!

pepe
Guest
pepe

If crime is so low, then there’s no need for any weapons ban.

Pantera Vazquez
Guest
Pantera Vazquez

He acknowledges well over one million DGUs a year. Let’s say half are legitimate-as “many of the incidents characterized as uses for self defense are “dubious”- So 500,000 is not significant? Yet the anti 2A crowd flips out over less than 1/25th of that in lives lost to guns as significantly high. The hypocrisy on the anti gun side is self evident.

Frank
Guest
Frank

Maybe, the violent crime rate is dropping because more people have guns for defense.