Do We Want Fewer Firearms Accidents in the USA or More?

But Gun Free Zones Work
But Gun Free Zones Work

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)-  I want to make us safer and we might have more firearms accidents than we have today. I put that shocking statement in front of you rather than stand accused of it later. You might think that fewer guns would make us safer. The more I learn, the more I doubt that approach.

Let’s be clear that I don’t want firearms accidents to happen. Nobody should. What I want is for fewer of us to be hurt. If many of us are attacked by criminals and legal gun owners are very safe with their firearms, then more guns may mean fewer injuries overall. Which approach will save lives, more honest people with guns, or if fewer honest people go armed? Crime and medical reports give us some information.

I found data from 2017. The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention said we had 676 children under 12 years old injured with a firearm that year. That is about two a day, and that sounds horrible to me. I kept reading and found out that only one-out-of-6000 accidents involved a firearm. Also, all the unknown causes were classified as “accidents”. We don’t know if the firearms accident was because a child found an unsecured firearm, or if the thug down the street shot at another gang member and hit an innocent kid down the street. We don’t know if the accident resulted in a cut or a life threatening injury.

We have some numbers, but I don’t have clear messages from them. I’m am left with two impressions. The good news is that firearms accidents involving children are rare, at about one child out of 78 thousand in 2017. Also, we could prevent some accidents if we are careful with our guns.

Now let’s look at the intentional use of firearms. We have over 300 thousand aggravated assaults each year. Add in an additional 300 thousand sexual assaults. Those numbers are shocking. I want fewer people to be victimized, and I assume that you do too. Those numbers indicate we’re about a thousand times more likely to be victims of a criminal attack than to have a child injured in a firearms accident. I didn’t know that before I looked.

Let’s put those facts into perspective. Suppose there were a rule that would eliminate half the accidents with children and guns. If that same gun-control rule disarmed only one crime victim out of a thousand, then that rule would probably get more of us hurt rather than reduce the number of injuries.

There is more. The crime statistics I found said that women who use a gun in self defense are not raped. Fighting against the sexual assailant works most of the time but there were zero completed rapes when the victim defended themselves with a firearm. It is true that the number of women who used a firearm to stop an attempted rape isn’t statistically large. Maybe, if we collected date for many years, then we might find someone who used a gun for defense and was raped, but that doesn’t happen often.

I think we would have fewer rapes if more people were armed. The downside is that we might have more accidents with firearms.

Firearms are common and they are not going away. We seldom see guns in public even though 40 percent of us have a gun in the home. More than half of the people who don’t own guns say they could see themselves as a gun owner in the future. About 20 million of us have a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public today. We don’t see them because concealed is concealed.

There are real risks when we disarm the victims. A few weeks ago, twelve people were murdered in a gun free zone in Virginia Beach. Some of the victims at the Virginia Beach municipal building wanted to be armed. They disarmed themselves because they were afraid of being fired if their employer found out they had a gun at work. Their employer, the city, was willing to trade their lives in a mass murder against the possibility that an employee might have a negligent discharge of a firearm at work. That bet worked for the city’s risk manager.

That public policy didn’t work for the city employees who were defenseless during the murderous attack. Even though the police arrived in record time, that risk reduction strategy was fatally flawed for the unarmed victims.

Details matter. If we change public policy, then we have to keep perspective on the relative size of both risks and of rewards. We want to see the world in the correct proportions rather than stay stuck in a distorted fantasy world. If there were no risk of firearms accidents, then we’d want all the good guys to carry guns all the time. In fact, we do have negligent discharges of a firearm. Fortunately for us, ordinary people have a good idea of how physically careful they are and how mentally stable they are. My experience is that people who don’t feel comfortable with guns don’t buy them. Those who buy them know when to put them away.

Our armed society is complex. We’re about five times more likely to be attacked by a criminal when we’re outside our homes, but we’re also about four times more likely to be disarmed when we leave home. Trying to protect us by disarming the good guys and gals is a bad goal and gets us injured or killed. We are at greater risk in public than when we’re at home. I think we need more armed citizens so we can save more lives.

We need lower permit fees for concealed carry and fewer gun free zones. That is what the numbers tell me.

We might have more accidents if five times more of us were armed. I know that, and I’ll be there with you teaching firearms education and safety. I’ll cry when an innocent person is injured in an accident, but I’ll shed fewer tears because fewer of us will be hurt.


About Rob MorseSlow Facts

The original article is here. Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily, and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob is an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.

  • 13
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    8 Comment threads
    5 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    13 Comment authors
    BoomerJPMYogi BearMR. A. B. JAMESStLPro2A Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Boomer
    Guest
    Boomer

    Armed society = citizens
    Disarmed society = subjects

    MR. A. B. JAMES
    Guest
    MR. A. B. JAMES

    so my lady can get a taxpayer funded abortion but not obtain a gun to defend herself in california!

    Yogi Bear
    Guest
    Yogi Bear

    Not true. Depends where you live in the DPRC, AKA California. Most areas of the state getting a CCW permit is fairly easy. The hardest places are, Los Angeles, San Francisco and a couple of others, I live in Orange County and have had a CCW for over 4 years.

    StLPro2A
    Guest
    StLPro2A

    For once I agree with Bill O’Reilly. Bad guys shooting people is the price of freedom. Liberty is risky business. That’s why our Founding Fathers recognized our God-given right to shoot back.
    Life is risky. Only snicker doodle snowflakes live in a perceived safe place……false illusion.

    JPM
    Guest
    JPM

    Well said sir. Mike Rowe said that sometimes safety shouldn’t be first, maybe it should be 2nd or 3rd. If we eliminate all risk factors in life, what would happen to innovation? If we lived in a totally risk free society, nothing would ever get done. Taking risks in business, in research and in all aspects of life ensures progress and brings about new ideas. Yes, having guns is risky, but so is driving a car or riding a horse.

    T
    Guest
    T

    Lower permit fees? No, we need to do away with permissions slips to exercise our rights. Manynfolks cant afford those classes and and the cost of the permit itself in many places in America.. maybe would should start charging fee am due seems you to classes that you pay for for so called hate speech. See, that’s just as dumb. You want to fight for our rights but you compromise on our rights to appease people who want to take even more rights away. That, I will never understand.

    Tad Pole
    Guest
    Tad Pole

    Any “Gun Free Zone” Should Be Required to have Armed Security and Metal Detectors At ALL Entrances and Exits. No Exceptions! Card Security doesn’t mean squat when a employee seeks revenge.

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    and those owning or managing those Certified Defenseless Victim Zones need to be held responsible for damages when “incidents” do occur in areas where THEIR decision has left the victims defenseless. Make that change in law, and watch insurance premiums drop like stones when a given venue is changed from NO GUNS to YES GUNS. Face it, unless there is TSA type security at the points of entry to those zones, none are truly gun free. Some may be Good Guys’ Gun Free, but that don’t count for much when Dirtbag sneaks his own heater inside and begins flinging lead.… Read more »

    Silas
    Guest
    Silas

    An armed society is a polite society. Where your manners may mean your life, paraphrasing Robert Heilein science fiction author. Gun free zones. Government sanctioned kill zones is more like it.

    Austin Miller III
    Guest
    Austin Miller III

    Greetings Rob, thanks for the clear headed work you do. I listen to every podcast of Self Defense Gun Stories, never miss one. Can’t figure out how to rate it but never miss it. Please keep providing positive news and statistics on firearms that is exactly what the middle folk need to hear.

    Green Mtn.Boy
    Guest
    Green Mtn.Boy

    Gun free zones equate to free for all shooting galleries just as the civilian disarmament proponents want it to be,until that changes so will the shootings,if said shooter faced a armed opponent they likely change their mind

    Witold Pilecki
    Guest
    Witold Pilecki

    I prefer the more accurate “Gun-Free DEATH-ZONE”

    For anyone that wants to eliminate mass shootings, I have a simple solution that won’t cost a single penny to implement. Elimination of Gun-Free Death-Zones nationwide. Schools, courts, airports, military installations, just about everywhere except maybe the White House. No more stupid meaningless signs that supposedly carry the force of law (which I ignore on a regular basis anyway). Now, does everyone have to carry in every one of these places all the time? Of course not, but just the fact that SOMEONE might be armed, ends the free-for-all killing sprees against unarmed sheep.

    AggregatVier
    Guest
    AggregatVier

    How about a quick to apply sticker to all those gun-free-zone signs: Danger (skull and crossbones graphic) free-fire zone!