David Frum, columnist for The New York Times, wrote an article last month. AtlanticHe revealed that he is as knowledgeable about firearms and dieting as Michael Moore. In his article, “A lie is responsible gun ownership,” he argues that Americans are better off with strict gun control designed to make it more difficult for people to own firearms.
Frum uses the anti-Second Amendment arguments to support his argument. He deceitfully claims that gun control laws are less secure. Frum, like most anti-gun friends, fails to present a convincing case.
It is easy to understand Frum’s concern. Indeed, Americans are buying guns at a rate that would be upsetting to anyone who doesn’t want people to own firearms. According to a recent study, there was almost 9.8 Million background checks available for gun sales in June 2021. This survey revealed that 33.21% of the background checks were bought by gun-owners who had never owned a firearm before.
Frum seems to believe that the way to decrease gun violence is “by convincing ordinary, ‘responsible’ handgun owners that their weapons make them, their families, and those around them less safe.”
While noting that mass shootings tend to get the most attention when it comes to violence, Frum notes that “most of the casualties are inflicted one by one by one.” He continued:
Americans openly fire their guns at each other in backyard barbecues, to intimidate and stalk ex-spouses or lovers, to rob, assault and kill, as well as to set fire to one another at home. Nearly half of all the nearly 48,000 suicides in 2019 occurred with guns. The most liberal gun laws allow for all this killing.
Next, the author pointed out that there was a Supreme Court case pending in which could have serious implications for American gun owners. It seems that New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett is a source of worry for Frum because it “could expand gun rights even further.” He further insisted:
The nearly 400 million guns that the United States has in its possession will be found in more locations if the NRA wins.
He then stated that gun owners buy guns to protect themselves and their family. He insisted that “In virtually every way that can be measured, owning a firearm makes the owner, the owner’s family, and the people around them less safe.”
Frum also supported his argument with the observation that weapons could inadvertently cause death or injury to their owner. He said:
The weapons Americans buy to protect their loved ones are the weapons that end up being accidentally discharged into a loved one’s leg or chest or head. Years later, the weapons Americans purchase to protect their children’s young ones are used by troubled teens for self-harm. They may be stolen by criminals from their cars and used for robberies or murders. They may be grabbed out of rage and pointed at the ex-partner.
The author also noted that “About 500 Americans a year die from unintended shootings.”
He then argued for suicide, explaining that suicide is the most common method of death. “Suicide is the second-leading cause of death among teenagers and young adults,” Frum wrote. Frum said that people who survive a suicide attempt are much more likely to live a normal life. “A gun in the house massively raises the likelihood that a suicide attempt will end in death,” he argued.
Frum raised an argument which most proponents of gun control have not been able to address: That guns are often used to prevent crimes rather than to commit them. He acknowledges that “[e]stimates of defensive gun use vary wildly, from as few as 60,000 incidents a year to as many as 2.5 million.”
Frum failed, as did his contemporaries in his attempts to combat this data. He wrote:
These higher estimates have a critical error. They heavily rely on the self-reporting of gun owners, which can lead to a large risk of bias and self-flattering. If an argument spirals until one person produces a gun and menaces the other into shutting up, the gun owner might regard that use as “defensive.” A third party, however, might perceive a situation that only spiraled in the first place because the gun owner felt empowered to escalate it. Which view should be the dominant?
Later in the article, I’ll explain why it is absurd.
The author continued, pointing out that “Virtually all developed countries strictly regulate firearms, especially handguns,” and they still have a lower level of violence than the United States. It is believed that guns can be used defensively, but this does not mean they are less dangerous than the United States. The U.S. continues to have a high level of violence compared with other countries. “Guns everywhere engender violence everywhere,” he insisted.
So, let’s start with Frum’s arguments against data showing defensive gun uses occur more frequently than instances in which firearms are used offensively. His argument that the self-reporting methodology used in these studies – several of which were conducted by the federal government – is flawed because of “self-flattering bias” is itself flawed because he cannot provide any evidence demonstrating that this occurred when respondents participated in the studies.
It is possible. SomeSome of these people may have misrepresented the encounters. Yes, there were some instances when the DGUs (defensive gun usages) reported showed that guns are more often used to protect life and property rather than take it. Joanne Eisen, Paul Gallant and David Kopel found that:
[F]Irrearms are often used to stop home invasion burglars more than half a billion times per year. Usually, the burglar will flee the scene as soon as the victim realizes that he has been armed.
This doesn’t exactly fit the “pulling a gun during a quarrel” argument that Frum put forth, does it?
Moreover, strict gun laws haven’t exactly worked in every developed nation when it comes to preventing gun violence. Mexico requires six months to complete background checks before you can purchase a firearm. Mexico has one gun shop. To purchase a firearm, you must be able travel there.
While Mexico’s gun homicide rate is lower than the United States, its overall violent crime rate is far higher and is ranked as the second-highest in the world when it comes to violence. With a population that is unable to defend itself because of its government’s strict gun policies, this can’t be surprising, can it? Mexico has about 55% of the homicides committed by criminals in drug trafficking. The majority of those homicides involve illegally obtained weapons.
As for guns being used during arguments or in situations involving jilted lovers – these cases are not as frequent as the main culprit for gun violence: gang activity. These killings involved a large number of illegally obtained weapons. The Washington PostReport on the 2016 University of Pittsburgh Study that found less than one fifth of gun crime victims were legally obtained firearms. “In approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else,” the report noted.
Suicide is a serious issue. Numerous people have killed themselves with guns. But, The New York TimesIt was noted that there were 44.834 suicides last year. However, this is significantly less than the DGUs that are reported annually. We must take mental health and suicide seriously as a country. It isn’t the right way to put more Americans at risk by making it harder for them to protect themselves.
Given the data on defensive uses of guns and the situations in which they are most frequently used, Frum’s argument that owning a firearm makes one less safe does not hold water. Even more DGUs are seen than suicides or offensive gun use. Frum may be able to influence people’s perceptions of the gun control measures that he advocates. Please feel safer, they won’t actually protect more Americans.
About Post Author
