An article published on rollingout.com claims to "debunk" myths about guns with "real data". All the "real data" used is from advocates who oppose the ownership of guns. If you skip to the end of the article, the source listed for the numbers used in the article is everytownresearch. Everytownresearch is one of the propaganda arms of the anti-Second Amendment organization Everytown for Gun Safety, financed by Michael Bloomberg, a stanch anti-Second Amendment advocate. To use such a source to "debunk" myths is similar to asking the Flat Earth Society to "debunk" myths about gravity.
The pitch starts with the presumption some nebulous entity called "the gun industry" has "spent decades convincing people that danger lurks around every corner" . This is a peculiar and highly dubious statement. Gun makers are shut out of most major media. You do not see ads for guns on major television shows. You don't see ads for guns at the Superbowl. You hardly see any ads showing guns used defensively against crime. Most social networks vigorously ban advertisements of weapons. To claim otherwise is a Marxian fantasy. The old dominant media often parrot anti-Second Amendment myths. Such dominance is fading.
Having grown up in the gun culture in the decades referred to in the article, there is some truth about the danger of crime to families being overemphasized. It isn't by the "gun industry". It is by the old media, movies, television shows, and the emphasis of media on violent crime. This correspondent recalls many television shows which would have become much shorter if the "victims" were armed.
Yes, the gun culture in the United States has shifted from hunting to personal protection, target shooting, and protection from government tyranny. It is a reasonable shift which goes with the shift from a rural culture to an urban culture.
The society in the USA has become much more affluent and fractured. People are more concerned about safety. The number of firearms in society is not related to the number of homicides and violent crime in society.
A significant number of gun owners see guns as an insurance policy, similar to a fire extinguisher in your home. The Rollingout.com writer notes that violent crimes have dropped in recent years. Crime and risk from crime is highly individual and specific. Violent crime rises and falls. Risk depends on individual circumstances as to whether a firearm is useful or not. Your risk depends a great deal on your circumstances and your neighborhood. As with a fire extinguisher, a firearm for personal protection may never be needed. If it is, the need is often immediate and severe.
The article leans heavily on the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which does not ask about defensive gun uses. The defensive use of a firearm is only discovered if the defender self-identifies as a victim of a crime. Unsurprisingly, it is an outlier in surveys about how often firearms are used defensively. The author tries to make some point about how most perpetrators of crime are not armed with guns. This is true, but points out exactly why guns are so effective for defense.
The article cherry picks statistics from victimization surveys, and from anti-Second Amendment activists.
Unsurprisingly, the article ignores research which contradicts the narrative that "guns are bad". There is no mention of minority women in crime ridden urban centers benefiting the most from being able to legally defend themselves with weapons. No mention of gun "buybacks" being associated with small, but statistically significant increases in crime. No mention of homicide rates rising in countries where bans on guns are imposed. No mention of suicide rates persisting when gun bans are put into effect, and other methods are substituted. No mention of a correlation with the legal carry of guns and decreased homicide rates. These effects are debated, but there is debate. To ignore these findings is intellectually dishonest.
This correspondent has read most of the academic literature in the debate about whether ownership of firearms has a positive or negative effect on safety. The largest drivers of suicide and homicide rates are cultural. England had much lower rates of homicide than the United States when the United States had stricter gun control than England did, about 1914. The homicide rate in England rose as they instituted more gun control. Gun control in England was about political control, not crime.
The ownership of firearms plays a relatively small role in suicide and homicide rates. Firearms are popular because firearms increase personal power. They can play major roles in individual circumstances. A 100 lb woman with a gun is on par with a 250 lb man. Firearms even out power imbalances created by muscle, mass and age. Firearms are great equalizers for women.
In the United States, the debate about small effects on safety is winding down. It is becoming irrelevant because rights protected by the Second Amendment are being restored. If a person thinks they cannot responsibly handle firearm ownership, the are not required to own a gun. Police officers, who deal with criminal violence on a regular basis, reject this notion.
The Rollingout article ignores the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment renders their argument superfluous. There are over 500 million firearms in private hands in the United States. Firearm ownership is popular, and becoming more popular. Firearms are fun, firearms are effective, firearms are often used to protect the innocent. The repeal of the Second Amendment is a totalitarian wish, which would render the Constitution toothless.
©2026 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Posts
