A Corpse Rises
VPC Refurbishes An Old Discredited Factoid
by dischord
(distribution permitted and encouraged)

Where?s Buffy when you need her? According to our concerned friends at Violence Policy Center, ?A gun is far more likely to be used in a suicide, murder, or unintentional shooting than to kill a criminal. Using federal government figures, for every time a citizen used a firearm in 1997 in a justifiable homicide, 139 lives were ended in firearm murders, suicides, and unintentional shootings.? (June 28, 2000, http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/firearm.htm).

Well, kudos to the VPC propaganda machine! They give new life to a factoid we all thought dead ? and they increase the supposed risk-benefit disparity by fourfold.

For some 14 years, since the infamous Kellermann study that ?found? that a ?gun in the home? is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than kill an intruder, we gun rights advocates have become adept at shooting down that 43:1 claim based on various flaws.

But this newer VPC factoid avoids many of those weaknesses. It simply counts *all* bad deaths vs. *all* good deaths ? using numbers provided by the U.S. by golly government ? and gets a result seemingly four times as bad as the Kellermann numbers.

But it still contains the flawed premise of that old Kellermann bunk ? the premise that a cost-risk assessment of gun control involves comparing piles of good guys and piles of bad guys. Since 1986, we have been responding that the value of guns in the hands of private citizens must consider thwarted crimes ? even if no shots are fired. It?s still bogus, so attack it at the premise.

But beware the rhetorical trap contained in the premise. It can put you in the defensive position of proving that you need guns rather than the gun controller proving A) that gun control is needed B) that it will work and C) that it will not do as much if not more damage as good.

Yes, that last question is involved in the works of Gary Kleck and John Lott ? and we?re all thankful for what they?ve done to show the value of guns. But consider this subtle difference:
Showing the value of guns and showing costs of gun control are two sides of the same coin ? they are simply two different ways of discussing the same question: will more people die with or without gun control.

But by putting it in terms of the costs of gun control proposals, we avoid playing to a stereotype. That stereotype is of gun worshiper. I often criticize their side for confusing ends and means. I suppose we do it too sometimes. It?s not really about protecting our guns from gun control; it?s about protecting lives from gun control.

When we focus on the value of guns, we focus on the guns. When we focus on the cost or ineffectiveness of their proposals, we focus on the lives. We speak their language. They?ll be more likely to listen than if they think ?gun worshipers are worshiping.? No, for various reasons, the leadership and a core will never listen. But many will.

So let?s temper the ?guns are great? rhetoric. Let?s be careful to talk instead about the costs of gun control. Instead of jumping right to ?but guns save lives, let?s respond along these lines: ?Are you suggesting that the 139:1 ratio is the benefit:cost ratio of gun control? Do you really believe that gun control would save 139 lives for every life it cost??

Ultimately, we?ll get the same point across about the value of guns but avoid people closing their ears to ?those gun worshipers,? and as a bonus, we?ll open their proposals up to questions about ineffectiveness and the corresponding cost of lives through wasted money and effort.