Further Debunking of the ‘Good Guys with Guns’ Myth

Posted on February 9, 2013 at 1:24 pm by Bob Cesca

How is the ‘good guys with guns’ myth working out in Central and South America?

Despite the ubiquitous presence of “good guys” with guns, countries like Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia and Venezuela have some of the highest homicide rates in the world.

“A society that is relying on guys with guns to stop violence is a sign of a society where institutions have broken down,” said Rebecca Peters, former director of the International Action Network on Small Arms. “It’s shocking to hear anyone in the United States considering a solution that would make it seem more like Colombia.”

Furthermore:

Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”

On the other side of the argument are random anecdotal stories proffered by known liars like Ann Coulter. There are also people who win the lottery and walk away from serious car accidents, but that doesn’t mean we should ban seat-belts and invest our life savings in scratch-off lotto tickets. It’s the same hocus-pocus anecdotal nonsense Drudge and Hannity wheel out every time it snows. SEE?! There can’t possibly be global warming!! It’s snowing!! In the Northeast!! In February!!!

The fact remains: more guns equals more gun deaths, regardless of armed good guys.

This entry was posted in Guns and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • JimmyAbra

    Isn’t the situation in Chicago somewhat similar? I know that “reason” given by the right is that they have gun laws where only bad guys have them…But in the past few years Rahm has had to cut the police budget, which is the same time frame the gun homicides have increased. But if you visit Chicago and go the areas with low homicide you’d think they increased the police budget. You feel a police presence. But the “bad” area have a combination of people having to protect themselves (wild west, what every libertarian wants) and “unregulated” industries where (drugs) where no laws provide recourse to those being doing business, thus they need to take matters into their own hands…

    • muselet

      Plus all the gun shops located just outside the city limits.

      –alopecia

  • GrafZeppelin127

    “Good guys with guns” is just more evidence of the insufferable self-admiration of gun owners.

    I’m still struggling to get some of these people to make a cogent argument against gun control without either (1) denying that guns are dangerous, or (2) invoking some paranoid fantasy that gun control, even though it doesn’t do or purport to do any of these things, will “lead to” things like “confiscation” and “disarmament” and “tyranny.”

    In order to have a reasonable conversation about guns, you have to acknowledge that guns are inherently dangerous instrumentalities that represent a risk to the public safety. You have to start from there. My friend over on HuffPo that I wrote about earlier today claimed to be genuinely concerned about “restrictions on what we can own” (“we” being virtuous, heroic gun owners like himself). What he fails to consider is that anything he can own, anyone can own, including people who are far less virtuous and heroic than he makes himself out to be. When there are people out there with assault weapons and 30-round clips, people who are a lot less virtuous and heroic than these gun owners think they are, that puts them at risk, along with the rest of us.

    Do gun owners and gun fans really think they are immune from the risks to society that guns represent, because of their own virtue and heroism? Do they think that pretending the risk doesn’t exist will protect them, or their loved ones, when they are the victims of gun violence? Do they really think “good guys with guns” will save them, no matter who or what is shooting at them? That “good guys with guns” will make that risk go away?

    Maybe that’s it. Gun owners and gun fans really don’t think they’re in any danger from other people’s guns.

    • 1933john

      Spot on, GrafZeppelin127.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/LeShan-Jones/100000478051440 LeShan Jones

      The pro-gun guys are great at throwing the same arguments at you over and over again, facts be damned.

      Take a look at the (still) ongoing debate I’ve been having with one on Crooks & Liars;

      http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/two-portland-gun-nuts-brandish-assau?page=1#comment-2218258

      Dont try to slog through the whole thing, just use it to get a sense of what we’re up against.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1730451827 Jane Phillips

    You bring an important message to the surface with this post. The apocalypse doomsday preppers are not the good guys with the guns. They are the people who are fomenting the unraveling of the order that makes commerce and normal domestic life possible.