Gun Ownership Myths*

by Steve Sainsbury, MD

Advance warning: I am certain that this column will annoy many who cherish their guns, and their right to own and use them. Nonetheless, consider the following facts. And please, don't shoot the messenger - no pun intended.

Until you see a gunshot victim up close, it is impossible to appreciate the destructive power of a bullet. I remember the first gunshot victim I ever treated - a little four-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself in the thigh with his daddy's 357 magnum. The explosive kinetic energy surrounding the path of the bullet destroyed tissue all the way up to the child's liver and spleen. He was dead within minutes.

I also remember a 16-year-old boy treated in Oakland, California, whose arm had been completely blown off by a single explosive-type bullet. This type of ammunition, available for sale to anyone willing to pay for it, spreads its forces out laterally as it penetrates tissue, acting like a miniature bomb exploding at the site of entry. The wounds resulting from such bullets can be astonishing. In this young teenager's case, it completely severed his arm. A single bullet.

Then of course, we can reflect upon Columbine and Virginia Tech, where one or two individuals were able to shoot dozens of people with semi-automatic weapons. (Semi-automatic means that every time you pull the trigger a bullet is fired-- 2-3 rounds per second if you can pull that fast). These same weapons that can easily be altered to fire automatically, in which bullets come out several times a second, as long you hold down the trigger. Illegal, but commonly done just the same.

There are about 200 million privately owned firearms in the United States, of which about 65 million are handguns. In 2004, 29,569 Americans died from a firearm related death, while there were at least twice as many people with non-lethal gunshot wounds. The obvious question is, of course: Why do we allow such weapons of destruction to be so readily available? Weapons that are basically used to hunt other humans.

The answer is simple. Because we believe the myths of gun ownership that flood the media. Myths that cause thousands and thousands of deaths every year. Myths that kill.

Myth: When guns are outlawed, outlaws will have guns.

When guns are outlawed, far fewer outlaws will have guns. Sure, guns will always be available on the black market. But as the period of gun illegality grows, it will be harder and harder for criminals to purchase weapons.

Many countries have outlawed or severely restricted firearm ownership by common citizens. Examples include England, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Examine the following table that shows the latest gun deaths by country, as compared to the United States, and see how effective the ban on handguns has been. Notice the dramatic reduction in gun deaths within these countries (latest figures are from 2004).

And please, don't think that these statistics lack meaning because they fail to reflect the higher population of the United States. Do the basic math. England has about on-third the population of the US - so even if you cut America's rate in three, the murder-by-gun death score still stands at 3,781 to 73, with the US being the clear and dubious winner.

Country Murders by Firearms

New Zealand - 5
Sweden - 37
Australia - 56
England - 73
Canada - 184
United States - 11,344

Myth: An armed populace makes the country safer.

Give me a break. A gun kept in the home not only does not make your home safer, it dramatically puts everyone in your house at risk. How much, you ask? When you add up the increased risk of an accidental gunshot death, a suicide by gunshot, and a gun-related homicide, an occupant in your home is 22 times more likely to die of a gunshot wound than be saved by that same gun used in self defense. Twenty-two times! That's not safety, that's stupid risk taking.

Myth: Guns don't kill people, people do.

That's right, and using a gun makes it much, much easier to make sure their victims are dead. How many Virginia Tech victims would Seung-Hui Cho have killed if he had been armed with knives, as opposed to semi-automatic weapons? How many suicide victims would still be alive if no gun had been present in their home? (Hint: About 17,000 suicides-by-gun occur each year in the US)

Myth: The founding fathers knew the value of an armed populace.

If you consider that "armed" in 1776 meant a muzzle-loaded, single shot musket, then I would agree. But the 2007 world of armaments is a far different place. Do I have a "right" to arm myself with nuclear or biological weapons? Can I legally purchase bombs, hand-held rocket launchers, and grenades? Of course not. And does anyone seriously think that explosive bullets and semi-automatic assault weapons fit the intent of arms, as stated in the Bill of Rights?

Our founding fathers never conceived the vast array of weaponry that would be available in our day. They did know the potential tyranny that a corrupt government could impose on an unarmed populace, but only when the government and the populace were on equal footing. That day passed long ago. Arming our population today only makes it more likely that we will kill each other, and provides no deterrent to a government "invasion" of our homes and property.

Some people have said that if the students at Virginia Tech had been armed, they would have been able to subdue Cho before he killed so many people. They have to be kidding! Imagine thousands of college students carrying loaded weapons to class every day. Maybe they could have stopped Cho before so many deaths. But in the meantime, how many accidental gunshot victims, suicide deaths, and homicide shootings would have taken place? The victim list would grow with alarming regularity on campuses across the country as student gunslingers awaited the next Cho massacre.

Guns are used defensively over two million times a year in the US.

A highly touted (but severely flawed) pro-gun survey concluded that 1% of Americans use guns each year to defend themselves. Statisticians have debunked this study over and over again, yet the gun advocates continue to claim this absurd figure. It is pure fantasy. More reputable and scientifically based studies put the figure at less than one twentieth of this inflated figure.

My personal experience bears this out. I have treated about a thousand gunshot victims - they invariably fall into one of four groups.

BAD GUY SHOOTS BAD GUY - An example would include two gang-bangers shooting each other over drugs or money.
BAD GUY SHOOTS GOOD GUY - For example, a mugging or bank robbery.
GOOD GUY SHOOTS GOOD GUY - This would include all accidental shootings such as the four-year-old boy described above, or a hunting accident.
GOOD GUY SHOOTS BAD GUY - This might describe aborting a home invasion or a mugging.

Guess how many victims we have treated in the latter category (the defensive use of guns). Out of over a 1,000 victims, the answer is . . . zero. As in none.

Do people occasionally protect themselves with personal weapons? Of course. In 2005, there were 143 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in the US. But for every thwarted abduction or mugging, there are many, many more deaths in accidental shootings, homicides, and suicides.

This is one of those areas where myths not only harm, they kill. I don't begrudge hunters their sport. I understand the enjoyment of range shooters practicing their hobby. But I find it impossible to accept our country's unfathomable tolerance of weapons of every shape and variety in so many homes and on so many persons. And I know a four-year-old boy who would agree with me - if he were only alive to say so.

*Originally run January/2010. Dr. Sainsbury has been on leave the last few months due to other obligations, but returns next month with new columns.

        Journal Twitter

Mountain Gorilla image on banner by Steve Sainsbury, taken during from one of his stays in Rwanda.