Statistically Speaking

The Sandy Hook School Shooting: The tragedy and the lesson. Part 2 of 4

Like lots of other kids I grew up watching Westerns on television and playing shooting games with my friends. Eventually I joined my Dad hunting ducks, pheasants, and deer; and today I am a gun owner with various firearms safely stored in a gun safe. I go to the range about every two weeks, and I've taken multi-day training courses from instructors I know and trust. I enjoy practicing something familiar, and even though I no longer hunt I enjoy operating a complex tool which is what a modern day firearm is. I don’t deny the seductive psychological power that firearms possess, but I resist the sense of safety that a gun provides.

 

I realize that whereas the gun safe increases the wellbeing of my family it interferes with my ability to quickly access a weapon. I mentally struggle with this constraint a lot, because I can’t in good conscience keep a hand gun in a mattress holster or simply under my pillow. I am hoping to gain time as the result of crashing glass or noise from the outside but it’s only a hollow wish. On the plus side the advantage is that it provides some activity and time to wake up, and thoroughly evaluate the situation, prior to having a loaded weapon in my hands.

 

One theory, suggesting boys are simultaneously aware of their own powerlessness and society’s mandate to serve as protectors of the innocent may or may not be valid; but I believe that being prepared to shoot a bad guy helps moderate this anxiety, which never completely goes away. I reject the suggestion that this gives a chronically unemployed person who feels powerless the right to use a weapon to steal food or to kill someone to prove his manhood. It should be obvious even to the most casual observer that using a gun for defensive purposes is not the same as using a gun for offensive purposes.

 

I haven't applied for a concealed carry license though I occasionally consider it. A detailed, but again historical study from the University of Texas found that there is “little evidence that RTC [Right to Carry] laws increase or reduce the number of mass public shootings”, noting, “the coefficients ... are generally in the negative direction consistent with the hypothesis that … RTC law immediately reduces mass public shootings”. I should acknowledge that the authors are walking a fine line, since they make this statement while admitting “none of the point estimates are even close to being significant”; meaning their findings are not consistent with either hypothesis.

 

I should also point out that I’m trusting the data, tables, and results in this study because it’s too complicated for me, and of course it would be nice to know if these results hold true for the more recent mass shootings. The study concluded that there is “little support for [the] hypothesis that RTC laws deter prospective shooters from going on shooting sprees in public places". It also found that "There is also no evidence that RTC laws increase the number of mass public shootings by making it easier for prospective shooters to carry guns in public places.” It went on to say that while "RTC laws do not deter mass shootings it is still possible that the laws reduce the number of people killed and injured during these incidents”, because the “perpetrators of mass public shootings [may] choose smaller public venues where the probability of coming into contact with armed citizens is lower”.

 

I am also aware that statistically speaking a firearm in the home represents a greater danger to its inhabitants than to an intruder, so it wasn’t a choice I made lightly. This statistic indicates that “owning a gun makes it more likely”, but as with all statistics it may or may not apply to my home: It will be more likely in some homes and less likely in others. Still, not every choice we make is data-driven; a lot comes from the gut. For instance, I would imagine that statistically speaking owning a car makes it more likely that the owner will be injured in an automobile accident, yet we accept this increased risk and continue to drive our cars every day.

 

Opponents will point out that we register our cars, track their sales, regulate their operation, test driver knowledge and skills, and require driver training for the greater good of society. They will also agree that when a drunk driver injures others in an accident or takes out a group of people on the sidewalk we should revoke their driving privileges due to physical and/or mental incapacity.

We do this because we recognize that the problem is not their vehicle of choice. We don’t blame their car or focus legislation on vehicles like Jeeps and Hummers with military characteristics, and we shouldn’t be focusing on the guns; they’re just a tool, they are not the problem.