http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=18161

Gun Control: From Gun Ban to Taliban

A recent ABC News article noted there is “a growing number of women who view carrying a weapon as an essential part of their safety…” Like Pavlov’s dog, this led to the predictable response from a gun control organization:

According to the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, if you have a gun at home, it’s at least 20 times more likely to end up accidentally shooting you than it is to protect you from an intruder.[1]

Besides promoting magic––believing an inanimate gun will, under its own volition, is capable of “shooting you” or can “protect you” from an intruder––Brady’s conclusion is most curious when compared to statistical reality. Using the latest data available, the Centers for Disease Control reported there were 16,555 accidental non-fatal injuries (2004)[2] and 762 unintentional firearms deaths (2002).[3] Kleck and Gertz, in their paper Armed Resistance to Crime, collated seven previous surveys done between 1976 and 1994. The three most conservative surveys taken together result in an estimated average of 770,744 defensive gun uses annually.[4] This means that guns are used defensively about 44.5 times as often as accidental shootings.

Undeterred by math challenges, Brady continues:

“They are actively marketing to women these days … focusing on the idea that you’re women so you’re smaller then [sic] men,” said Zach Ragbourn. He’s a spokesman for the Brady Campaign and said it’s “troubling that they would use fear to sell a product that doesn’t improve your safety … whether or not carrying a gun is an effective deterrent is still an open question.”

It is curious that Mr. Ragbourn first says the manufacturers’ behavior is “troubling” because they “use fear to sell a product that doesn’t improve your safety,” then contradicts himself by saying: “whether or not carrying a gun is an effective deterrent is still an open question.” What is troubling is that the Brady Campaign gets to say “guns don’t help” and “we don’t know if guns help” in the same breath, and that the media continues to seek out the Brady Campaign as a credible information source.

Brady also exhibits a curious mental agility when choosing to call statistical fact either truth or fear-mongering. They did not find it “troubling” when they made their unsubstantiated “20 times more likely” claim, thereby using deceitful, fear-based marketing techniques to make women avoid purchasing firearms. Brady didn’t find it “troubling” when they distributed unsubstantiated marketing literature to scare tourists in Florida.[5]

They are also unwilling to accept basic truths about human physiology:

Physiologic differences such as size and body structure are more likely explanations for the average absolute strength differences between men and women. For example, the average American male is about 13 cm taller than the average female and about 18 kg heavier. Men average about 18 to 22 kg more lean body mass and 3 to 6 kg less fat than women. Men typically have a taller, wider frame that supports more muscle, as well as broader shoulders that provide a greater leverage advantage.[6]

While men average about 40 pounds more than women, they have about 44 pounds more “lean body mass,” which translates into much more muscle power than women. Perusing the Olympic world records, you will find that heavyweight male weightlifters are 40% heavier than their female counterparts, and the male world record holder lifted 55% more weight than the female record holder.[7] It should come as no surprise that men are superior in physical confrontations, or that the Olympics separate competition along gender lines so that women can win gold medals.

But does this mean women are ditzes being duped by the firearms industry? Maybe Brady Campaign read recent research that claims men have slightly higher IQ scores? But one of the researchers admits their findings contradict real life:

This is against a background of women dramatically overtaking men in educational attainment and making very rapid advances in terms of occupational achievement.

The authors’ paper also states:

[T]here is evidence that at the same level of IQ, women are able to achieve more than men “possibly because they are more conscientious and better adapted to sustained periods of hard work.”[8]

Thus, while IQ tests measure “spatial and verbal ability,” they are not the final determiners of success. If IQ was a motor and people were cars, men might have bigger engines, but women have more efficient transmissions. A motor without a decent transmission just makes a lot of noise but doesn’t get anywhere. Women are getting somewhere academically and professionally. Is it possible that with their increased levels of education and affluence, women are actually making “conscientious” decisions based upon “sustained periods” of research and contemplation?

Perhaps women realize that most sexual assaults are perpetrated by men and that most victims are women. In 2004, 98.5% of all persons arrested for rape were men,[9] while the Centers for Disease Control reported “78% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are women.”[10] The CDC also reported that of all non-fatal injuries caused by sexual assault, over 87% were to women.[11]

The size/strength difference between genders translates into a real consideration in terms of personal security. This is borne out by the fact that since Australia and the United Kingdom banned handguns, rape has increased, while in the United States, where 38 states allow law-abiding women to carry concealed firearms for personal protection, rape has decreased.

Furthermore, between 1995 and 1996, 10 states enacted right-to-carry. By 2004, they experienced a 30% greater annual decrease in the rate of rape than the 12 non-RTC states.[17]

The Brady Campaign seems unwilling to give women credit for being more successful academically and professionally, for thinking for themselves, and taking charge of the defense of their persons and their families. It’s common knowledge that even the most well-intentioned police department often arrives too late to help. Isn’t it arrogant and demeaning of gun controllers to discourage those who, by reason of physical disadvantage, would defend themselves from violent attack?

Is “Burka-ed and pregnant” next on the gun-ban agenda?

Endnotes

About the Writer: Howard Nemerov began doing his own research into gun control when he recognized that the media was full of distortions and half truths. He publishes with ChronWatch and other sites, and is a frequent guest on NRA News. He is currently working on his first book, Gun Control: Fear or Fact, which deconstructs and explains the gun control agenda and its arguments, debunking each one with a statistic-rich analysis. This is the handbook for when you want to talk to others about gun control. Howard receives e-mail [HNemerov (at-sign) netvista.net] .