Statistic to Counter the Media's Heller Hysteria

Syndicated columnist Larry Elder wrote some insightful commentary this week that provided a much needed counter to the hysterics that the mainstream media has been perpetuating since the DC v Heller ruling.

From Justice Breyer's dissent to the New York Times editorial page, it seems as though the perceived impacts of the ruling are more important than the historical and textual facts of the law. In an amazing but predictable turn of events, the liberal interests in the media suddenly favor security over the individual rights enumerated in the Constitution. While arguing the against the ruling, the number of gun deaths in America is repeated over and over. This is a very clear attempt to stress the potentially detrimental outcomes of affirming the right while diverting attention away from history, state constitutions, natural law, and precedent (note: I recognize that in recent years a number of courts have recognized a 'collective right', but this is a modern anomaly).

Mr. Elder, after observing this phenomenon, fired back with some statistics and observations of his own. He asks the follow-up and clarification questions that temper the scary statistic of 30,000 gun deaths per year:

The 30,000 number includes 17,000 suicides. But a person intent on suicide finds a way — gun or no gun...The hand-wringing New York Times editorial fails to ask the following questions: How many Americans use guns to defend themselves?

The number of deaths are not trivial, nor are they insignificant. But the question at hand is about the restriction and prohibition of a fundamental right in the name of the public good. In the instance of every other right, the left and the media take pride in not budging an inch (see the ACLU). Elder goes on to show us the research of Kopel, Kleck, and the Clinton-era DOJ National Institute of Justice on defensive firearms use that is so often overlooked by the media.

...2.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes each year. One in six of that number, or 400,000, believe someone would have been dead but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms. Kleck points out that if only one-tenth of the people are right about saving a life, the number of people saved annually by guns would still be 40,000.

Elder also responds to the stern paternal warnings on the editorial pages that your new found right is more likely to injure you or your family members than to do any good:

"When a robbery victim does not defend himself," former assistant district attorney and firearms expert David Kopel writes, "the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery — from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing — produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success."

Two weeks before the Heller decision, the SCOTUS ruled on giving habeas corpus rights to detainees at Gitmo. In his dissent, Justice Scalia said that the ruling will "almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed," and he was taken to task by the media for fear mongering in a case that erred on the side of individual rights. In the case of Heller, the dissenters relied on fear mongering and their desired outcome to vote against an individual right and they were lauded for their temperance and insight. It would be funny how fickle 'objective' journalism if it were not our rights that were on the chopping block.

So, will the introduction of 2nd amendment rights actually make DC a more dangerous place? Elder leaves us with the words of former DC mayor Marion Barry, who was once asked if the gun ban worked:

Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.