Women and Handguns: Twisted Statistics from VPC

[pax]

From http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0131-119.html and presumably also available at the VPC website, http://www.vpc.org

Violence Policy Center Report On Women and Handguns
U.S. Newswire
31 Jan 13:53

VPC Report: For Every Time a Woman Uses a Handgun to Kill in Self-Defense, 101 Women Die in Handgun Murders
To: National Desk
Contact: Naomi Seligman of the Violence Policy Center,
202-822-8200, ext. 105

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Violence Policy Center:

-- For Every Time a Woman Uses a Handgun to Kill in Self-Defense, 101 Women Die in Handgun Murders, New VPC Report Finds

-- Only Eight States Report Women Using Handguns to Kill in
Self-Defense in 1998

In 1998, for every time a women used a handgun in the United States to kill in self-defense, 101 women died in handgun homicides, according to a new VPC report, "A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense." The VPC report analyzes unpublished Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data.

VPC Health Policy Analyst and study author Karen Brock, MPH, states, "In the wake of slumping sales to their primary market of white males, the handgun industry has set its sights on American women. In arguing that handguns are effective self-defense tools for women, the industry has focused on the threat of stranger attack.

This message -- seen in gun industry advertising and repeated by firearm advocates in pro-gun publications -- is presented as an article of faith by the gun lobby. Yet the exact opposite is true. Handguns don't offer women protection, they guarantee peril. And the greatest threat to a women is the men she knows best: husbands, friends, and lovers."

According to the VPC analysis of the FBI data, a woman is far more likely to be the victim of a handgun homicide than to use a handgun in a justifiable homicide. In 1998, handguns were used to murder 1,209 women. That same year, 12 women used handguns to kill in self-defense. And when a woman does use a handgun to kill in self-defense, it is usually against someone she knows, not a stranger. Of the 12 handgun self-defense killings by women reported to the FBI in 1998, eight of the attackers were known to the women, while only four of the attackers were strangers.

According to the report, of the 47 states reporting SHR data to the FBI in 1998 only the states of California, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas reported incidents of women using handguns to kill in self-defense. In each state, the number of women murdered with handguns outnumbered the number of women who used a handgun to kill in self-defense. (See the
chart for the number of women killed with handguns in these eight states compared to: women who used handguns in self-defense to kill a stranger; intimate acquaintance (spouse, common-law spouse, ex-spouse, or boyfriend); or, friend or acquaintance.)

Number of Women Who Used a Handgun

{to kill a friend, stranger, acquaintance}

California ..... 2 .......... 1 ................. 0
Colorado ....... 0 .......... 1 ................. 0
Georgia ........ 1 .......... 0 ................. 0
Michigan ....... 0 .......... 0 ................. 1
North Carolina . 1 .......... 0 ................. 0
Oklahoma ....... 0 .......... 1 ................. 0
Tennessee ...... 0 .......... 2 ................. 0
Texas .......... 0 .......... 1 ................. 1

Number of Women Murdered with a Handgun

California ..... 178
Colorado ....... 21
Georgia ........ 46
Michigan ....... 41
North Carolina . 59
Oklahoma ....... 20
Tennessee ...... 34
Texas .......... 124

The study also reports that in spite of gun industry marketing efforts, handgun ownership among women remains rare, with no statistically significant change since the 1980s.

------
A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense will be available on the VPC's Web site today at http://www.vpc.org. The Violence Policy Center is a national non-profit educational organization working to reduce gun death and injury in America.

Note the sleight-of-hand here: the only acceptable defensive use of a gun is to actually kill one's attacker --not to injure, not to frighten him off, not to hold him until the police get there. It assumes that the only result of a woman carrying a gun is that she will kill or be killed.

Further, it stands to reason that women who are being stalked or otherwise targeted would be targeted by ex-boyfriends, ex-husbands, or acquaintances at a higher rate than by complete strangers. Is a woman any less dead because she was killed by someone she knew? Is she less at risk from a psychotic whose face she recognizes?

As for me, if I manage to use my handgun to chase off an attacker, I would consider that a valid defensive use for a handgun. What a shame that those who run VPC would rather see me dead.

pax

(edited to add URLS)

 

[jimpeel]

Where was this published? Can we get a link so we can write some letters to the editor, etc? Lord knows, you can't send a response to VPC as these anti-firearms groups never post an e-mail address because they can't stand dissent (or the truth).

 

[bookkie]

Note the other probelm... they are comparing those with guns against the total population. As they say, women with guns is rare. So how would one expect to find more women defending themselves with guns if they don't have them? Would be interesting to see how many women with guns were killed. That would be a more meaningful number. This is propaganda plain and simple.

 

[straightShot]

Wow.

Let's see...

1. Scared off an intruder by simply racking a shotgun at 3:45AM -doesn't count

2. Shot a rapist, but he didn't die - doesn't count

3. Scared off a carjacker - doesn't count

4. Stopped a mugging without pulling the trigger - doesn't count

5. Shot an abusive, bullying ex-husband in the groin who knocked out my teeth with an iron and was using my head to perforate the drywall - I'm alive, but it counts against everything because I 'knew' him


I guess the next thing that they'll say is that if LEOs don't 'score a kill', then their rate of success is inadequate...

This article, the sampling, and the conclusions are totally flawed.

straightShot

 

[EnochGale]

The fallacy is that the overwhelming use of handguns is deterrent.

Go read New York Magazine latest issue. Has a nice story about a NYC woman who saw the light.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Good point, straightshot. Perhaps we should concoct a parallel study on LEO's and send it to the good folks at the VPC. Since hundreds of thousands of LEO's are armed, but only a couple hundred a year shoot bad guys, it's obvious that arming police has little effect on crime. And, since a high percentage of officers who are shot are done so with their own gun, it should be apparent that it's dangerous to the officer to be armed.

If I wake up in the morning and it's cloudy, does that mean the sun does not exist?

Dick

 

[Battler]

No, the "trick" they're using here is comparing unrelated statistics.

Fact is, I'm not surprised that not many women have used guns in self defense.

Not many women (or other people, either) carry guns.


Reading this non-critically one may think there is some correlation between women carrying a gun and being shot.


For the people who needed to defend themselves (individuals) it may have made a BIG difference. Yep, and for women who don't carry, no real difference.


No information is provided as to effectiveness/ineffectiveness of guns in self defense. What is done is they explained the number of people who killed in self defense, then put another number next to it to make it seem small - when in fact it was irrelevant.


That which I have described is the REAL guts of the VPC article.


Battler.

 

[Amelia]

Even the title is motivational!

For Every Time a Woman Uses a Handgun to Kill in Self-Defense, 101 Women Die in Handgun Murders

Which means 99.02% of women (101 of 102) who are involved in potentially murderous situations in which a gun is fired and someone dies, SHOULD have had a gun and been shooting it! (or something like that).

All this tells me is that more women need to be taught how to defend themselves! The police were unable to protect these women (which is understandable, they can't be everywhere!) and VPC isn't offering round the clock protection, is it? HMPH!

More guns for women!
More handgun training for women!
Tax credits for women who take self defence training!
etc
etc
etc



_______
A Glock is like the proverbial "little black dress." Every woman should have one and know how to use it.

 

[deanf]

Well woop-dee-frickin'-doo.

If true, what the heck does this have to do with me, sovereign human being, and my ability to own and operate firearms?

 

[Don Gwinn]

Once again, we see that self-defense is NOT the desired outcome; killing somebody is. Otherwise why continually measure body count rather than the actual number of successful defenses?

Are we in Vietnam?

 

[Byron]

Summary Critique

Nothing new here, just a summary:

If you compare (1) the number of women who die from handguns, and (2) the number of women who kill someone with a handgun in self defense, "For Every Time a Woman Uses a Handgun to Kill in Self-Defense, 101 Women Die in Handgun Murders".

This is presented as an argument against women arming themselves. It's sure to be lapped up instantly by the major media, but the "logic" is, shall we say, flawed.

(1) In using a gun for self-defense, it is very rare that the attacker is shot and killed. Vastly more self-defense uses of guns involve simply announcing that you have a weapon, flashing the weapon, pointing it without pulling the trigger, shooting it without hitting the attacker, shooting it and hitting but not killing the attacker. These added up probably total several thousand times the shot-and-killed
number, and they are all effective defensive uses of a gun. VPC just (Oops!) forgot about this, I guess.

(2) The number of women who carry a handgun is tiny, compared with the total number of women. Therefore, there will of course be many more women shot than women shooters. The appropriate question is "How many women would be murdered if more women carried handguns?" Based on best available data, we'd expect to find that as the number carrying goes up, the number who are victimized would go down. The correct conclusion is that to reduce handgun murders of women, more women should be carrying, not fewer! More women carrying also protects those who don't carry, because attackers can never be sure what they are up against.

(3) Even if you found that those women who carry handguns are more likely to be murdered than women who don't, it wouldn't imply the kind of causality they are trying to fabricate. Almost no woman carries a gun for no good reason. Those few women who carry no doubt do so for specific good reasons, such as dangerous occupations, dangerous living situations, or threats and stalking by estranged husbands and boyfriends. If you looked at women in such circumstances and compared mortality of those who carry and those who don't, we'd expect to find those who carry are less likely to end up on a slab, not more likely.

(This is the same problem found in that nonsense from the Public Health Service about how people who keep a gun in the home are X times more likely to be shot than people who don't. Surprise, the "analyst" who created this ridiculous "study" has an MPH. Control variables are understandably not popular among junk scientists and propagandists, since proper controls always seem to make their "findings" disappear or acquire a reversed sign. The problem is that, as here, it takes several paragraphs to refute the hysterical one-sentence blurb, way too long for TV. Knowing that, VPC, HCI, et al. specialize in dishonest, media-focused blurbs.)

 

[TMB2]

You folks are being far too analytical here! You will be frustrated by any attempt to make sense out of statements such as this from the VPC, Handgun Control, Inc., MMM, etc. because they make no sense. A statements like "For Every Time a Woman Uses a Handgun to Kill in Self-Defense, 101 Women Die in Handgun Murders" is merely another example of intentional misinformation designed to elicit an emotional anti-gun response. The intended target of such statements is the uniformed reader who is to infer, without thinking, that for every 102 women who attempt to defend themselves with a gun, one will be successful and 101 will die. The reader is to then conclude that self-defense with a firearm is foolish and the anti's are right - only the police should have guns! They continually pull this crap because they simply have no data to support their anti-self-defense position!

 

[straightShot]

TMB2:

You're exactly, precisely, correct.

straightShot