Customer Reviews

Private Guns, Public Health

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

I got this hoping for a dispassionate, empirical review of the literature on guns and violence from a pro-control perspective. Unfortunately, the reasoning is far too weak to make this the "definitive" work that other reviewers described.

As an example, Hemenway argues that Gary Kleck's estimate of 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year is wrong. He spends one sentence describing Kleck's methodology, then tries to show that his estimate of DGUs against burglars, 845000, was impossibly high. He calculates a "more reasonable" estimate of 20000, by taking the number reported to police for a single city over a single four-month period, multiplying this number by 3 (to get an annual rate) and scaling it to the entire population of the US. He does not examine whether his sample is representative for the entire country over the entire year. He also does not consider that DGUs which go unreported to the police would be missing from his estimate. In fact, he implicitly assumes that all DGUs are reported to the National Crime Victim Survey and the police, and uses this assumption to force the contradictions he needs. Based on this discrepancy between Kleck's estimate and his own, and a few more equally fallacious comparisons, Hemenway triumphantly dismisses Kleck's work as "not plausible," "a vast overestimate," "grossly exaggerated," and "the most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official." Hemenway also makes no mention of the 15 other surveys with similar DGU estimates cited by Kleck, yet still asserts that "all attempts at external validation [of Kleck's estimate] reveal it to be a huge overestimate."

This kind of sloppy deduction from unstated (and doubtful) assumptions completely destroyed the author's credibility. This example is typical of his logic throughout the book. The worst part is that even when his arguments are logical, he rarely cites any references, so we have no way to ascertain the reliability of his evidence.

A note about the positive reviews: all but one appear to have been written by markkarlin, as after he wrote the first five-star review, there were six more over the next few days, all written anonymously.

David Hemenway is a true professional. He takes a topic like guns, which can at times be incendiary, removes the politics and emotion, and presents a thorough analysis of their dangers. Hemenway rises above the fray to deliver a factual, unbiased book. He shows that researchers are stil out out there who possess integrity as opposed to personal agendas.

This is a thoroughly-researched book that helps to understand the handgun epidemic for what it is - an epidemic. By treating gun violence as a public health issue rather than one simply of crime, our nation will finally be able to successfully address this evil that regularly kills 30,000 Americans every single year. I highly recommended this book for all Americans who are interested in working to end gun violence in our nation. Kudos, Dr. Hemenway, on another piece of excellent research!

I found this book helpful in understanding the role of guns in relation to health, including sanity. For example, guns account for most of the more than 30,000 suicides in the United States each year. Suicide rates are going up even as homicide rates go down. By far the most common fatal use of a firearm is the suicide of the owner or a family member by a gun in the home -- about 50 people a day in this country, 10 times the number of accidental gun deaths.

Most people are astonished by this fact, which is hardly ever mentioned even by gun-control advocates. It's true that 50 people per day is a tiny percent of the households that have guns (20% according to Hemenway). More recent data: In 2008 there were 204 justifiable homicides with guns compared with over 9,000 murders. (Wash. Post, July 11). Add to that about 17,000 suicides (over half the US total). If there are twice as many suicides as homicides, how come the latter don't make the newscasts? No fear, no drama? Or too disturbing to think about?

"Don't blame guns, knives & pills are lethal, too." Yes, they can be, but guns are so much more lethal that a depressed person is not likely to have another chance, which is often the case with less effective methods.

This comprehensive and enlightening book persuasively argues that developing sound gun violence prevention policy should be based on public health research and practices and not on political rhetoric. Indeed, there is no reason why firearm-related deaths in the U.S. (approximately 30,000 annually) should be treated differently from deaths caused by any other consumer product. The author successfully debunks some well-publicized studies that suggest that having more guns on our streets somehow makes us safer; instead, he argues, wide spread gun ownership actually leads to a demonstrable increase in lethal crime. And since more guns lead to more violence and death, it is our responsibility to pursue strong, "prohealth" gun control legislation. This valuable approach for identifying solutions for combating gun violence deserves a prominent place in the public policy discourse and is a must read for anybody interested in the issues of guns and violence.

This book is the definitive work for those who seek professionally produced research on what uncontrolled gun proliferation and its accompanying "culture" has done to the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It does not seek to blame anyone, but it does come to grips with absurd "studies" by the likes of gun apologist Gary Kleck of Florida who claims ownership of guns prevents 2.5 million firearm attacks annually (actual figure for justifiable homicides by citizens adds to under 200 annually), and puts to rest ludicrous unfounded claims by John Lott in a politically pitched book "More guns, less crime" by showing that where there are higher levels of gun ownership, there are more suicides, more accidental gun deaths and more homicides--in other words, more lethal crime.

Dr Hemenway's opus, coming from a background of research and scholarship at the Harvard School of Public Health--very sound credentials,

treats gun crime as a public health issue rather than a crime issue. After all, gun crime costs an estimated $6 million a day in medical costs borne in the main by taxpayers. A health issue therefore becomes one of prevention and treatment rather than punishment. And treatable by doctors rather than politicians.

The book is a "brilliant and clear-eyed primer for the country", says the New York Times which praises its "superb bibliography". The health issue is of special interest to those of us in the gun control business, with its well- researched emphasis on the simple access to guns by anyone including kids (as easy to get as a package of gum ) as being a principal culprit on the worsening of simple crime in the United States such as burglary, into lethal crime--murder. It is heartily recommended to open-minded readers.

-Lewis S. Dabney, fmr Chairman, Citizens for Safety, Boston.

The Amazon book description discloses everything a prospective reader need know about the book, and why it is be a waste of time to read, and a waste of money to buy. The book's title denotes "private guns." If a police officer lawfully shoots and kills a criminal, the criminal is just as dead. The fact that the gun is wielded by an agent of the state makes that death more palatable to those opposed to "private guns." The description then states that "guns are used to kill almost ninety people" every day. While this statistic is undoubtedly overblown ("nearly?") and a distortion, it ignores the circumstances in which guns are used. If a gun is used in self-defense, or in the defense of another who is subject to an unprovoked attack, and the gun stops that attack, it has functioned as designed.

The public health and product safety angle that anti-firearm activists are now taking is just the latest in a stream of fallacious and failed arguments against guns. Unless a gun malfunctions (and a malfunction is defined as failure to function as designed and intended), and the gun was not modified in any significant way after manufacture, then the gun maker could reasonability be held responsible for the negative consequences of the malfunction. What is done with a gun by its owner (or in the case of criminal activity, most likely by its thief) is not the responsibility of the gun's maker, any more than makers of knives or baseball bats are responsible for assaults and murders committed with these tools.

To those who have tried to disarm law-abiding Americans (for whom this issue is mostly relevant, since most of the remaining inhabitants of this world have been disarmed), and have failed in their attempts to argue against private gun ownership by claiming...

- The constitution does not protect private ownership

+ Google on the essay "The Embarrassing Second Amendment"

- Banning guns reduces violent crime

+ Take the time to review how disarming the law-abiding in England and Australia has affected rape, murder, and robbery rates. Also note crime rates in communities in the US, and how rates of legal gun ownership negatively correlate to gun crime.

- Claim that children die at alarming rates due to gun violence

+ Check to see how "child" is defined in these stats, and investigate how many more real children die in kiddy pools and buckets of water than as a consequence of gun misuse.

- Pretend that private firearm ownership is not a cultural and philosophical cornerstone of the American tradition of freedom

+ Investigate what happened to Michael Bellesiles' Bancroft Prize, and his job, when numerous scholars exposed his book "Arming America" for the deliberate sham it is.

...I say, try again. Oh, and read More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws by John Lott while you're at it.

The debate over guns in America is often more smoke than bacon, but this book brings well thought out, persuasive scholarship to this controversial topic.

Why shouldn't we treat gun violence as a public health problem? Good question -- and Professor David Hemenway has cogent, on target answers.

A lot of Americans want to make this an emotional issue. It's not; it's a life, death and injury issue.

Hemenway is a public health professor who knows his stuff. Put aside your arsenal of biases for a few hours and read his book.

He offers an approach that should become as American as apple pie.

I give it a five bullet rating.

Hemenway's book is an enlightening, indepth, and comprehensive study of the issue of gun violence, an issue worthy of such intense scrutiny because of the devasting impact it has had on our country. Analyzing a compilation of the best research available on this topic, Hemenway demonstrates empirically what most of us have known intuitively--more guns equal more gun violence, injuries, and deaths.
After reading this book, one cannot not help but see that the public health implications of gun violence must be factored into the public policy discussions in a meaningful way. If, as a society, we are ever to prevent gun violence, we must be guided by works such as Private Guns, Public Health rather than the rhetoric of the extremist pro gun forces.
For years, the pro gun leadership has cultivated a misperception that sensible gun violence prevention strategies and policies threaten our dearly-held American heritage, including the hunting tradition and even patriotism and individual freedoms. To whatever degree Hemenway's book drives the discussion of gun violence prevention away from the pro gun leadership's nonsensical blather and toward an examination of facts, we will be a safer, saner society. It's about time!

Respected Harvard researcher David Hemenway blows apart the myth perpetuated by the gun lobby that more guns mean less crime. His research decisively demonstrates that higher rates of firearms ownership mean higher rates of gun death and injury. This is a must read for anyone concerned about public health--particularly parents. Hemenway's findings are as vital to our nation's public health as those linking cigarette smoke with cancer. Unfortunately, this is information the gun lobby is anxious to stifle since it logically leads to imposition of health and safety regulation on the unregulated gun industry--a status currently shared only by the tobacco industry.