4
The high cost of personal safety
Tess prepares to confront a zombie at the LAX Firing Range in Los Angeles.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
The results of Tess' morning at the range. Zombies beware.
Tess Vigeland: The violent crime rate in this country dropped for the fifth year in a row last year, according to the FBI. But we are still paying a steep price in its aftermath. Aside from the obvious physical and emotional toll crime takes on its victims, medical care in assault cases costs more than $4 billion a year and locking up criminals costs $74 billion annually, so says a study by the Center for American Progress.
There is a cost to keeping yourself safe. It varies, of course, depending on what you feel is necessary to secure yourself and your property. But for an estimate of those costs, and advice on how best to deal with personal safety issues, we visited Captain Justin Eisenberg, who runs the North Hollywood Division of the Los Angeles Police Department.
Eisenberg said there is a lot the individual can do to prevent becoming a target. He said one of the biggest reason home burglaries happen is because people get complacent. People don't turn on their alarm, because they're just going for a quick run to the grocery store or don't bother collecting their mail (a sign that perhaps no one's been home for a while). He also gives tips on how to protect your house and yourself from criminals -- including factors to consider if you want to buy a gun to protect yourself.
Tess also went to have some fun at the station, a stint in the force-option simulator room, upstairs at LAPD North Hollywood division. This is where they put officers through what training coordinator Mike Hall called "a pumped-up video game" with realistic scenarios that could face officers in the field.
Next Tess took what she learned from Captain Eisenberg and applied it in the real world...well, in a real-world shooting range anyway.
Thank you Tess for a reasonable addressment of personal safety including firearms.
I further looked up dellison's reference. Kellerman et. al. cherry-picked certain times and cities and definition of "just around "residences", did not properly correlate if those firearms were brought to the home by the criminal, did not provide injuries not involving firearms for context*, avoided mortality issues, used illegal gun usage to impugn law enforcement and legal gun ownership, and has had numerous papers revised and refuted while being notorious for not releasing his data for peer-review.
So given this faulty logic, I went to more original sources, the CDC and FBI. A comparison of available data (1999-2005) shows that many more people die from other reasons then non-justified firearm homicides... including motor vehicle accidents, suicide, accidental poisoning, accidental falls, liver disease, and influenza & pneumonia. We could save many many many more lives by banning cars, alcohol, stairs, "poisons" and mandating everyone get a flu shot.
Remember to walk home because 70% of all accidents are within 5 miles of the motorist's home .
The best analysis of criminal behavior should be done by legal and social scientists like "National case-control study of homicide offending and gun ownership." Gary Kleck, Michael Hogan. 'Social Problems.' May 1999 v46 i2 p275(1).
I have to agree with the other comments, though this is a "personal finance" program, so the angle of Tess' story was the costs and logistics of personal security, including (but not exclusively) the option of buying a firearm for personal safety. If you want a serene, peaceful view of the world, switch to the Disney Channel; if you want biased reporting, go to Fox News.
I think Tess illustrated appropriately that gun ownership for personal safety is not a simple thing to consider. Thoughtful ownership of a gun in the home (I don't think she even mentioned a "carry license" or other more challenging aspects of gun use) requires training, investment, and yes consideration of the possibility of inflicting a mortal wound on an intruder or attacker. Yes, it could've been portrayed with more gravitas, but I look to NPR/APM for candid, realistic coverage, not sugar-coating or heavy handedness. Guns are not that great for simply immobilizing someone (I'd rather have a TASER or pepper spray in my home), they inflict significant and often deadly injury. Tess' discussion of "carotid shots" and "heart shots" didn't pull any punches -- she was being taught to stop an aggressor with a lethal shot. From that perspective, her story was well done.
I wouldn't've followed it with "The Theme from 'SWAT'" though.
I was appalled by the cavalier manner - the chirpy chick chit chat - treatment of pistol shooting and ownership. I am a gun owner and know pistols very well and there is only one use for a pistol and that is killing people. I have worked with gang members who have killed and been killed - and it is not just one more consumer item to be reviewed. The callousness of your talking about a "carotid" & head shoots - as it is were cool and knowing, just shows how far we have fallen. The fact that NPR carries such hollowed headed drivel is further indication how it has lost its way.
As an emergency physician I have all to often seen the tragic consequences of handguns in the home. Your characterization of this practice as "personal security" is at best ironic. Apparently your research team missed this study published in the Journal of Trauma.
A gun in the home is much more likely to kill or injure someone living there than an intruder. The fantasy of the stalwart homeowner defending loved ones with a well place bullet is nothing more than a cruel marketing ploy. The study found that "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."
J Trauma. 1998 Aug;45(2):263-7.
Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.
Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG.
Source
Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.
METHODS:
We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.
RESULTS:
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
CONCLUSIONS:
Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
