Defensive Gun Uses Save the U.S. One Trillion Dollars Per Year - and many lives

[ANGLICO]

Defensive Gun Uses Save the U.S. One Trillion Dollars Per Year
Posted on April 14, 2012 by Bruce W. Krafft

----------------

.......Our fearless leader suggested that I take a look at the flip side of the anti’s latest attack on our freedoms (a recycled strategy from the Clinton-era Public Health model of gun control): the monetary cost of gun violence. For example, the Center for American Progress touted the “fact” that the Virginia Tech massacre cost taxpayers $48.2 million (including autopsy costs and a fine against Virginia Tech for failing to get their skates on when the killer started shooting). It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what are the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .
In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.

The Kleck-Gertz DGU study estimated that there are between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs a year in the U.S. The Ludwig-Cook study came up with 1.46 million. So let’s split the difference and call it 1.88 million DGUs per year.

........So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as“gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly 1.02 trillion dollars per year. Trillion. With a ‘T’.


There is a lot more filler and content for this at:

Defensive Gun Uses Save the U.S. One Trillion Dollars Per Year | The Truth About Guns

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Toorop]

That estimate seems insanely high. I don't think it is anywhere near a trillion dollars. But I do think defensive gun use saves many lives.

[Sticks]

I'd have to agree with the $$ a bit high. There is still LEO & paramedic response, investigation, and court time, just nowhere near the extent of a non DGU in a shooting.

I'd lean closer to DGU being closer to 65%.

[archer51]

It's all a numbers game. You can make numbers do anything you want.

[torgo1968]

Just because the anti-gun people make up idiotic numbers and bombard us with fallacies doesn't mean we should. The number is absurd. We can't accurately guess how many lives are saved; you're trying to calculate something that didn't happen. And if forced to guess, the number almost has to be much much lower. We know that by looking at the number of homicides that occur during the commission of violent crimes when there was no DGU. That number is nowhere near half. That in no way diminishes the importance of the right to self defense. But blowing the number up for argument's sake just brings us down to the level of the antis.

[BigStick]

While we can all manipulate numbers to say whatever we want, and I think you lose a little bit of credibility if the numbers are obviously exagerated, or you leave out crucial considerations, I think it might be a good idea to start putting numbers out there that paint gun ownership in a positive light, instead of letting the anti's have all of the supposed "data."

[suntzu]

I wish people would stop touting those ridiculous DGU numbers. I agree with a previous poster. We shouldn't be inflating numbers to prove a point. I am surprised Mr LaPierre was not the statistician for the study.
2,000,000 DGU's
approx 50,000,000 households have guns.

So 1 in 25 households have used their gun defensively??? i really doubt that.

Just tell me the truth.

[rammerjammer]

Those numbers are absurd

[suntzu]

Whats worse...drinking the Kool Aid or selling it

[tacman605]

Oh great now we showed the White House a savings, when is the next stimulus checks coming?

[KimBobTex]

"Just because my numbers are made up, doesn't mean I don't believe them, or that you shouldn't believe them either!"