TTAG reader RW writes:
Brave New Films has been very active on social media lately, promoting their pro-gun control videos. They contradict themselves repeatedly by presenting gun show numbers that are different on their facts page and posts, and many of their facts come from the Everytown group which you all regularly rebut, debunk, and correct. “Women are 500% more likely to be killed if their abuser has a gun.” One quote in particular caught my notice . . .
I belong organizations that engage in fundraising on behalf of victims of violence and take such things very seriously. The true information on this and any other peripheral information is important to me as a female gun owner who cares about self-defense, violence avoidance when possible, and assistance for victims when violence can’t be avoided.
This site which I have always believed to be relatively well researched and balanced in presentation rarely mentions weapons of any kind other than this article, which states that men are much more likely to be threatened with deadly weapons than their female counterparts in domestic violence situations.
This link is the supposed source of the 500% quote above. Clicking through I found this:
Abuser’s use of a gun in the worst incident of abuse was associated with a 41-fold increase in risk of femicide after control for other risk factors, this effect apparently mediating the effects of abuser’s access to a gun, which was no longer significant.
And . . .
For example, our analysis and those of others suggest that increasing employment opportunities, preventing substance abuse, and restricting abusers’ access to guns can potentially reduce both overall rates of homicide and rates of intimate partner femicide.
And an interesting tidbit neutral on the gun-control topic . . .
A victim’s access to a gun could plausibly reduce her risk of being killed, at least if she does not live with the abuser. A small percentage (5%) of both case and control women lived apart from the abuser and owned a gun, however, and there was no clear evidence of protective effects.
I also believe the conclusion of this article or ones like it from the American Journal of Public Health is potential a factor in healthcare providers taking an increased interest in firearms ownership among their patients, but I’m flabbergasted and confused by the 500% statistic and how it might have come from this article. An article that appears to say firearms either cause 41 fold increase or an insignificant risk compared to the control group, according to the single sentence that mentions the risks of guns directly.
This is just one statistic from a long list of possible misinformation blasted across the net with regularity and pretty graphics the last few days.
Thanks and please keep up the good work.