The safety of gun ownership-how to know?

[digonswine]

I feel safe(r) having mine in the house. I do. I support gun rights. I do. That being said(or on the other hand, or but, or that being said,or whatever)--I can't find good info about guns. Like-how many people have been saved because of the presence of a gun?(I realize that this is not measurable, by the way!). How many have been killed accidentally because of a weapon in the house?(again-tough to measure, but not as tough as the former.) What would those numbers look like, I wonder? I suppose, as a freedom-lover, it does not matter. There is a price for all things. I think this pissing match between the anti-gunners and pro-gunners is silly. Posting about a successful home defense with a gun does not add to the argument. Posting about the poor child shooting a sibling on accident does not, either. I would guess that one side would have more of those stories.

I think both sides are simplistic. You can't use accident stories to defend tighter gun laws, and you can't use killing of home-invaders to defend looser ones. It is a matter of freedom or it is not.

I'll be honest--I firmly believe that the mere presence of tons o' guns results in more deaths. My whole body and soul leans against all the guns. BUT-

more of my body leans toward freedom. It seems like pro-gunners paint their opposition as anti-freedom. It seems like anti-gunners paint their opposition as violent and war-like.

Where is the nuance? Progressives think in shades of grey-not black and white!

This subject seems to make people crazy!

People who want gun control are not always crazy--part of me agrees with it!

People who support freedom are not always violent testosterone zombies--I like freedom!

I don't get why this needs to be such a divisive issue-for all time. That is what makes progressives superior to conservatives---we can see both sides.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[digonswine]

3. Yes--I have seen ridiculous defenses of criminals-

Can you admit, though, that there are steep prices to be paid for this freedom? I do not doubt, though, that more innocents are harmed by guns than there are criminals given their just rewards. (I can't say, since there are no data) I think the missionary's zeal is a characteristic of both sides. I err on the side of freedom.
I don't know that anti-gunners ignore facts and logic.
You are using emotional appeals in the same way they do.

They would do better to highlight innocent accident victims than felons bent on gain and possible harm to the homeowner.

Again--I think the gun culture in this country is harmful to everyone.

But, as it stands, having one beats the alternative.

I CAN imagine--that an anti-gunner would post ALL gun accidents to illustrate how terrible the gun culture is! How would I make fun of that?

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Certainly freedom does have its price.

And there will be accidents with guns. But without guns the weak would be at the mercy of the strong and violent. As a senior citizen I can't fight off a young mugger, but my gun can.

[jmg257]

7. Accidental firearms deaths is a very small percentage...not a good number for the anti-gun cause.

Check the Centers For Disease Control National Center for Injury Prevention & Control website.

I stopped worrying about such number a few years ago, but I just read there were likely about 500 total accidental gun-related deaths in 2010.

[digonswine]

10. I did say that it would be no excuse-

to limit freedoms for that reason. I do think that it is not unreasonable to be troubled by guns. Again--I am an owner---I was trying to say that it does not matter the numbers. Err on the freedom side.

[jmg257]

22. No it is not unreasonable to be troubled by guns, or the need for them.

And if the number of criminal or accidental gun-related deaths was very large (needs a definition) and justifiable lawful uses very low (needs a definition), then it MAY be a fine excuse for limiting freedoms, even those secured in the Constitution.

"I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public..." Madison to Jefferson

The people's rights to arms were secured for a reason, and without a doubt should not be overruled, even in cases of emergencies. But!!!...still the decided sense of the public may eventually think otherwise.

What would be required to make a difference are controls and bans and confiscations so drastic that the likelyhood of getting a majority in this country to go for them is currently very low.

[digonswine]

27. I,surely, do not want these bans and confiscations-

I do not see justifiable reasons to limit them-to a degree. I do share others' misgivings about guns in general. These misgivings are my own. I think there will not come a day when the public decides specifically to severely limit these freedoms.

[SteveM]

31. Similarly, check data from the National Safety Council...

which lists accidental deaths of children. You will find that of the listed categories, gun accidents has the fewest, and the numbers have been falling faster than the other categories for several years. Also, not a "good number" for the anti-gun cause.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

14. You proved much of my points.

You didn't attempt a discussion, but instead launched into insults. In my post I didn't insult the antis. Your post if filled with insults.

Concerned about human life? I am very much concerned about human life, especially the lives of my family members and my own life.

[jmg257]

2. There are plenty of statistics out there for things you seek.

Try not to get them from anti-gun or pro-gun sources. Crime rates, gun-related crimes, accidental deaths etc. are readily available.
The number of actual defensive uses of guns are indeed hard to grasp, but it does happen readily enough.

What you'll likely find across the years is pretty steady numbers of gun-related deaths, a steadily slightly decreasing number of gun-related injuries, a large portion of gun-related crimes/injuries being related to handguns, and an ever increasing number of guns being bought (but possibly decreasing percentage of gun-owning households).


The greatest thing I learned early on was to not believe anyone w/o a little investigation...which is why it is usually best to try to find neutral sources and use your brain to make up your mind. When you see studies, read them closely and check for details...they may have little correlation with you if you are a typical gun owner. And avoid obvious traps like "people in homes with guns suffer more gun-related injuries/suicides in their homes then people in homes without guns".

When those who oppose you tell you what you are like, what you think, what you feel, what you need and don't need, what you fantasize about, use your own experiences and perceptions to figure it out for yourself.

As for gun safety - once again use your brain and make sure YOU are safe with YOURS. Keep them secure, practice handling them correctly, follow the laws, beware of children, know your limitations, etc. etc.

[digonswine]

6. I appreciate that-

It is not a mere calculation of benefits vs. losses. I guess it does not matter--"The number of actual defensive uses of guns are indeed hard to grasp"-there are no real numbers-and I doubt it would matter to anyone anyway.

It just seems that the vitriol and disdain from either side to the other makes the Guns forum just plain nuts, sometimes.

[jmg257]

8. There was a Clinton DOJ study out way back when that

placed the number at around 250,000 and 300,000 annually - FROM WHAT I CAN REMEMBER. Take it with a grain of salt though....

What you have to do is make the decision if the perceived benefits of YOU being armed outweigh any inconvience/dangers.

Freedom is all about having such choices.

[digonswine]

11. Yes-but I need to be more clear in OP's

My concern was them way we communicate about these things. I do tend to muddy the waters!

[TheWraith]

5. I agree: anecdotes aren't data. So here's some stats for you.

Dr. Gary Kleck, considered one of the leading criminologists in the country on the subject of guns and crime, estimated in his 1993 study that there were about 2 million defensive gun uses per year in the US at that time. Most, of course, never resulted in a death or shooting. The lowest estimate I've seen of any, by another source, said 250,000 per year. In contrast, the number of accidental firearms deaths (per the CDC) is a few hundred a year.

"I'll be honest--I firmly believe that the mere presence of tons o' guns results in more deaths."

But that's not something borne out by evidence. In fact, over the last ~15 years or so, as the number of guns in the country has increased by 100 million, gun deaths have continued to drop hugely. Perception isn't reality: people had the perception in the '20s that ending prohibition would bring about the ruin of America, but it didn't quite work that way.

[digonswine]

9. Violence, in general, has dropped sharply--

in this century-we are less violent than ever.

I did not mean to say that more guns = more deaths.

My original intent in the OP was that both sides are guilty of hyperbole and maybe immaturity.

[spin]

23. While it defies logic, statistics show that more guns does not equal more crime ...

Gun Owners Buy 14 Million Plus Guns In 2009 – More Than 21 of the Worlds Standing Armies
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008.

So far that is roughly 14,000,000+ guns bought last year!
The total is probably more as many NICS background checks cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time by individuals.

To put it in perspective that is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world.
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/

If more firearms did equal more crime, putting 14 million firearms in civilian hands in 2009 would have surely increased the violent crime rate by now. It hasn't.

Violent Crime Statistics Drop Nationwide, FBI Says

The FBI released its uniform crime reporting program statistics Monday.

By Larry Smith
Email the author
September 19, 2011

The estimated number of violent crimes in the U.S. in 2010 declined for the fourth consecutive year, according to the figures released today by the FBI. Property crimes also decreased, marking this the eighth straight year that the collective estimates for these offenses declined.

The 2010 statistics show that the estimated volumes of violent and property crimes declined 6.0 percent and 2.7 percent, respectively, when compared with the 2009 estimates, according to a FBI press release. The violent crime rate for the year was 403.6 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants (a 6.5 percent decrease from the 2009 rate), and the property crime rate was 2,941.9 offenses per 100,000 persons (a 3.3 percent decrease from the 2009 figure).

These and additional data are presented in the 2010 edition of the FBI’s annual report Crime in the United States. This publication is a statistical compilation of offense and arrest data reported by law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program.
http://tolland.patch.com/articles/violent-crime-statistics-drop-nationwide-fbi-says

While more firearms and the fact that more people are legally carrying concealed MAY cause some decrease in the violent crime rate, many factors enter into the equation. I suspect that better policing is largely the cause and if so as state and city budgets are cut because of the difficult economic situation, the violent crime rate will increase.

[digonswine]

28. I think it is not better policing-

It does defy logic--it is quite the opposite. We change as a people. The collective mindset shifts. I may misunderstand you. We are a less violent society, in general. The benefits of violent acts, and using violence to get what one wants, is not as viable as in the past.

[SteveM]

32. May be other factors leading to less violence...

1) Sentencing violent offenders for times keeps them off the street (many violent crimes are from repeat offenders);
2) Tracking violent offenders when they are released so that the true "usual suspects" are quickly brought down;
3) Maturation of crack cocaine trade to where territories and suppliers are more settled with a concomitant drop in crime;
4) Aging population in general, where older people (including criminals) engage in fewer violent crimes; and
5) The possibility that criminals perceive the civilian population as willing and able to use deadly force.

[digonswine]

34. Maybe--

the use of violence has been on the decline for some time. Before tougher punishments. # 4 rings true, also. We are not static in thought, or motive, or method-I think. We change in collective thought, which regulates action. I like to think that we can change as a people, not just due to external forces.

[SteveM]

36. The "etwtougher punishments" may have been the shotgun approach...

by sweeping up vast numbers of small-time drug users/dealers, some of which were involved in violent crime. I don't advocate this approach because I don't support drug prohibition. But the kill 'em all, sort 'em out later approach may have had a side effect of curtailing violent crime.

I also wish for that change you speak of. Much of that change can be accomplished, I believe, by example. One such example should be a "rehabilitation" of self-defense in our culture. For too long, we have held in suspicion those who use violence in self-defense as because their actions are against our "better instincts." Yet MLK and Gandhi both made distinctions between non-violence as a social movement and strategy on the one hand, and necessary self-defense actions on the other. Frankly, a lot of our vulgar pacifists would blush if they read what Gandhi had to say on that distinction.

Self-defense is almost always an individual action; however, it can have social benefits if criminals are deterred from taking violent actions themselves.

[rrneck]

13. Frequently guns have little to do with it.

It's the symbolism that stirs people up. Liberalism is basically a nurturing ideology. Shooting holes in people, for whatever reason, ain't nurturing. Between various illegal wars, civil rights outrages and identity politics liberals threw the very concept of a gun out of their ideology; where conservatives picked it up and embraced it as their own. It has less to do with statistics than with tribal loyalty and faith. It's hard to change feelings with facts. Usually facts just reinforce feelings.

Unfortunately, even bleeding heart liberals have to defend themselves, sometimes with deadly force. Until we accept that reality as it exists in our lives and in the lives of everyone of any political persuasion the right will continue to use the issue to help them win elections.

The tragedy is the people who need to vote Democratic the most are the same people most likely to have to defend themselves against assault. Liberals ignore that at their peril. That's helped to get the arrogant elitist label stuck on their ass.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. Damn good explanation! N/T

[SteveM]

33. I concur. Hats off to rrneck. nt

[oneshooter]

17. "Unfortunately, even bleeding heart liberals have to defend themselves," No they don't

"have to" they have the option to. The same option that they wish to deny everybody.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Kennah]

19. I think Martin Luther King, Jr. is a good example here

Although he preached essentially the same peaceful, non-violent strategy of Gandhi, he also believed very much in the right to be armed and to use force and violence, if necessary, to defend oneself personally against criminal attack. The King home was described by some as an arsenal, and Dr. King applied for a license to carry, which was of course denied.

[rrneck]

20. Too many liberals have gotten fat and slick

in the last forty years. If we keep shipping large swaths of the country to the richest one tenth of one percent the left will get hungry. And when it does they will rediscover it ain't high flown rhetoric or good intentions that will bring change; it'll be blood, bone, and muscle just like it has been for thousands of years.

[TheWraith]

21. The problem is, people get stuck on the nurturing side of liberalism...

...and they forget that the other half of that equation is empowerment. The empowerment that says every single person has the right to personal protection, whether they're one of the elites who can afford it, or the guy walking home from his crappy job in a low rent area. The empowerment that says a gay person can and should fight back against the mob of drunken assholes who decide to play "kick the queer." The empowerment that says a 100 pound woman shouldn't have to submit to a 250 pound rapist.

[rrneck]

24. If democrats

and by extension liberals had spent more time nurturing children and empowering workers instead of building portfolios and houses to flip we wouldn't have to worry so much about shooting anybody.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. All the DGU studies are old and now worthless.

Since the Clinton era DOJ study millions of Americans have gotten CCWs and are now armed as they go about their daily business. Best estimates are that there are now about 10+ million Americans with CCWs. With such an increase there is more opportunity for DGUs to occur. Prior studies were made when few were armed. Crime statistics have been nose diving at the same time. While it can't be proven that the danger of meeting an armed citizen has had any downward effect on violent criminal behavior, neither can the opposite be proven. Since the No-Duty-To-Retreat law in FL they have seen a tripling in the number of justified homicides. So certanly more law-abiding gun carriers on the streets has whittled down the thug population somewhat.

[Kennah]

18. The DGU studies

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

The numbers vary a lot, and you're right we'll never know the real answer.

The 108K figure comes from the 1993 National Crime Victimization Survey. I tend to be very skeptical of this number because it's the government, or someone calling on behalf of the government, asking "Hi, we'd like to ask you about guns. Have you used a gun to prevent a criminal attack and save your life?" I have a hard time fathoming people being completely open and honest in answering.

If one tosses out NCVS, one is still left with a number between 800K and 2.5M.

Perception plays a big role here because one is being asking, "Do you perceive that having a gun saved your life?"

Crime victims will often relate, in the aftermath of an attack, some sort of intuition or perception before the attack that foretold the attack.

"Something told me not to go through that alley."
"I had this feeling beforehand that I should not trust that man."
"About 10 seconds before me hit me, the hair on the back of my neck stood up."

We perceive "something bad", and often we're right. But we don't always listen to those perceptions we developed during our hunter-gatherer days when there was a very real chance that WE would become the prey for some predator.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. re: Where is the nuance?

The nuance is found in the choice. Yes, there are some "cold dead hands" types. We aren't talking about them. There are also those who would need a change of shorts if someone visiting took off their jacket to use the rest room and part of a pistol was visible. I hope it's not a 1 bath house. ;)

Most of the language you will hear in court cases where personal choices and responsibility are at issue over grave circumstances, contain phrases like "A reasonable man would/wouldn't..." or "The most responsible choice is...".

Their are cops who go months or years not needing to fire other than at the range. Of the 200,000,000+ guns in the US today, probably 90% leave the house only for sporting use. Maybe 10% are carried concealed some of the time, some by LEOs and some by CCW holders or by those living in those 4 very free states. 1%, on occasion, be used in self-defense. But many of the folks who own the other 99% feel safer that they have an option. A lot of those folks also feel safer that they have the freedom to be armed and defend themselves.

It has never been made clear to me that at some time between 1783 (the Revolution's end) and the end of the Founders' tenure in government that gun control practices, aimed at disarming "non-militia" persons, was common practice.

It has been an issue and many intelligent respected statesmen, leaders and philosophers have cautioned against having government disarm the people. They have spoken and written about the just use of arms to protect self, home and family. I am not aware of any credible arguments addressing the points made by these speakers and writers from history, from recent times and from today. I have seen counterpoints based in Godwinism and the like. I haven't seen convincing argument or evidence in contradiction to these points that wins the focused arguments made.
__________
From respected individuals:
The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

Dr. Arthur Kellerman (avid proponent of gun control): "If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah." (Health Magazine, March/April 1994)

Thomas Aquinas: "Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one’s life, one’s goods or one’s physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor’s death... In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one’s life or one’s goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim." (Dizionario ecclesiastico)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)
__________
Most folks in the pro-gun camp are not clones of Ted Nugent. I would rephrase his quote as follows: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to WORK TO DETER INDIVIDUALS IN GENERAL FROM preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to FOSTER defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." (My edits in caps.)

Most important, I see that the party-wide adoption of the disarmament campaign as only serving decisiveness. The Daleys and Bloombergs use this issue for the media hot-button it is; just a bit of free publicity. Further, they use it as a tool on their anti-gun constituents, like a tapeworm uses its hooks, simply a means to help prevent itself from being expelled and flushed.

[slackmaster]

26. There's a large industry that makes tons of money by understanding statistics and probability

If having a gun created significant net risk to a homeowner, insurance companies would either offer policies with a "gun-free home" discount, or charge higher premiums to people who own guns.

[DissedByBush]

29. Exercise of rights is sometimes unpleasant to others

Freedom of speech to say things we don't like.

Asserting the 4th when a cop would like to search you.

The right to keep and bear arms.

Seriously, too damn bad if you don't like them.

I've seen racists preach their hate, and I mean real racists who flat-out say non-whites are sub-human and are preparing for the race war.

Yet they have a First Amendment right to say it, so I will refuse to support any law or regulation that will hinder their ability to say what they want.

I despise illegal drugs, yet promote legalization. Why? I consider it their right regardless of my personal preferences.

[gravity556]

30. You know, I have never once had a gun escape my house and go on a killing spree.

I think they're broken.

A gun is not a magic talisman to ward off evil. It's a tool that can save a life by ending another.

They require maintenance, familiarization, and plenty of range time. Don't go buy a shotgun and throw it in the closet and think that's all you need to do. Take a class-learn firearm safety and laws, and if you travel with a gun, be sure you understand the laws of where you are going.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. The United States Department of Justice records somewhere between 60k and 100k

defensive gun uses per year, depending on the year. Not very many related fatalities, somewhere around 1000. Most lawful defensive firearm uses do not result in a fatality.

[eallen]

37. The US Statistical Abstract tracks accidental gun deaths.

As well as homicides and suicides. It breaks that data down in a couple of different ways, including by state and age. Start here:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/

Unlike some events that are hard to define and track, mortality statistics are pretty damn good. Dead bodies get noticed. Those with bullet wounds almost always get the attention of law enforcement.

Despite the fact that guns are common, that many gun owners are careless, that some hunters never make it to the field except two weeks during deer season, and that more than one Texas cow has lost its life for looking too much like a white tail, accidental gun deaths in the US are remarkably few. Drowning is more common. As is poisoning.

:hippie: