Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThe truth about guns and self-defense
Not very — although the evidence on this issue is hotly disputed. National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre is often quoted as saying, "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun." LaPierre and gun-rights advocates point to research that supports this argument, chiefly a 1994 study by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist. Based on a telephone survey of about 6,000 people, Kleck concluded that guns are used defensively to stop a range of crimes, from simple assault to burglary to rape, up to 2.5 million times a year. But other academics and statisticians have criticized Kleck's conclusions, saying he relied on firearms owners' self-reporting their defensive gun use — problematic because some respondents might have categorized aggressive, unlawful gun use as self-defense — and then extrapolated that unreliable data to cover the entire nation. Those critics point to other figures that suggest defensive gun use is actually quite rare.
What figures?
Gun skeptics note that in 2012 there were 8,855 criminal gun homicides in the FBI's database, but only 258 fatal shootings that were deemed "justifiable" — which the agency defines as "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen." Another study by the nonpartisan Gun Violence Archive, based on FBI and Justice Department data, found that of nearly 52,000 recorded shootings in 2014, there were fewer than 1,600 verified cases where firearms were used for self-defense. Gun advocates counter that not all instances of defensive gun use are reported to the police, and that in most cases shots are never fired, because simply displaying a weapon can deter a criminal. Firearms can "ensure your or your family's personal safety," said Brian Doherty, author of Gun Control on Trial, "even if you don't actually plug some human varmint dead."
Will a gun make you safer?
Most Americans think so. According to recent Gallup polls, 63 percent of adults believe having a gun in the house will make them safer and 56 percent think the country would be safer if more people carried concealed weapons. But numerous studies suggest that owning a gun can actually increase a person's risk of bodily harm and death. Research published this year in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that the 80 million Americans who keep guns in the home were 90 percent more likely to die by homicide than Americans who don't. A paper in the American Journal of Public Health, meanwhile, determined that a person with a gun was 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than someone who was unarmed.
What about home intrusions?
Having a gun close at hand might make you feel better protected against violent burglars, but in fact the annual per capita risk of death during a home invasion is 0.0000002 percent — essentially zero. On the other hand, a 2014 study from the University of California, San Francisco, shows that people with a gun in the house are three times as likely to kill themselves as non-firearm owners. More than 20,000 Americans shoot themselves to death each year, accounting for two-thirds of gun fatalities. "It's not that gun owners are more suicidal," said Catherine Barber, who heads a suicide prevention project at the Harvard School of Public Health. "It's that they're more likely to die in the event that they become suicidal, because they are using a gun."
http://theweek.com/articles/585837/truth-about-guns-selfdefense
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Most Americans think so. According to recent Gallup polls, 63 percent of adults believe having a gun in the house will make them safer and 56 percent think the country would be safer if more people carried concealed weapons. But numerous studies suggest that owning a gun can actually increase a person's risk of bodily harm and death. Research published this year in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that the 80 million Americans who keep guns in the home were 90 percent more likely to die by homicide than Americans who don't. A paper in the American Journal of Public Health, meanwhile, determined that a person with a gun was 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than someone who was unarmed.
When I read about violent gun deaths it usually seems to involve some criminal either getting shot while committing a gun crime or killing someone with a gun. So if you are a criminal that commits gun crimes I would imagine that you are MUCH, MUCH likelier to be killed with a gun than someone who owns a gun and doesn't go around robbing/shooting. So I'd think this study would be much more helpful if it separated out homes that own a gun where the owner was already a criminal and those that don't. And of course, suicides should be a separate category altogether, since they tell us nothing about crimes committed using guns.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...all of them.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)I have a moral obligation to protect my wife, children and myself, and will do so with the best means available.
Safety first, easy voluntold victim never.
sarisataka
(21,000 posts)The claim "the annual per capita risk of death during a home invasion is 0.0000002 percent" based on a population of 350 million would give a result of .7 deaths in home invasion per year.
Even if we round up to 1 that is clearly a false claim.
Since the number of burglaries stopped by home owners with guns is greater than 1, the premise is shown to be false.
napi21
(45,806 posts)IF you access a gun BE READY TO USE IT WITHOUT HESITATION! Many people grab or carry a gun to feel safer, but when it comes to a confrontation, hesitate just for a second because its very hard for the average person to KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, and that gun that made you feel safe gets used on YOU!
Decades ago I had to walk across a bridge from where I parked my car to where I worked. Because you're a captive audience hen you're in the middle of a bridge, I carried a concealed S&W snub nosed 38 in my pocket. I would think about what my my reaction would be if confronted on that bridge, and realized that I would try to scare the attacker with the gun because I really didn't want to KILL anybody. I quit carrying because I realized that same gun that made me feel safe would most likely be used to kill ME!
Just something to think about. BTW, I made that trip twice a day for 14 years, and never had any problems.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...an overall plan for safety and security. That plan begins and ends with a thorough safety assessment of all factors that bear on the situation including regular and occasional environments, choice of any defensive measures and/or weapons, means to secure and transport the weapon, risk for specific dangers and concerns, costs (both one time and ongoing) and your training.
Doors don't lock themselves, guns don't shoot on their own; USMC gun fighting rule #26: Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
A gun is not the primary tool to use in self-defense ever, your brain is.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen." If you don't kill your assailant, you're not doing your part to convince "gun skeptics" that having a gun makes you safer, so act accordingly.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Yes, there are some people who really shouldn't a gun!
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Which make up 99.99% of DGUs. Also this opinion piece doesn't factor in all situations where a gun would likely have been useful, if the victim had one. While a gun won't stop every robbery, rape, beating, or home invasion...they would likely stop most.
DonP
(6,185 posts)I've noticed that almost all of this type of article he cuts and pastes doesn't count anything but actual shootings as a DGU.
It's an easy way to cook the books for the people that don't know any better.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)When we see his 'byline' (for want of a better term) we know that there is an
antigun spin forthcoming and so know to search it out, as you and the two previous
posters have done.
DonP
(6,185 posts)He has a habit of picking up obscure blog posts that might be 2 or more years old and posting it like it was "news".
The other thing is, he doesn't always read all the way through and has been caught a couple of times with a catchy headline, that turns out to be a pro second amendment story.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Proof positive that our "worthy" adversary just tosses stuff out in hopes that a bit of it will stick. Pretty sad stuff, really.
DonP
(6,185 posts)I'm speculating of course but ...
I think in some strange way, having more of his posts up than others makes him think he's somehow "winning" and dominating the conversation. He can't seem to hear the laughter.
Just like another verbose poster feels that if he has the last post in a thread, even if it's months old and he has to resurrect it, he "wins" with the last word.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)November 6, 2015
4:57 PM MST
Charlotte, North Carolina
Semantha Bunce, 21, of Charlotte, North Carolina was feeding her 4-month-old son when two gun wielding intruders broke into her home.
Bunce, mother of three, was home with two of her children on the morning of Nov. 3 when two men kicked down her front door and opened fire. Bunce, a combat medic with the National Guard, was shot at least twice. Apparently leaving Bunce for dead the intruders began to make their way through the home. Wounded and bleeding Bunce secured her children, include a 4-month-old, by taking them upstairs. During this time Bunce was able to access her husband's hand gun. The intruders and Bunce met in the stairwell, and a gunfight ensued. Multiple shots were fired by both parties.
According to wsoctv.com Paul Bunce, Semantha's husband, said, “I think it was a shock to the intruders just as much as it was to her."
The intruders fled the scene after Bunce opened fire. Bunce was then rushed to Carolinas Medical Center with critical injuries.
http://www.examiner.com/article/21-year-old-nc-mother-shot-while-feeding-baby-opens-fire-on-intruders
And another...
70-year-old coach uses gun to protect female players, shoots two attackers
February 11, 2013
3:14 PM MST
An elderly 70-year-old girls basketball coach in Detroit was escorting two players to their cars after practice at Martin Luther King, Jr Senior High on Feb. 1 2013 when they were accosted by two men who attempted to rob them. This is when the coach drew his weapon and fired.
Both assailants were struck with bullets from the coach's handgun, whose name has not been released. Both attackers attempted to flee the scene, but their injuries were too great to get very far. Michael Scott, 16, fell dead in an intersection. His accomplice, whose name has also not been released, was captured by Detroit police and taken to a hospital for his injuries and is currently in custody.
According to the local reporting of wxyz.com the coach has a license to carry a concealed weapon, and is a member of the police reserves. While it has not been officially announced, it is suspected that the shooting will be ruled as justifiable.
Police are not disclosing whether either of the attackers were found to be in possession of a weapon.
http://www.examiner.com/article/70-year-old-coach-uses-gun-to-protect-female-players-shoots-two-attackers
Ghost
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)She is recovering, though seriously wounded by one of the quite experienced thugs. One thug is IN JAIL on a MILLION DOLLAR bond. Still searching for the other stinker. One in custody has left a trail of previous crime like a diarrhetic cow.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)since I noticed the date on the story. I didn't even post the one about the 12 year old girl in Oklahoma who shot and killed a home invader because I think I've already seen that one posted here before.
Peace,
Ghost
beevul
(12,194 posts)Nor will they be in the future.
DonP
(6,185 posts)What other reason is there for posting one crime story after another?
Gun owners are fair game to try and shame on DU. Thankfully, when it gets too horrendous Skinner will step in and demand some civility or our host will act.
I guess there's a failed hope that somehow we'll identify with the criminals and feel guilty ... because, well GUNZ!!!
Never really worked, but I know there are some other gun owners that won't post here because of the shaming that follows them through other groups and forums.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Nor will they ever be.
Although, maybe its time to start shaming the shamers, assuming that a significant percentage of their ranks are capable of feeling shame in the first place. I know I know. Big assumption there.
DonP
(6,185 posts)With few exceptions, they have the attention span of pre-K student.
I'm sure there's a polite way to also point out that they never seem to want to use their own time or money to support "their cause".
As long as Bloomberg and other 1%'ers are footing the bills and paying for professional agitators and PR staff like Ms. Watts, they're hell bent for leather. True believers, as long as it doesn't cost them anything.
But I never hear of any of them going to any real gun control events, protests, rallys, petitions to repeal CCW, and when I ask on DU, "what do you do in the real world to support your beliefs", they either go away or dump a lot of crap on me for asking and embarrassing them as Keyboard Kommandos.
They can be "morally superior" and dump on us all they want, as long as they keep losing in court and in the legislatures.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Her crumby little org is trying to make hay out of the paris terrorist attacks too:
DonP
(6,185 posts)Only gun deaths count, since they can be used to push the agenda your boss pays you for?
I can't think of a way to describe that kind of thinking and behavior that won't get me banned.
beevul
(12,194 posts)As usual, pay no attention to the person pulling the trigger.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)It just exposes the weakness of their cause, and backfires by generating revenue and activism for the RKBA side.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)beevul boasts: Our rights aren't determined by statistics. Nor will they be in the future.
Beevul's contradictory signature line on his very post above: 99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent
You do realize that is for one year don't you? When you take your 99.9% over the course of a gun owner's lifetime of 75 years, the pure percentage of gun owner's per capita who would shoot or kill someone rises to near 5.5%. But then this doesn't account for multiple shootings by one individual so the 5% would be lower, perhaps 2% - 3%. Not that high but dramatically higher than your 0.1% figure. http://www.rapidtables.com/calc/math/Exponent_Calculator.htm
Considering 'illicit' use of firearms, over the course of a gun owner's life this percentage would increase dramatically, due to accident shootings whether with or without consequence; shooting at property like stop signs & lights; brandishing; reported & unreported violent crimes with guns; myriad of misdemeanor offenses; - the percentage would likely be from 20 to 40% of gun owners illicitly using any of their firearms over the course of their lifetimes.
So beevul, is it the 20% to 40% (imo) of those gun owners who illicitly will use firearms over the course of their lifetimes that we should focus on with preventative laws? or should we leave them 'the hell alone'?
Your sig line reminds me of this dated gun factoid:
just facts: "About 99.8% of firearms and more than 99.6% of handguns will not be used to commit violent crimes in any given year."
Reason for elimination: This statistic neglects key information such as the number of guns in the U.S. Thus, it can create a misleading impression, given that, in 2008, roughly 436,000 violent crimes were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp
beevul
(12,194 posts)Yes, every year, 99.9x percent of those who own guns do not use them to commit gun violence.
Every year 99.9x percent of guns are not used to commit gun violence.
Theres nothing contradictory to that, except maybe that its contradictory to your dogmatic belief system about guns.
We are keeping our guns james.
Ahh james likes to play the 'rating' game.
First, you need to prove this " 20% to 40%" before anyone gives it any weight. I'm not even going to bother debating numbers that are a certain level because king james declares them to be.
Yes, and I don't your source making any valid attempt to determine how much overlap there is between 'violent crimes were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun' and how many commit a violent crime with a gun, yet do not commit an act of gun violence.
And obviously, it would not be in their or your best interests, to do so, and that is quite telling all by itself.
Nor will they ever be. We are keeping our guns james.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)beevul: Yes, every year, 99.9x percent of those who own guns do not use them to commit gun violence.
Every year 99.9x percent of guns are not used to commit gun violence.
Theres nothing contradictory to that,
Yes, what you say is contradictory to your signature line. You need to tack on 'per yer' or 'annually' so as to clarify your sig line, or you will be posting a contradiction to reality.
beevul's signature line: 99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent
What your sig line contends is that of the approx 80 million gun owners, only 0.1% of them, or 80,000 gun owners, have ever shot or killed anyone. That is not true. There are likely a couple million existing gun owners in the US today, who have wounded or killed someone with a gun, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Indeed, the total number of firearm deaths & nonfatal firearm woundings & failed suicide attempts & accidental fatalities & woundings far surpasses the 80,000 gun owners as per beevul's contention:
The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.2 deaths per 100,000 population in 2009. The highest rate was 28.4/100,000 for African-American males, more than quadruple the rate of 6.3/100,000 for white males. (CDC, 2009)
The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
Taking into account multiple shootings or woundings by gun owners, it's still going to be higher than 80,000 for all gun owners than beevul contends. Couple million gun owners in the US have shot or wounded someone with their firearm.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)yet self-reporting of gun ownership is.
beevul
(12,194 posts)But not 'funny haha'.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)