Guns in the home provide greater health risk than benefit

Apr 27, 2011

Despite the fact that nearly one-third of American households have a firearm, studies show that having a gun in the home poses a household a greater health risk than a potential benefit. A new study released in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine (published by SAGE) examined scientific research on both sides of the debate to put hard numbers to this on-going discussion.

Author David Hemenway studied the various risks of having a gun in the home, including accidents, suicide, homicide, and intimidation. Additionally, the benefits of having a firearm in a household were also examined and those benefits included deterrence, and thwarting crimes (self-defense). From this in-depth look, it was concluded that homes with guns were not safer or deter more crime than those that do not. In fact, it was found that in homes with children or women, the were even greater.

"Whereas most men are murdered away from home," wrote Hemenway. "Most children, , and women are murdered at home. A gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicide victimization."

It's not just the increased risk by others in a home with a gun, but also an increased risk of suicide.

"Even though with guns are infrequent, more Americans kill themselves with guns than with all other methods combined," wrote Hemenway. "That is because among methods commonly used in suicide attempts, firearms are the most lethal."

After weighing the evidence on both sides, the review concluded that the risks greatly outweighed the benefits or perceived benefits.

"There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes, and it appears that a gun in the home may more likely be used to threaten intimates than to protect against intruders," wrote Hemenway. "On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in."

Explore further: Study recommends inmate immunity test

More information: ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/… 396294.full.pdf+html

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Study recommends inmate immunity test

11 hours ago

(AP)—Federal experts are recommending that California test inmates for immunity to a sometimes fatal soil-borne fungus before incarcerating them at two Central Valley state prisons where the disease has killed nearly three ...

Down syndrome teens need support, health assessed

18 hours ago

Young adults with Down syndrome experience a range of physical and mental health conditions over and above those commonly reported in children with the condition—and these health problems may significantly ...

Time out for exercise

18 hours ago

University of Queensland researcher has found that restructuring our daily routine to include exercise can have unexpected effects on health.

User comments : 134

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

baudrunner
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2011
Jesus Murphy, that is not a news story. I've said all along, people don't kill people, guns kill people, people!
J-n
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2011
You are correct People DO kill people. Guns are the tool that makes this the easiest, handguns specifically designed to do so.

Don't ban drugs just because people do them! It's not the fault of drugs, it's the fault of people.

Most often i hear gun owners say that they own a gun because it makes their family safer. This study shows the EXACT OPPOSITE result I wonder if it will change their minds or if the real reason they own a gun has to do with machismo.
frajo
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2011
Most often i hear gun owners say that they own a gun because it makes their family safer. This study shows the EXACT OPPOSITE result I wonder if it will change their minds or if the real reason they own a gun has to do with machismo.
Guns are psychological crutches for those who can't run without.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2011
Guns in the home provide greater health risk than benefit


If you're stupid enough to shoot yourself yes...for the rest of us there's not problem.

As for the rest of it it's no different than anything else. If someone wants to kill someone else in the house they're going to do it...no matter how many gun laws you pass. If the murder laws aren't going to deter them neither are any gun laws.

Sorry for pointing out the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS idiocy of these kinds of studies and their fallacious premises.

Moreover, even IF you grant the author his argument there is no moral reason to change the situation...unless you want to ban EVERYTHING in the country that could at some time kill someone at some point. You can make the same idiotic utilitarian argument to end up with some pretty silly laws.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Apr 27, 2011
How many houses have been burned down by kids playing with matches or someone falling asleep with a cigarette?
Better ban anything that can cause a fire in a house.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2011
If you're stupid enough to shoot yourself yes...for the rest of us there's not problem.
True, but often children are pretty dumb when it comes to firearms. I don't have a problem with firearm ownership in the US. I think some of the people who own or would like to own firearms are the problem.

Responsible gun owners aren't the issue, it's the relative amounts of irresponsibility when it comes to those who commonly do own guns. As for the whole 'crime deterrent/self defense' aspect, I'm hard pressed to find an example where a citizen shot down an attacker. Most are often disarmed whilst reloading.
J-n
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2011
The article points out that most of the violence is against the women and children that are in the houses that have guns. (Not people shooting themselves, as you seem to assert) Most domestic abuse is related to substance abuse, be that booze or hard drugs.

Getting beat-up is far different than being threatened or shot with a gun. Would you rather get punched in the face or shot in the face?

It is also disingenuous to suggest that guns MIGHT kill someone, their ONLY function is to kill. By your reasoning i should be able to own and breed Botulism in my home, it's not the Botulism that kills people it's the Toxins that kill. Why can't i own a nuclear power plant in my home? It's not the power plant that would kill people if it melts down, it's the radiation!

To reduce gun crime and deaths one might suggest we place tighter control on an item that is DESIGNED for one purpose, to KILL. How many other products exist for general ownership that have the same design purpose?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011
To go along with my point on firearm use and ownership, many Americans seem to get this all wrong. The second amendment was written to provide for citizens to be able to own firearms. In the day, firearms/cannonry was the penultimate weapon on the battlefield. A small group of skilled men with rifles could change the face of a war. This isn't the case any longer. Those who state that gun ownership ensures their freedom from the US government are batty. The age of personally owned firearms is most likely comming to an end in the US, not on the short term, but over time. I'm not happy to see it go as I like going for a shoot now and then, however, I'm not that sad to see it go either.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 27, 2011
Airplanes, cruise missiles, tanks, etc and Qaddifi is still there and so are the Taliban in Afghanistan.
A man with a gun on the ground is still needed.
Citizens with firearms in the home ARE a deterrent to an overreaching state.
But that's why SH wants to see them gone so his Regulatory State can usurp more authority.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2011
Citizens with firearms in the home ARE a deterrent to an overreaching state.
Nonsense.
But that's why SH wants to see them gone so his Regulatory State can usurp more authority.
More nonsense.

You should probably go read a book. Try the Jane's catalogue so you can read up on the sort of crowd control gear they had in the 70's.

Unless you can stop an asteroid, on your own, you're not going to be stopping the US government as a citizen with a rifle. You're outmatched, not by a mile, by lightyears.
emsquared
2 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2011
Of course, having a gun in one's house is a risk. But it's my right to choose whether to accept that risk or not. Just like it's my right to choose the risky behavior of driving a car, or eating the fish at the local chinese place. It's also my responsibility then to educate my children about the weapons safe operation AND for it's secure storage. Thanks for changing absolutely nothing, David Hemenway.
J-n
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2011
A man with a gun on the ground is still needed.
Citizens with firearms in the home ARE a deterrent to an overreaching state.


In what way are Citizens on the ground with firearms a deterrent? The police will shoot you with no qualms or fear of repercussions if you are in possession of a gun. What deterrent is that? There are MANY cases of individuals being shot down by the police for less than guns (Wallets, Cellphones, etc) and many more where the suspect was innocent but was shot because he had a gun.

Those in positions of authority are ALLOWED to shoot you if you have a firearm. What would a handgun do to protect you against the (very republican) notion of shoot first ask questions later that is apparent among our law enforcement community?

If you don't plan on killing someone why own something who's design and intent is for that sole purpose? Seems more like an eagerness to take a life than anything else?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (12) Apr 27, 2011
Guns are psychological crutches
Symbol-loving ultraliberals think guns have something to do with male gonads. Therefore taking them away represents emasculation of all the big tough guys they have ever feared or resented, including sometimes their fathers. Or any male in authority.

It was liberals who turned guns into symbols to begin with. To my father guns were only tools, nothing more and nothing less. Guns were turned into symbols by the media so they could be vilified as dangerous toys and taken away. This has worked in former brit colonies but not in the US.
It is also disingenuous to suggest that guns MIGHT kill someone, their ONLY function is to kill.
Their function in defense is to defend. This rarely results in shooting someone. The threat of lethal force is usually enough to deter crime. Statistics prove this out.

Violence would not be reduced in violent households without guns. A gun is often a womans only sure defense against violent males.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2011
Their function in defense is to defend.
No, it is to deter or eliminate the opposition. This is the same as nuclear weaponry. Nuclear weapons primary function is deterance, if deterance fails, their use is obliteration of the opposition. All weapons have the same function when used against other human beings. Guns can be weapons, or tools. Tools to harvest food, weapons to kill other people.
The threat of lethal force is usually enough to deter crime. Statistics prove this out.

They why can gun toting Americans rely on their ability to endure more violent crime than Europeans?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2011
he police will shoot you with no qualms or fear of repercussions if you are in possession of a gun.

No, they will not.
Rank and file police respect the second amendment and know that an armed citizenry helps them.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2011
No, they will not.
Rank and file police respect the second amendment and know that an armed citizenry helps them.
People who have police training do not want some cowboy throwing down to help them. Citizens with guns are always considered dangerous to trained officers. And in this topic I can speak to it from authority. No police officer wants an armed citizen mixing it up with a criminal. At best they're a source for a new weapon or a hostage, at worst, they'll accidentally kill you, or get you killed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2011
Deter = defend;
obliteration = lethal force

-I think you are having difficulties with the imprecise nature of word math.
They why can gun toting Americans rely on their ability to endure more violent crime than Europeans?
Do you mean why cant we just sit there and take it? I am not understanding this sentiment. Euros have indeed suffered gens of horrific organized violence. Most americans have seen relatively little. The people who came here did so because they were usually pragmatic enough to flee the violence while they still could.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2011
No Otto. When you say "Guns are a proved crime deterant", the evidence is soundly stacked against your statement.
Deter = defend;
obliteration = lethal force

-I think you are having difficulties with the imprecise nature of word math.
When you have to engage in euphemisms, you engage in cowardly converse. Deterance is not defense, it's a stalemate.
gmurphy
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2011
The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. f t p://f t p.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF/10lc-violence.pdf. Any nonsense about statistics supporting the assertion that guns are used for defense is totally baseless. I warn you though, I am a bleeding heart liberal, whatever that means.
gmurphy
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2011
Argh, that link is dead, just search for "10 Leading Causes of Injury Death by Age Group Highlighting Violence-Related Injury Deaths" in google
J-n
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2011
Their function in defense is to defend. This rarely results in shooting someone. The threat of lethal force is usually enough to deter crime. Statistics prove this out.


Show me some cases that this happens in, and i'll show you an equal number where people were killed with their own gun by their assailant.

I'll also go one better, if a criminal knows their target is armed, the first thing they will do is arm themselves, then Kill their target, then take what they want. Do you answer your door with your gun drawn and aimed?

Violence would not be reduced in violent households without guns. A gun is often a womans only sure defense against violent males.

If you weigh any violent act as the same as any other violence then yeah, but remember a beating is FAR different from a shooting.

The article states that the numbers show that more women are injured or threatened in a house with a gun than not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2011
No Otto. When you say "Guns are a proved crime deterant", the evidence is soundly stacked against your statement.
Well thats not true. You link your sources and I'll link mine.

Euphemism:
"A mild or indirect word or expression for one too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing"
When you have to engage in euphemisms, you engage in cowardly converse.
These are legal terms for the more polarizing and emotion-eliciting liberal buzzwords you are using. Like 'obliteration' and 'gun-toting'. Are you calling lawyers and lawmakers and founding fathers cowards?

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." -Are you calling Barry Goldwater PBUH a coward??
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011
Euphemism:
"A mild or indirect word or expression for one too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing"
Like deterance or defense when the meaning is "kill trespassers".

Would you say a nuclear exchange doesn't result in obliteration?

As for violent crime:
From: http://en.wikiped...ide_rate

North America 6.5
Europe 5.4
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2011
I'll also go one better, if a criminal knows their target is armed, the first thing they will do is arm themselves
Thats not true neither. Criminals are typically armed. The ONLY WAY to defend yourself against an armed intruder in your home or place of business, is with a handgun. There IS no other way. In these places you have the advantage if you are armed, and only if you are armed. This is obvious to anyone who thinks about it for even a moment.

"Not all crime deterrence is caused by the criminal justice system. Evidence also suggests that the private ownership and use of firearms deters criminal behavior"
http://en.wikiped..._(legal)
emsquared
2 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2011
North America 6.5
Europe 5.4

For such drastic differences in gun-law, and your assertion that there's such a trememndous difference between "your way" and "the American way", wouldn't you expect a more significant difference than 1.1 deaths in 100-frickin-000??
Was a nice try.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2011
Well we can do a little thought experiment here:

You're a criminal. You want to commit a crime against another person. You have two choices.

Person A: Armed with a .357 magnum

Person B: Armed with a butter knife

Which would YOU choose?

Now was a gun a deterrent against crime qua crime? That's highly debatable. Was the gun a deterrent for a crime being committed against person A...that's undeniable...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2011
Like deterance or defense when the meaning is "kill trespassers".
Like when it means 'threaten them with gross bodily harm' -?

Would you say a nuclear exchange doesn't result in obliteration?
What do nukes have to do with personal protection? Only a hand phaser or a Romulan disruptor would obliterate an intruder.

obliterate
1. Destroy utterly; wipe out.
2. Cause to become invisible or indistinct; blot out.

This logic reminds me of the california woman who opposed hollow point ammo because, as she said, it was ok to shoot criminals but you dont have to blow them away.

The intent is to STOP an intruder from being a threat. A handgun is the most dependable way of doing this.
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2011
Thats not true neither. Criminals are typically armed.

Not true. Most criminals are NOT armed, and most Crime is not violent.
Even in Violent crime, most are NOT armed.
The ONLY WAY to defend yourself against an armed intruder in your home or place of business, is with a handgun. There IS no other way. In these places you have the advantage if you are armed, and only if you are armed.

So you're saying that to protect yourself against a home invasion (almost all of which are related to drugs, so if you're worried about home invasions maybe that says more about you than you expected? or maybe you have a disproportionate fear of such an event?) you must be armed, and because you have a gun in your gun safe, not loaded or locked (because that's the only way to keep it safe from your kid) that you will be protected when that group of armed thugs enters your home?
This is obvious to anyone who thinks about it for even a moment.

Really? I've thought about this a lot.
Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (10) Apr 27, 2011
If we want to compare countries Columbia has 5.9 guns per 100 people, and the US has 88.8 per 100 people.

The percent of homicides in Columbia committed with firearms is 85%, in the US it's 46%.

The overall homicide rate in Columbia is 62.7 per 100K and in the US it's 8.55...

See I can cherry pick too :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2011
Any nonsense about statistics supporting the assertion that guns are used for defense is totally baseless.
Well sure, any Nonsense is, but most unbiased studies which arent, support the effectiveness of firearms for personal protection.

Here lets ask GOOGLE:
http://www.google...intruder
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2011
So many unwarranted assumptions:
So you're saying that to protect yourself against a home invasion (almost all of which are related to drugs, so if you're worried about home invasions maybe that says more about you than you expected? or maybe you have a disproportionate fear of such an event?)
Are you calling me a drug addict??
you must be armed, and because you have a gun in your gun safe, not loaded or locked (because that's the only way to keep it safe from your kid)
These are not the only ways of protecting kids from guns
that you will be protected when that group of armed thugs enters your home?
Absolutely. You know your home and they dont. They may still win, but otherwise you have no chance at all.

Again, lets ask GOOGLE:
http://www.google...ers+shot
panorama
5 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2011
Only a hand phaser or a Romulan disruptor would obliterate an intruder.


True, but a victory over said intruder with my trusty bat'leth would indeed earn my family honor.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2011
Only a hand phaser or a Romulan disruptor would obliterate an intruder.


True, but a victory over said intruder with my trusty bat'leth would indeed earn my family honor.
Maybe not if he was a drunken ninja from Pittsburgh. 8-O
http://www.dailym...-newsxml
Silver_the_Fox
2.7 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2011
Well, I've seen alot of good points here, and alot of good counter points as well. But in the end, I'm going to have to say that owning a gun, and keeping in the home is not something to abhor.

Yes, precautions must be taken. Not to long ago, a child in my community was almost arrested because he found his father's NCO .45 in the closet, then decided to run away with it. Luckily it wasn't loaded, and he didn't pull it on the officer. But, the point is this, the father didn't practice good gun control, and didn't take precautions. Yes, kids can be stupid, yes they will play with the guns, or in this case, steal them.

This is something that could go both ways in this string, use it well. BTW,

"Guns don't kill people, I DO!!" -Monty Python

It has merit in this case.

Any questions?
Silver out.
Silver_the_Fox
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2011
Only a hand phaser or a Romulan disruptor would obliterate an intruder.


True, but a victory over said intruder with my trusty bat'leth would indeed earn my family honor.
Maybe not if he was a drunken ninja from Pittsburgh. 8-O

Um, I'll stick with a lightsaber personally, defense AND offense, and I don't like Star Trek... personal preferance... No furries you see...

Silver out...
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011
North America 6.5
Europe 5.4

For such drastic differences in gun-law, and your assertion that there's such a trememndous difference between "your way" and "the American way", wouldn't you expect a more significant difference than 1.1 deaths in 100-frickin-000??
Was a nice try.

First off, I'm American, second, there isn't a drastic difference in gun ownership laws. There's a slight difference in the criterion in which you're allowed to own a gun.

So if you're quite done, fuck off.

If we want to compare countries Columbia has 5.9 guns per 100 people, and the US has 88.8 per 100 people.

MM, I don't disagree with the figures you've provided, but can you tell us where the majority of those purchased guns reside? I can.

In the state of Arizona, 80% of the guns sold are completely unaccounted for. I know where they are, do you? Here's a hint, those 5.9 guns per 100 people in Columbia, how many do you think were sold in the US?
Silver_the_Fox
1.2 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2011
Not to go against you SH, but aren't they geographically distant? As in below the Panama Canal?

Questioning that last comment.
Silver out.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011
Not to go against you SH, but aren't they geographically distant? As in below the Panama Canal?
And?

Is it the shipping distance that bothers you? Considering how easy it is to ship legal goods, what makes you think it would be more difficult to ship illegal goods?
mosahlah
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2011
I have a house in rural washington and a hot little wife while I spend most of my time deployed to different parts of the world. We had an NCO redeployed back from Iraq to bury his wife and family who were raped and murdered, and his house burned down by his neighbor. I invite anyone who thinks firearms are dangerous, to come to my house and try out our security.
RobertKarlStonjek
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2011
The NRA has recognised this problem (that people have guns but do not have them ready when danger appears) and so has recommended that ALL family members wear guns on gun belts at all times with those under 5 only having BB guns. Further recommendations include installing radio jamming devices, using steel reinforced doors and windows, posting lookouts (family members doing 4hr shifts, under 5s doing 2hr shifts) and mining entrance halls.
frajo
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2011
You're a criminal. You want to commit a crime against another person.
How do you define "a criminal"? A person that _has_ done what you (but not the judge) consider to be a crime?
A person that you suspect to want to do a crime?
A person that claims to do a crime some day?
Or maybe a person with a "crime gene"?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2011
"Guns are psychological crutches for those who can't run without." - Whomever

Gun Grubbers hold their guns in their cold brain dead hands, because they are cowards who fear the world around them.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2011
If Children are not allowed to carry concealed weapons, how will they manage to protect themselves from the other children who already are?
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2011
"We had an NCO redeployed back from Iraq to bury his wife and family who were raped and murdered, and his house burned down by his neighbor." - Iraq-Tard

On the other hand the insanely jealous husband of a military family down the street from me came home to find his wife in the kitchen with a door to door salesman. He presumed the worst and shot and killed the wife. When the son returned home he found his mother dead, and promptly shot and killed his father.

Vendicar_Decarian
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2011
A gun is my tool of choice when I want to kill my neighbors.

How about you?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2011
We had an NCO redeployed back from Iraq to bury his wife and family who were raped and murdered, and his house burned down by his neighbor.
Did his neighbor use a gun?

The problem with this anecdote is that you can't guarantee that a gun would have prevented any of that. It very well could have made it worse, or been the cause in the first place.
The NRA has recognised this problem (that people have guns but do not have them ready when danger appears) and so has recommended that ALL family members wear guns on gun belts at all times with those under 5 only having BB guns. Further recommendations include installing radio jamming devices, using steel reinforced doors and windows, posting lookouts (family members doing 4hr shifts, under 5s doing 2hr shifts) and mining entrance halls.
Because the NRA wants to pretend they live in Somalia.
Bog_Mire
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2011
When are the Heston thugs going to dredge up the old "...well you may as well ban car ownership as well, because they kill lots of people too"(the argument has featured in previous Physorg gun ownership articles) THAT is the average argument of people who cannot see how insane their pursuit of domestic gun ownership has made your country. But is it too late to disarm your nation? I think not. I hope not. Some people who have gotten very fat off the gun trade cash are just going to have to diversify.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011
On the other hand the insanely jealous husband of a military family down the street from me came home to find his wife in the kitchen with a door to door salesman. He presumed the worst and shot and killed the wife. When the son returned home he found his mother dead, and promptly shot and killed his father.
And you're a liar and an imbecile.
The problem with this anecdote is that you can't guarantee that a gun would have prevented any of that. It very well could have made it worse, or been the cause in the first place.
The Potential to prevent tragedies such as this is why people choose to own guns. The ability to defend oneself does not guarantee it, it only makes it possible.
How do you define "a criminal"? A person that _has_ done what you (but not the judge) consider to be a crime?
You could wait until they kill you to find out.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011
The problem with this anecdote is that you can't guarantee that a gun would have prevented any of that. It very well could have made it worse, or been the cause in the first place.
The Potential to prevent tragedies such as this is why people choose to own guns. The ability to defend oneself does not guarantee it, it only makes it possible.
The potential to have an afterlife in heaven causes some people to convert to Christianity, does that make the decision correct?
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Apr 28, 2011
The potential to Cause tragedies such as this is why people like me suggest that gun ownership should be severely limited.

I guess it's just a difference between someone who wants to take action to prevent something and someone who wants to try to stop something while it's happening.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2011
The potential to Cause tragedies such as this is why people like me suggest that gun ownership should be severely limited.
I like to think that the overwhelming majority of adults are honest, responsible, and mature enough to own firearms, and statistics of the number of firearms and legal owners vs crimes committed bear this out.

You and others here seem to think that few adults can be trusted with the means to protect themselves, and have no real data to support this, other than that from media propaganda fear mongerers. Whose opinion makes more sense? Fear of good people or fear of criminals?
The potential to have an afterlife in heaven...
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2011
How do you define "a criminal"?


Totally irrelevant to the point I was making...

Next.
J-n
5 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011
I like to think that the overwhelming majority of adults are honest, responsible, and mature enough to own firearms, and statistics of the number of firearms and legal owners vs crimes committed bear this out.


MAYBE the majority of Legal gun owners are responsible. The problem is that many of the guns sold in the USA are not to legal gun owners.

The way i see the problem.

Criminals own guns, and use guns to commit crimes. So non-criminals feel the need to own guns as well. So the criminals must further arm themselves and then instead of using the gun to threaten, they must use the gun to kill before they are killed.

Why even have guns available for sale? Then we would solve the problem of criminals having guns, thus removing the need for regular folks to have them in the first place.

Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2011
MM, I don't disagree with the figures you've provided, but can you tell us where the majority of those purchased guns reside? I can.

In the state of Arizona, 80% of the guns sold are completely unaccounted for. I know where they are, do you? Here's a hint, those 5.9 guns per 100 people in Columbia, how many do you think were sold in the US?


I don't disagree with you SH, and am willing to concede your facts, but mainly because I'm failing to see your point. The fact is that they have far fewer guns, and yet kill far more people with guns than we do. Where they get them is totally irrelevant. They'd get them somewhere else if not from Arizona, just like we'd get our kid's toys from somewhere other than China if they suddenly quit making them there...

I'm honestly not being flippant here, I'm just really not seeing the relevancy.
ricarguy
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2011
Back to the actual study. They didn't seem to discriminate between the average household that legally owns a gun, and those with illegally acquired weapons (criminals and would be criminals). This makes the study's conclusions very suspicious.

#1 It has been statistically proven that armed citizens and households are deterrents with a real effect on the overall likelihood of crime, just as an effective criminal justice system is. Neither is a guarantee, of course.

#2 Self defense is among THE most BASIC of human rights. It is right up there with the right to eat and to breathe. Yes we all want to live in a world where self defense is never necessary, but that isn't and never will be this world.
ArtflDgr
1 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2011
and removing them will hange the dynamic of safety...

in a society of no guns, the brutal win
ricarguy
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011
@ J-n

The vast MINORITY of guns are sold illegitimately. But as with illegal drugs, they do get around and it only takes one to commit a string of crimes. The penalties of jailtime, etc., are stiff both for those buying, transporting or knowingly selling (not to mention USING).

I will say this. If all I wanted to do was rob a liquor store or shoot someone at close range, I could buy stuff at an industrial supply or even a hardware store and make a gun that will do that! Anyone with half decent machine tools could manufacture a gun in his basement. So any hobbyist with metalworking tools should be banned also? Where does it end?
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011
How do you define "a criminal"?


Totally irrelevant to the point I was making...

Not really. Someone who writes "You're a criminal. You want to commit a crime against another person" exhibits a severe flaw of thinking. He thinks that the criminal comes first and his crimes come second.
According to that school of thought some persons are criminals even before they have done any crime.

This kind of gross misjudgement entitles one to doubt the quote author's ability to make a point.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2011
I don't disagree with you SH, and am willing to concede your facts, but mainly because I'm failing to see your point. The fact is that they have far fewer guns, and yet kill far more people with guns than we do
Yes, however we don't exactly have two rival militaries buying equipment in a foreign country and comming to town ot duke it out over drugs.

My point is, if you restrict or shutdown gun sales in the US you'd wipe out the ability of monsters to easily acquire lethal tools. The violent crime problems along our southern border would be greatly reduced.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2011
The fact is that they have far fewer guns, and yet kill far more people with guns than we do.
Depends how you are counting. You seem to omit all the current wars. And, of course, depends in who is "we".
Where they get them is totally irrelevant.
Your pattern of the day?
No, it's quite relevant. Because guns are business. And profits come first, humans second.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2011
and removing them will hange the dynamic of safety...
in a society of no guns, the brutal win
In a society with no guns, those who cooperate win.
StandingBear
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011
Turns out this 'SAGE' is kind of a shadowy 'organization'. Its site demands cookies even to tell about itself, and demands to track you by lying to you blatantly and bald-facedly in tiny print. Such a demand to track the curious, especially after they publish a propaganda assault on the basic rights of a free people reeks of the paranoia of a treasonous cabal. It and some writers here, some useful fools who mindlessly promote their own exploitation/enslavement and want to take we good folk along with them, want to promote the myth that our hunting weapons arm the drug cartels. Funny, I have never seen a 20mm anti-aircraft auto cannon in a gun show. I have never seen a T-72 ex-Soviet tank at a gun show either! Nor have I seen M-249 SAWs, .50cal HMGs, Grad multibarreled rocket launshers, SA-7 ATGWs, grenade launchers, 75mm FLAK cannon, and various other systems known to be in the arsenal of the Mexican drug armies that are now over 100,000 strong and influence over 50% of Mexico.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2011
want to promote the myth that our hunting weapons arm the drug cartels.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/us-embassy-cables-90-percent-most-lethal

It's not a myth, have a nice day, don't forget to stock up on reynold's wrap.
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (51) Apr 28, 2011
"We had an NCO redeployed back from Iraq to bury his wife and family who were raped and murdered, and his house burned down by his neighbor." - Iraq-Tard

On the other hand the insanely jealous husband of a military family down the street from me came home to find his wife in the kitchen with a door to door salesman. He presumed the worst and shot and killed the wife. When the son returned home he found his mother dead, and promptly shot and killed his father.



LOL owned.
StandingBear
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011
Believe it or not, it was at one time legal in Texas to kill a paramour.....but not..the wife; as many lifers and death row inmates in that state found out at their trials. Guns don't kill of themselves, they are only tools. People kill people as only them have the God Given freedom of choice however misused.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2011
Why even have guns available for sale? Then we would solve the problem of criminals having guns, thus removing the need for regular folks to have them in the first place.
First off, criminals will always have guns. Britain has extremely restrictive gun laws and yet things like this continue to happen:
http://www.mirror...3075797/

But in defense of ones home and business, an owner is outclassed by a criminal with any sort of weapon UNLESS the owner has a handgun. A thug with a club or his fists will most likely win unless the owner has a gun.

Owners should not have to be left with clubs or knives or dogs to depend on, when guns can provide their only dependable means of defense.

This is especially true for women and older people who have the right to feel safe in their homes. Only a gun can provide the reasonable measure of security they deserve.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2011
Someone who writes "You're a criminal. You want to commit a crime against another person" exhibits a severe flaw of thinking. He thinks that the criminal comes first and his crimes come second.


No he thinks the criminal has committed crimes in the past and is therefore by definition a criminal. The fact that you brought this up as an attempt to distract from the obvious point that guns do deter crimes exhibits a flaw in your thinking. Basically you're trying to start a semantic argument rather than address the actual point I was obviously making.

This kind of gross misjudgement entitles one to doubt the quote author's ability to make a point.


Pot meet kettle...

My point is, if you restrict or shutdown gun sales in the US you'd wipe out the ability of monsters to easily acquire lethal tools.


They'd simply get them somewhere else. It's the same logic that says if you criminalize pot people won't smoke it...it also misses the point I was making.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2011
They'd simply get them somewhere else. It's the same logic that says if you criminalize pot people won't smoke it...it also misses the point I was making.
Not really. I'm not saying they wouldn't be able to get guns. That'd be a fool's position. I'm saying it would take them significantly more effort and resources to get them, exactly as it takes more effort and resources to find a drug dealer and purchase drugs. It would be a great method to reduce their influence and drain their bank accounts.
A thug with a club or his fists will most likely win unless the owner has a gun.
And if neither thug nor shop owner have a gun, the survival rate of the shop owner is exponentially higher.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011
@SH
In the state of Arizona, 80% of the guns sold are completely unaccounted for. I know where they are, do you? Here's a hint, those 5.9 guns per 100 people in Columbia, how many do you think were sold in the US?
Heres an excellent study you can use to actually determine the facts:
http://www.unodc....6_en.pdf

-Youll note that while there is a preference for US-made semi-auto weapons, possibly due to availability, there is also a huge market for full-auto AK variants from the middle east and eastern bloc nations. One example given is the govt purchase of 10,000 AK47s from jordan which were diverted to FARC paramilitaries. Many examples of corrupt govt supply are cited.

Another important source of military weapons are post-conflict areas in central and south america. Plenty of full-auto guns to go around. And if the US semi-auto supply were to dry up, these full-auto sources would certainly fill the gap; and things would become that much more dangerous.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 28, 2011
Otto, the guns you can buy in the US aren't limited to ak-47s and semi-auto ar15's. You've obviously never been to an Arizona gun show.

http://www.youtub...ZTkvZUuA
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011
And if neither thug nor shop owner have a gun, the survival rate of the shop owner is exponentially higher.
?? If the 120 lb jewelry shop owner has to defend himself from a thug or 2 with a knife, without a gun, chances are he's gonna get cut. His survival 'rate' is exponentially lower.
StandingBear
1 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2011
The assumption of universal respect for any law is a widely held fantasy. To build on such a fantasy is to ignore how full our prisons are. The infantile statement of: "Just pass a law....!" leads from the idiotic asseveration of the human species as robots. Even ants have judgement! You cannot make a horse run into a fire. Such were true then there would be no crime, nor police, nor judges, nor prisons, etc. Would that all of us had the knowledge of what is right "written on our hearts..". But then a cynic would look at 'universal respect' as not all that universal. One needs only look at a gun control law passed in Skokie, Ill some years ago that outlawed possession for only the common citizens but contained exemptions for the passers of that law and for the economic power structure that put them in office. Whose law? Whose order?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2011
Otto, the guns you can buy in the US aren't limited to ak-47s and semi-auto ar15's. You've obviously never been to an Arizona gun show.
Ive never been to arizona but Ive been to plenty of gun shows. I know youre not able to buy full-auto without an FFL; not to mention rifle grenades or RPGs.

These things are readily available to discriminating criminals, insurgents, and rebels in colombia, and they dont come from the US. I bet traffickers and corrupt officials are hoping the US supply is ended so their business becomes more lucrative.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2011
Not really. I'm not saying they wouldn't be able to get guns. That'd be a fool's position. I'm saying it would take them significantly more effort and resources to get them, exactly as it takes more effort and resources to find a drug dealer and purchase drugs. It would be a great method to reduce their influence and drain their bank accounts.


I agree with you here 100%. Well except with the point that it would make it "significantly" more difficult to obtain firearms...but it would make a difference.

Also the main two points I was making is that it's a bit specious to compare countries when discussing this topic (hence the cherry picking statement), and that the idea that "fewer guns in the hands of the populace" somehow significantly reduces gun related crime is invalid. It's just not that simple at all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2011
The assumption of universal respect for any law is a widely held fantasy.
Your hyperbole is unwarranted and obviously ungrounded.

"According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 7,225,800 people at yearend 2009 were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole - about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population. 2,292,133 were incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails at yearend 2009." WIKI

"Criminal recidivism is highly correlated with psychopathy...Individuals with this disorder gain satisfaction through their antisocial behavior and lack remorse for their actions"

"Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%)."

Prisons are big business. Lots of thruput. Very valuable to economies. They solve little.
emsquared
1 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2011
First off, I'm American, second, there isn't a drastic difference in gun ownership laws. There's a slight difference in the criterion in which you're allowed to own a gun.

So if you're quite done, fuck off.

My my my, a defensive goon aren't you? http://webhome.id...def.html

Fair enough, I wasn't clear: massive difference in self-defense law and massive difference in gun ownership rates, and yet next to no difference in violent gun-related deaths.

What does this tell us? Well, for sure the rate of responsible gun ownership in the U.S. must be much higher than in Europe (by an order of magnitude+), yea? It might also indicate that gun-ownership rates have no significant impact on violent gun crime rates, but that's not likely is it, as if percentages of criminal and mentally unfit populations are more or less constant across western nations (dunno if they are...) then there should be more "unfit" gun owners in US, per capita? Why not more gun deaths?
emsquared
1 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2011
So if unfit gun-owner rates are roughly equal across populations, why less gun deaths per more unfit gun-owners possessing guns in America? What's the other variable? Self defense law.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011
"We had an NCO redeployed back from Iraq to bury his wife and family who were raped and murdered, and his house burned down by his neighbor." - Iraq-Tard

On the other hand the insanely jealous husband of a military family down the street from me came home to find his wife in the kitchen with a door to door salesman. He presumed the worst and shot and killed the wife. When the son returned home he found his mother dead, and promptly shot and killed his father.



LOL owned.
SO FRANK-

You think its funny to make fun of someones real tragedy such as this, by making up some idiot story? Or you just like people making fun of servicemen in general, especially when their families get butchered while theyre away? Which is it?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 28, 2011
Also the main two points I was making is that it's a bit specious to compare countries when discussing this topic (hence the cherry picking statement), and that the idea that "fewer guns in the hands of the populace" somehow significantly reduces gun related crime is invalid. It's just not that simple at all.
No it certainly isn't clear cut, we agree. However, statistically, fewer guns in the hands of citizens significantly reduces deaths and injury due to firearms, which is all the study above is saying.
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (50) Apr 28, 2011
"We had an NCO redeployed back from Iraq to bury his wife and family who were raped and murdered, and his house burned down by his neighbor." - Iraq-Tard

On the other hand the insanely jealous husband of a military family down the street from me came home to find his wife in the kitchen with a door to door salesman. He presumed the worst and shot and killed the wife. When the son returned home he found his mother dead, and promptly shot and killed his father.



LOL owned.
SO FRANK-

You think its funny to make fun of someones real tragedy such as this, by making up some idiot story? Or you just like people making fun of servicemen in general, especially when their families get butchered while theyre away? Which is it?


I don't want my tax dollars going into the pockets of self-important mercenaries. The military is the US governments largest welfare program. I do no support warfare (a portmanteau of welfare and war).
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2011
No it certainly isn't clear cut, we agree. However, statistically, fewer guns in the hands of citizens significantly reduces deaths and injury due to firearms
But whether it significantly reduces deaths and injury is another question. Would those things happen by other means? Most would. And it does not reflect the number of incidents prevented from happening because of the defensive use of firearms, the presence of which often PREVENTS death and injury. The study is biased because it doesnt include these comparisons.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011
I don't want my tax dollars going into the pockets of self-important mercenaries.
And I dont want my tax dollars going to protect people with ungrateful attitudes like yours but I doesnt has much of a choice. Port that manteau MF.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2011
I don't want my tax dollars going into the pockets of self-important mercenaries.
And I dont want my tax dollars going to protect people with ungrateful attitudes like yours but I doesnt has much of a choice. Port that manteau MF.

So you actually enjoy it when you hear of their families being victimized do you? Big fun eh?
FrankHerbert
0.7 / 5 (50) Apr 28, 2011
Warfare queens.
defunctdiety
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2011
I don't want my tax dollars going into the pockets of self-important mercenaries.

You dont know many soldiers, personally, do you? Youre impression of the military comes from TV doesnt it?

Well, I know several, personally, and they are the exact opposite of self-important. The "mercenaries" I know think of themselves and behave as servants, putting their thoughts and actions towards "the team" (wether family, squad etc) so far before their own self that your gross ignorance and mis-characterization would be laughable if it wasn't so disgusting and pathetic.

Of course, there are some oo-rah cock-grabbing types, but even then you'd be hard pressed to label them "self-important" if you knew anything about them and their principles.

It sucks that you feel so powerless in your role in existence that you have to disassociate yourself from your own Nationality, your own People, to rationalize your own crippling impotence, but youre just going to have to get used to it I guess
Bog_Mire
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2011
FrankHerbert: just don't post here, OK?
FrankHerbert
0.7 / 5 (50) Apr 28, 2011
What exactly are warfare queens protecting us from?
FrankHerbert
0.7 / 5 (50) Apr 28, 2011
Reminder: 24 was not reality tv.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011
SO FRANK-

You didnt answer my questions.

You think its funny to make fun of someones real tragedy such as this, by making up some idiot story? Or you just like people making fun of servicemen in general, especially when their families get butchered while theyre away? Which is it?

Which is it FRANK?

Do you think using cutesy french words and gay slurs excuses you from insulting people?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 28, 2011
But whether it significantly reduces deaths and injury is another question.
It is an unrelated question in terms of the scope of this study. Not nearly as many children accidentally kill themselves with daddy's pocket knife, however an intentioned individual can kill with his hands, a gun, or a knife. Reducing gun ownership doesn't directly affect violent crime. It reduces accidental death through misuse, or lack of security.
Would those things happen by other means? Most would.
Agreed.
And it does not reflect the number of incidents prevented from happening because of the defensive use of firearms
If the defensive use doesn't outweigh the rate of accidental death due to firearms, then your stance is lacking potence.
The study is biased because it doesnt include these comparisons.
That was not within the scope of the study.
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (50) Apr 28, 2011

Do you think using cutesy french words and gay slurs excuses you from insulting people?


What? Lmao!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011
That was not within the scope of the study.
Sure it was. The authors purportedly drew the conclusion:

"Despite the fact that nearly one-third of American households have a firearm, studies show that having a gun in the home poses a household a greater health risk than a potential benefit."

-without including evidence that death and injury wouldn't have occurred otherwise, or that death and injury weren't prevented from the presence of firearms. The scope of this study does not support this conclusion. Had these numbers somehow been factored in, their conclusion may have been just the opposite.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011
The author makes the statement:
"On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in."

But such evidence does exist whether the author agrees with it or not:
http://en.wikiped...ss_Crime

-The wiki page cites reviews both for and against the book. Hemenway is one of them. I notice that the 'against' includes a preponderance of lawyers whose profession stands to benefit directly from the passage of more laws for people to break. I am not sure why lawyers would be legitimate sources of statistical analysis of data which they did not gather.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2011
Someone who writes "You're a criminal. You want to commit a crime against another person" exhibits a severe flaw of thinking. He thinks that the criminal comes first and his crimes come second.

No he thinks the criminal has committed crimes in the past and is therefore by definition a criminal.
Thanks for not evading. Two points remain to object:
"The criminal wants to commit a crime" is a comic-strip-like thinking. Nobody first wants to do "some crime", then opens the "catalogue of crimes", and finally selects an item from it. Each crime has a (deliberate or unwitting) purpose.
To define a criminal as "a person who once has committed a crime" is extremely injust. It fails to consider mitigating circumstances, the general dubiousness of man-made laws varying between countries and epochs, and the many biases of law (class, race, wealth, sex) which allow some "non-criminals" to get away unharmed despite responsibilities others are executed for.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2011
the idea that "fewer guns in the hands of the populace" somehow significantly reduces gun related crime is invalid.
I disagree. But even if you were right, "fewer guns in the hands of the populace" certainly would reduce the profits of the gun industry. Which, after all, are immoral profits.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2011
The "mercenaries" I know think of themselves and behave as servants, putting their thoughts and actions towards "the team" (wether family, squad etc) so far before their own self
Unfortunately they don't mind that their "team" inevitably kills innocent people. Killing innocents of other "teams" is never justifiable.
Inherently there still is that ancient thinking of differently valued people. "We, the uebermenschen" against "them, those underlings". Their innocents are of less worth then our killers.
Mercenaries are paid terrorists.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2011
FrankHerbert: just don't post here, OK?
For what reason?
Bog_Mire
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2011
FrankHerbert: just don't post here, OK?
For what reason?


Because I said so.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2011
Unfortunately they don't mind that their "team" inevitably kills innocent people. Killing innocents of other "teams" is never justifiable.
Frajo doesn't mind that the enemy they are fighting to defeat routinely kills innocent people. Frajo would rather this enemy be left alone to slaughter it's own innocent people because, well, it's their country right? Viva khadaffy. Idiot ideology leaves Frajo with no clue.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2011
I disagree. But even if you were right, "fewer guns in the hands of the populace" certainly would reduce the profits of the gun industry. Which, after all, are immoral profits.
I would declare with equal alacrity that they are entirely moral. It is good to provide uentermenschen and their armed forces quality products with which to defend themselves.
To define a criminal as "a person who once has committed a crime" is extremely injust. It fails to consider mitigating circumstances, the general dubiousness of man-made laws varying between countries and epochs, and the many biases of law (class, race, wealth, sex) which allow some "non-criminals" to get away unharmed despite responsibilities others are executed for.
Interesting. When straining to make obviously invalid points, frajos normally impeccable English breaks down. Mitigating circumstances are considered during the prosecution and sentencing of criminals.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2011
Sure it was. The authors purportedly drew the conclusion:

"Despite the fact that nearly one-third of American households have a firearm, studies show that having a gun in the home poses a household a greater health risk than a potential benefit."
And that is drawn from the comparison of deaths due to firearms between homes that are armed and homes that are not.
But such evidence does exist whether the author agrees with it or not:
http://en.wikiped...ss_Crime

And on that same page there is a list of studies that soundly refute the claim.

Like I said, your stance is lacking potence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2011
And that is drawn from the comparison of deaths due to firearms between homes that are armed and homes that are not.
Correct. And this comparison does not include evidence that those firearms prevented deaths, which many most likely did, nor that deaths wouldn't have occurred otherwise. Ergo it's flawed and disingenuous.
And on that same page there is a list of studies that soundly refute the claim.
And on that same page there is a list of studies that soundly support the claim. Your comment should have said 'both refute and support' as my comment did above.

Statistically in analysis of the comments on this page, I would have to conclude that gun advocates are far more even-handed, ie 'potent', than their opposition.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2011
Correct. And this comparison does not include evidence that those firearms prevented deaths, which many most likely did, nor that deaths wouldn't have occurred otherwise
And that's when it is out of scope. You're comparing two absolutes with the presence of an item.

If having a gun in the home prevented a death, that death will be absent from the statistics. Therefore, it is indirectly accounted for.
And on that same page there is a list of studies that soundly support the claim. Your comment should have said 'both refute and support' as my comment did above.
No, because your opinion was that the article was wrong when it said "On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in." Well when you have equal piles of conflicting evidence, there is no good evidence for or against the point. As usual, your opinion is staining your r
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2011
The articles conclusion
"...studies show that having a gun in the home poses a household a greater health risk than a potential benefit."

-The relative word 'greater' is used. I say if the number of lives saved, or lost despite, were factored into the equation then the risk would statistically no longer 'greater'. The wiki book and supporting refs confirm this.
If having a gun in the home prevented a death, that death will be absent from the statistics. Therefore, it is indirectly accounted for.
Nothing in the article said this was part of the study. You are assuming.
No, because your opinion was that the article was wrong when it said "On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms
Indeed it was sir, but that did not prevent me from submitting balanced evidence in rebuttal.
As usual, your opinion is staining your r
And I submit that my r is unstained and lily white. Yours however appears tainted as evinced by your commenting.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2011
I disagree.


The stats. I provided on Columbia and the US don't allow for much disagreement. It may be that "in general" fewer guns means less gun crime, but it's not an axiom.

But even if you were right, "fewer guns in the hands of the populace" certainly would reduce the profits of the gun industry. Which, after all, are immoral profits.


I see no reason to bring morality into it. That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I'd say that profits from putting out contracts on human beings are immoral so I can understand where you're coming from...but I see no immorality in selling guns qua guns. I might have a problem in who is selling to whom however...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2011
Nobody first wants to do "some crime", then opens the "catalogue of crimes", and finally selects an item from it. Each crime has a (deliberate or unwitting) purpose.


Which means they want to do "some crime", the method of selection doesn't obliterate the motive.

To define a criminal as "a person who once has committed a crime" is extremely injust.


No, it's called language. It is what it is. I'm not going to sit here and explain what or who I think is a criminal on this board just to satisfy your moral objections Fraj. I agree that people who hid Jews in Nazi Germany were not criminals, nor are people who smoke pot in the US now, but if I have to justify my use of every fricken word I use in making a point on this board we'd spend all our time on semantics and none of it on the actual points we're making...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2011
If having a gun in the home prevented a death, that death will be absent from the statistics. Therefore, it is indirectly accounted for.
Nothing in the article said this was part of the study. You are assuming.
I'm not assuming anything. If you are not dead, you should not be showing up as dead on a survey of deaths due to firearms. If you're not understanding this, I think we're going ot have to conclude our conversation here.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2011
Unfortunately they don't mind that their "team" inevitably kills innocent people. Killing innocents of other "teams" is never justifiable.
Inherently there still is that ancient thinking of differently valued people. "We, the uebermenschen" against "them, those underlings". Their innocents are of less worth then our killers.
Mercenaries are paid terrorists.


So are mercenaries worth less than Iraqi civilians?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2011
I'm not assuming anything. If you are not dead, you should not be showing up as dead on a survey of deaths due to firearms. If you're not understanding this, I think we're going ot have to conclude our conversation here.
?!? The study included stats on gun owners, most of whom I assume are still ALIVE and well. The ratio of injury and death to their total study group, is what led them to the conclusion.

I say that they did not include stats on both dead and living people which would potentially force them to change their conclusion. If you do not understand this it means I obviously WIN.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2011
I say that they did not include stats on both dead and living people which would potentially force them to change their conclusion.
So all those deaths they cite, including suicides, are made up? As I said above, it's been fun, but you should know better than to try to troll me, Otto.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2011
I say that they did not include stats on both dead and living people which would potentially force them to change their conclusion.
So all those deaths they cite, including suicides, are made up? As I said above, it's been fun, but you should know better than to try to troll me, Otto.
And you know better than to try to bait me. Otto only gets excited when he wants to. Try harder next time.
So are mercenaries worth less than Iraqi civilians?
Looks like SHs buddy Frajo has become a driveby poster. Frajo- today khadaffys forces crossed the Tunisian border chasing innocent rebels and were fired upon by tunisians. Is this yet too complex for your ideology?

'Its ok to fire on your own innocents in your own country but no longer ok when they leave -?' Does that mean they are no longer innocent then? I'm confused. Were Tunisian troops firing on innocent or guilty khadaffytruppen? Can 2 innocents fire on each other?? Please clarify.
Moebius
2.3 / 5 (3) May 03, 2011
Guns, like many things, don't belong in the hands of stupid people and there are way too many stupid people.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2011
Add that to a list of things from lawnmowers, cars, knives, sharp pencils, gasoline, whiskey, rocks....

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 03, 2011
Guns, like many things, don't belong in the hands of stupid people and there are way too many stupid people.

Then you don't own a firearm.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 03, 2011
Add that to a list of things from lawnmowers, cars, knives, sharp pencils, gasoline, whiskey, rocks....


Yeah, there isn't much you can do to protect yourself from stupid people, especially if they're intentioned.

Prime Example: ryggesogn2
Bog_Mire
2.3 / 5 (3) May 03, 2011
Add that to a list of things from lawnmowers, cars, knives, sharp pencils, gasoline, whiskey, rocks....


I knew it - MM couldn't resist in the end. LMAO. What a drongo!!!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2011
VT gun laws:
"No state permit is required to possess a rifle, shotgun, or handgun."
"No permit is required to purchase a rifle, shotgun, or handgun."
"It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man."
http://www.nraila...VTSL.pdf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 03, 2011

NH laws:
"It is unlawful to carry a loaded handgun in any
vehicle or concealed about ones person without
a license."

MA laws:
"A complex procedure is set out for the purchase of rifles, shotguns, handguns, their related feeding devices, ammunition, large capacity firearms and large capacity feeding devices. Care must be taken to have the correct card or license for a particular purchase."
http://www.nraila...maSL.pdf
What state(s) are safer?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 03, 2011
What state(s) are safer?
Which has a higher income per capita? Better education rate, more violent crime, etc.

You can talley the stats all day long, but unfortunately it isn't a cut and dry answer. You'll just have to get yourself educated on the causes of crime then perhaps you can begin to decipher why things are the way they are.

Let's compare your hometown and my current hometown.

Per capita, there's much more crime in Nashua than in Chelmsford. We have 8 gun shops. You have zero. Does that mean that gun shops create crime?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) May 03, 2011
The Chelmsford chief of police readily grants class A permits 'for all lawful purposes'.
frajo
not rated yet May 04, 2011
So are mercenaries worth less than Iraqi civilians?
Each human being has infinite value.
Mercenaries are not innocent.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 04, 2011
The Chelmsford chief of police readily grants class A permits 'for all lawful purposes'.
So does the State Police, who anyone can submit their application to if they have disagreements with the town or city officials. That doesn't answer my question. Do gun shops create crime? Nashua has more crime than Chelmsford, to carry a gun, all we have to do is buy it at the store, yet we have more crime than Chelmsford, who has a licensure process and no gun shops.

So explain why the data stacks soundly against your hypothesis.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 04, 2011
So are mercenaries worth less than Iraqi civilians?
Each human being has infinite value.
Mercenaries are not innocent.
Neither are the people they are sent to kill. Soldiers are not mercenaries. They exist to protect even people like you from people who think you are worthless.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) May 04, 2011
So are mercenaries worth less than Iraqi civilians?
Each human being has infinite value.
Mercenaries are not innocent.


So what's your point then? If their value is neither diminished or enhanced by their guilt or innocence then they are LITERALLY no different from the people they're victimizing. They should be treated no different. If a person has infinite value then how do you justify punishment of any kind?

Moreover any Iraqi civilian who supported the regime of Saddam Hussein either directly or indirectly isn't innocent by any standard. Do you know which ones did or didn't?

NONE of us are innocent Fraj...especially you.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
So are mercenaries worth less than Iraqi civilians?
Each human being has infinite value.
Mercenaries are not innocent.
So what's your point then?
What point? A point you preferred not to quote?
If their value is neither diminished or enhanced by their guilt or innocence then they are LITERALLY no different from the people they're victimizing.
"Human value" is not the only attribute. "Killer of innocents" is another one.
They should be treated no different.
That's not reasonable.
If a person has infinite value then how do you justify punishment of any kind?
The infinity metric for humans is necessary in order to defy populists and demagogues. To not imprison killers and torturers is injust.

Moreover any Iraqi civilian who supported the regime of Saddam Hussein either directly or indirectly isn't innocent by any standard. Do you know which ones did or didn't?
You are reviving the inquisition method of non-falsifiable indictment. Congrats.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
"Human value" is not the only attribute. "Killer of innocents" is another one.
THE ENEMY KILLS INNOCENTS. We send troops there to prevent this. You consistently fail to acknowledge this because it totally invalidates your ideology.
You are reviving the inquisition method of non-falsifiable indictment. Congrats.
And you fail to understand that falsifiability has nothing to do with politics or historicism even though this has been shown to you many times. You use the concept in argument DISHONESTLY.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
Frajo says anything and ignores anything in order to win or to deny losing.
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (49) May 05, 2011
THE ENEMY KILLS INNOCENTS.


Lol and the US doesn't?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 06, 2011
THE ENEMY KILLS INNOCENTS.


Lol and the US doesn't?
That's the point FRANK. Wars need to be fought and innocents unavoidably die. When commenting you should fill empty sarcasm with examples for meaningful discussion.
The infinity metric for humans is necessary in order to defy populists and demagogues. To not imprison killers and torturers is injust.
Religions devalue human lives by insisting that more be created than can be sustained. Conflict is the result and somebody else must decide who is 'worth' more than whom. Religionists are told god does this. Or Satan.

Frajo thinks that just because humans are not very good at this, it does not still need to be done. And is done all the time. Somebody has to decide for instance which soldiers need to die.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2011
-To protect people like frajo from people who think he needs to die. Because they think they and their children are worth more than him. Because their religion tells them so. And with frajo dead who will tell them that everybody is worth the same thing?
Beard
not rated yet May 12, 2011
What do you anti-gun people think of the Canadian system?

1) Take a safety and familiarity course when you are 18 years old
2) Pass a written and practical safety exam with 85% or higher
3) Apply for ownership (character references, medical history, interview)
4) Receive license (the whole process from number 1 takes about three months)
5) Must store firearm in locked container or use trigger lock
6) Can't concealed carry or possess automatic weapons
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) May 12, 2011
What do you anti-gun people think of the Canadian system?

Not much.
"Some types of violent crime actually increased year over year for example, there were 806 attempted murders in 2009, 85 more than in 2008. "
http://news.natio...reasing/
"The easy part is getting law-abiding citizens to disarm; the hard part is getting the guns from criminals. Drug gangs that are firing guns in places like Toronto seem to have little trouble getting the drugs that they sell and it should not be surprising that they can get the weapons they need as well."
"The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03."
http://old.nation...0817.asp
Moebius
2.3 / 5 (3) May 28, 2011
ryggesogn2
Guns, like many things, don't belong in the hands of stupid people and there are way too many stupid people.

Then you don't own a firearm.


I own several and have a concealed carry permit. And implying I am stupid is childish. I'm not stupid or childish, hence I will say it outright, you obviously are both.
Moebius
1 / 5 (1) May 28, 2011
... studies show that having a gun in the home poses a household a greater health risk than a potential benefit.


Of course it does. There will be no benefit to any household that has a gun and never needs it, only risk. The study is almost meaningless. 99.999% of all households will never be subjected to an armed invasion or Bear attack. The study would be relevant if it was a study of just households that had occasion to use a firearm for protection.

The conclusions of this study could be made about anything that is used almost purely for recreation and isn't actually necessary in the majority of households, they all provide some risk.