Do guns make a home safer or not?

[bup]

@Unregistered Bull

Tons of firearms are sold for non-safety reasons and kept at home.

Yes, they are. I acknowledged that. That’s why I specifically said, if a person’s chief concern is safety, should they own a gun or not?

@Unregistered Bull

A gun? Jiminy Christmas man, if an intruder is armed than I’m a damn sight better off being armed, hopefully with something ‘more substantial’ than what the intruder has.

Of course. During those few minutes, which have never happened in my life, one is obviously more safe having a gun they can access quickly. What about the balance that comes from the other 99.999% of the time?

@Unregistered Bull

That’s fine it isn’t worth the paper that it’s written on.

Why not? Do you have better citations? I’ve heard dismissals of ‘guns are dangerous’ statistics a lot, but never heard any study that shows it.

[simster]

@bup

…snip…

I’ve heard dismissals of ‘guns are dangerous’ statistics a lot, but never heard any study that shows it.

Cause Guns ARE dangerous… no doubt about it. Gun ownership comes with a set of responsibilities, one of them is recognizing the inherit risks and rewards of such.

Does owning one ‘make’ you safer? probably not… but if your ability to own one causes criminals to think twice, then they have done thier job.

Your actions are what make you safer… not what you own. You’re reactions to the thug, the timing of those… the knowing when to stand down vs. when to fight are what make you ‘safer’.

If you can disarm a criminal with a baseball bat because you have it handy and can go all ‘barry bonds’ on him before he can react, then it has done its job to “make you safer”… but a criminal will not think as long about attacking you if he knows all you have is a “baseball bat”.

Deterrence my friend, is what makes one safer… makeing the cost of the crime sufficeintly high is what deters ‘most’ criminals… improving our ability to catch and effectively prosecute criminals is what will make us ‘safer’.

[beergeek279]

@griffin1977

Another cite (same author)…
Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home
Arthur L. Kellermann, Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T. Reay, Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant Somes
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/15/1084?ijkey=9c6a5eb16b23ae1098b164f047238845ac4f5077

The Kellerman study, especially the ridiculous claim that you’re 43 times more likely to shoot someone in the family than a criminal, has been thoroughly debunked.

Cite

[Whack-a-Mole]

@simster

Cause Guns ARE Does owning one ‘make’ you safer? probably not… but if your ability to own one causes criminals to think twice, then they have done thier job.

Your actions are what make you safer… not what you own. You’re reactions to the thug, the timing of those… the knowing when to stand down vs. when to fight are what make you ‘safer’.

If you can disarm a criminal with a baseball bat because you have it handy and can go all ‘barry bonds’ on him before he can react, then it has done its job to “make you safer”… but a criminal will not think as long about attacking you if he knows all you have is a “baseball bat”.

Deterrence my friend, is what makes one safer… makeing the cost of the crime sufficeintly high is what deters ‘most’ criminals… improving our ability to catch and effectively prosecute criminals is what will make us ‘safer’.

I am curious about this. I agree with what was said but would like to know if there are any statistics on a gun making you safer in this fashion.

I know it is all American to stand and defend your property but frankly what most people should do in a home invasion situation is get the hell out and try to call the police. Your life and your family’s lives are more important than your stuff. I wonder how many people get themselves into more danger because they have a gun and feel emboldened by it and go to confront the intruder? I think it is safe to say most (not I say “most” and not “all”) home invasions the people invading are not there to try and kill anyone but rather get your stuff and would be happiest if you just left.

Sure we can conceive situations where having a gun would be great…that anything less and you and your family are dead. That said I’d be willing to wager the danger posed by accidents and family violence because a gun is present are far higher than the narrow circumstances where someone is breaking in with the intent to kill you and your family and a gun is your only option to save everyone.

If you are in the same business as, say, Tony Soprano then sleeping with a gun under your pillow would probably be a good idea and actually make you safer. For most everyone else I doubt it. Heck…aren’t a large percentage of guns used in crimes stolen from legitimate gun owners? It may break out of the OP but given that society certainly does not seem better off for it.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@beergeek279

The Kellerman study, especially the ridiculous claim that you’re 43 times more likely to shoot someone in the family than a criminal, has been thoroughly debunked.

Cite

That whole thing is a bit long so I have not read it all but the (admittedly brief) glance I gave it made me wonder right off the bat how good a cite that is to “debunk” Kellerman.

First off given the source it immediately has to be considered suspect. It does not mean they are wrong or did a bad job but one cannot help but wonder at an analysis offered by someone with a clear agenda to one side of the issue (this is true for both sides of the issue…any issue).

Second my cursory glance turned up bits that made me wonder which side was confusing the issue. For instance (quoted from your link above):

(2) Comments on Table 1 Data

Look at the “Circumstances” data. Notice how the categories are artificially broken down. A very large fraction of the homicides (86%) fell into one of two more general categories: a conflict between friends or relatives (56%), or illegal activities in the victim’s presence (30%). The remaining number (15%) are not adequately described. By subdividing these major categories, for no apparent reason, the researchers lessened the impact of the percentages in any one category in the table.33

Why is subdividing wrong or obscuring something? Compiling them into broader groups is trivial as the writer did. Seems to me the more granular the data the better. Make of it what you will but it is not fogging the issue.

They used the same technique in the “Relationship to offender” categories in the table. Using multiple categories tends to obscure the underlying common features. In the text of the article, however, the authors grouped the categories back together and admitted that "the great majority of victims (76.7 percent) were killed by a relative or someone known to them."34

So…here the writer is mad the data was too granular then mad the numbers were lumped together into broader categories? I am wondering which way the author would have us jump here.

The study offered no data about whether the victim tried to get his or her gun, or other weapon, before being killed. The study also omits any mention of whether the killer used the victim’s own gun or other weapon. These are critical points. The Kellermann researchers could not properly conclude that guns in the home provide no protection against homicide, if they did not know whether the victims tried to get them, or even if the victims knew where their guns were? The Kellermann researchers could not properly conclude that having a gun in the home is a “risk factor” when there are no data about whether the gun was even involved in the killing?

Huh? It seems the question is whether a gun in the home makes you safer. Who cares if you tried to get it or not when someone broke in? Did the gun…wherever it was…make you safer? Indeed it would be good to know if the homeowner was able to get the gun and by doing so successfully defended themself. However that data may be hard to come by. So I think the best you can do is look whether a gun was present in the house and compare that to the incidence of successful defense of the home/family (even if by baseball bat or fist) versus crimes/accidents committed using that gun. Would the author berate this if the data showed that guns in a home decreased crime committed in the home by some percentage over homes without a gun? I doubt it.

Once again I have not read through all of it and I also have not read Kellerman’s report so take the above with a grain of salt.

[DrDeth]

@griffin1977

A. Gun suicide accounted for 18.9% of deaths among handgun purchasers and 0.6% of deaths among non-purchasers. Gun suicide was the third leading cause of death among male handgun purchasers, accounting for 17.5% of all deaths (188 of 1076), but made up only 1.1% of deaths among male non-purchasers (1155 of 104 536). Gun suicide was the leading cause of death for female purchasers and accounted for 37.2% of all deaths in that group (32 of 86), but accounted for only 0.2% of deaths among female non-purchasers (171 of 107 768). Gun suicide was also the leading cause of death among persons who purchased a handgun within one year of death, accounting for 29.3% of all deaths in that population (167 of 569).

Handgun purchasers made up just 0.5% of our study population (1162 of 213 466 persons), but accounted for 5.8% of all violent deaths (275 of 4728), 7.8% of suicides (237 of 3035), and 1.9% of homicides (32 of 1657). Similarly, purchasers accounted for 14.2% of gun suicides (220 of 1546), 2.4% of gun homicides (26 of 1102), and 16.7% of unintentional gun deaths (six of 36). Of all handgun purchasers who died in 1998, 48.9% (569 of 1162) bought a handgun within one year of their deaths.

Yeah, so?- dudes who buy a gun intending to kill themselves with it often do so. :eek: :rolleyes: I am shocked. :eek: :rolleyes:

I am sorry if a dudes wants to kill himself, it’s a tragedy in most cases (painful lethal diseases and such can be an exception, IMHO). But, buying a gun and commiting suicide with it as intended doesn’t really change whether or not you are “safer” or not.

[txlei341]

[QUOTE=bup]
I’m opening this so this thread stays in IMHO.

I’m not an anti-gun nut; I agree with Cecil’s POV - the second amendment says any infringement on gun ownership is illegal, and to enact anti-gun legislation fairly would require another amendment.

**Here’s the point for debate, though - you’re allowed to own a gun - rifle, shotgun, handgun… do you make yourself safer overall by owning one?
**
I say no - admittedly, it’s hard to measure all the ingredients - do you escalate confrontations? Would people who kill themselves or their spouses have done it some other way anyway? Do even well-trained gun owners sometimes kill themselves accidentally? Does merely having a gun keep away intruders although no statistic captures that?

In my view, though, the most important consideration is this - you cannot both keep your gun safely locked away, and have it ready in case of an intruder. You need to have your gun with you all the time, in order to have it the instant sometimes bursts through your door.
I have no guns