# Does gun ownership lead to fewer home invasions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199 "2010-07-01T15:31:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/141 "2010-07-05T16:27:30Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Please show statistics that indicate that firearms fire themselves. You’re completely missing the point, and you’re comparing apples to oranges. It’s really really hard to hurt someone with a television, even on purpose - what are you going to do, throw your plasma TV at someone? Even my grandma is mobile enough to maneuver around a flying television. But it’s stupidly easy to hurt someone with a gun, on purpose or otherwise. People use televisions, and people use guns. Which results in more dead people? > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Did I say that it “made me safer”? No, I did not. I said that it did not make me or my family less safe. :rolleyes: OK, fine. So you think that having guns in the house have no impact on how safe you are in the house. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that you’re correct, and guns have zero impact on how safe you are in the home. In that case - why have a gun in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/142 "2010-07-05T16:32:43Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > More people die in car accidents than firearm accidents every year – by an order of magnitude. > > Most cars hold recreational value, if they’re not an entirely recreational vehicle. If you’re really worried about saving lives, ban all cars that go faster than 75 mph, since anything faster would be illegal, and you’d save far more lives than banning firearms. > > On other hand, you’re not worried about saving lives, you just don’t like guns – more specifically, you don’t like _people_ you think have guns. People who don’t share your overarching social values and oppose your political and philosophical ideas. > > At least, that’s what the cute blonde on The West Wing said. 😛 Well, actually you’re incorrect. The total number of firearm deaths in the US is about 30,000, give or take. The total number of motor vehicle homicides in the US is about 45,000. Then, let’s think about how often guns are actually in use - meaning, the gun is loaded and in someone’s hand. How long is that? I have no idea, but would it be what, a grand total of a couple of hours a year? Then think about how many hours cars are in use each day - I don’t drive much but am in my car on average about an hour a day. And that’s before we think about the benefits of car transportation (police, fire fighting, etc). Apologies if your post was one big whoosh. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/143 "2010-07-05T16:33:10Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > In that case - why have a gun in the first place? Its a perfectly reasonable recreational activity. It’s also none of your business what goes on in my home, whether it’s firearm ownership, sex between men/women/androids or heroine. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/144 "2010-07-05T16:36:24Z")
[QUOTE=DragonAsh] :rolleyes: OK, fine. So you think that having guns in the house have no impact on how safe you are in the house. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that you’re correct, and guns have zero impact on how safe you are in the home. In that case - why have a gun in the first place? [/QUOTE] Because it’s legal, I’m exercising my rights, and it affords me the means to protect my family. It really doesn’t have to be more complicated than this. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/145 "2010-07-05T16:39:12Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Well, actually you’re incorrect. The total number of firearm deaths in the US is about 30,000, give or take. The total number of motor vehicle homicides in the US is about 45,000. Then, let’s think about how often guns are actually in use - meaning, the gun is loaded and in someone’s hand. How long is that? I have no idea, but would it be what, a grand total of a couple of hours a year? Then think about how many hours cars are in use each day - I don’t drive much but am in my car on average about an hour a day. > > And that’s before we think about the benefits of car transportation (police, fire fighting, etc). > > Apologies if your post was one big whoosh. 😉 Youve masterfully distorted what I said. I said firearm _accidents_, not overall fatalities. Compare the number of people who die in firearm _accidents_ to the number of people who die in automobile _accidents_. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/146 "2010-07-05T16:45:44Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > More people die in car accidents than firearm accidents every year – by an order of magnitude. How many cars are driven in, say, a year? How many shots are fired at people in, say, a year? That is the comparison to make when comparing vehicular deaths vs. death by lead poisoning. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/147 "2010-07-05T17:03:46Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Its a perfectly reasonable recreational activity. > > It’s also none of your business what goes on in my home, whether it’s firearm ownership, sex between men/women/androids or heroine. > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Because it’s legal, I’m exercising my rights, and it affords me the means to protect my family. It really doesn’t have to be more complicated than this. Except sodomy is still illegal in places (or at the very least has been), and heroine has been illegal for a long, long time. Aside from that nonsense, you know what’s wrong with the “recreational” argument for guns is that’s not why it’s in the 2nd Amendment. It wasn’t about “hey guns are a fun pastime great for target shooting.” Guns are in the 2nd amendment as “armament,” as a weapon. If the purpose of guns is to be sport, they don’t deserve any more or any less constitutional protection as golf clubs or hunting bows. That they protect your house is a side benefit, the way a baseball bat is also a handy weapon–one that doesn’t get constitutional mention. The 2nd Amendment is neither about personal sport, nor personal protection. It was about an armed citizenship prepared for war. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/148 "2010-07-05T17:06:21Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Youve masterfully distorted what I said. > > I said firearm _accidents_, not overall fatalities. Compare the number of people who die in firearm _accidents_ to the number of people who die in automobile _accidents_. > [@The\_Tooth](#): > > How many cars are driven in, say, a year? How many shots are fired at people in, say, a year? That is the comparison to make when comparing vehicular deaths vs. death by lead poisoning. Now you’re both playing fast and loose with the “accident” part of the description. There are way more cases of car “accidents” vs gun “accidents” but then there are WAAAAAY more cases of gun homicides vs vehicular homicides. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/149 "2010-07-05T17:49:19Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Now you’re both playing fast and loose with the “accident” part of the description. There are way more cases of car “accidents” vs gun “accidents” but then there are WAAAAAY more cases of gun homicides vs vehicular homicides. We aren’t comparing crime rates, because that wasn’t part of the discussion at hand, you’re conflating another issue, separate from what we are discussing. > [@emacknight](#): > > Except sodomy is still illegal in places (or at the very least has been), and heroine has been illegal for a long, long time. > > Aside from that nonsense, you know what’s wrong with the “recreational” argument for guns is that’s not why it’s in the 2nd Amendment. It wasn’t about “hey guns are a fun pastime great for target shooting.” Guns are in the 2nd amendment as “armament,” as a weapon. > > If the purpose of guns is to be sport, they don’t deserve any more or any less constitutional protection as golf clubs or hunting bows. That they protect your house is a side benefit, the way a baseball bat is also a handy weapon–one that doesn’t get constitutional mention. > > The 2nd Amendment is neither about personal sport, nor personal protection. It was about an armed citizenship prepared for war. I missed the part where I was making the constitutional argument. Could you point it out to me? > [@The\_Tooth](#): > > How many cars are driven in, say, a year? How many shots are fired at people in, say, a year? That is the comparison to make when comparing vehicular deaths vs. death by lead poisoning. False analogy much? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/150 "2010-07-05T18:14:15Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Now you’re both playing fast and loose with the “accident” part of the description. There are way more cases of car “accidents” vs gun “accidents” but then there are WAAAAAY more cases of gun homicides vs vehicular homicides. Are there way more accidents per cars driven than there are firearm accidents per shots fired? Maybe so, maybe not. But that’s the proper comparison to make. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/151 "2010-07-05T18:16:37Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > False analogy much? It wasn’t an analogy at all. Fail much? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/152 "2010-07-05T18:21:03Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > The 2nd Amendment is neither about personal sport, nor personal protection. It was about an armed citizenship prepared for war. That is not precisely true. The Constitution itself does not make the distinction that you are trying to make in that it says “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. There are no listed exceptions. Clearly the constitutions of a majority of states disagree with you, as do the courts. In fact, the entire government disagrees with you. In 1968 the Gun Control Act banned (and still bans) importation of weapons that had, by criteria later established, “no sporting purpose”. It’s interesting to me that gun-control advocates would use that as a criteria to ban weapons and then repudiate that aspect of it when it suits them. The military aspect of the 2nd Amendment and sporting use go hand in hand, complete with government approbation. As for the personal defense aspect, most of the states (48 of them) allow some measure of concealed carry, and all permit firearms in the home for protection. Some states are very explicit, such as Pennsylvania’s constitutional provision: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/153 "2010-07-05T18:24:02Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > A “hot” robbery is a home invasion while the residents are present. Presumably criminals aren’t total idiots, and are thus likely to wait for a chance to commit a “cold” robbery instead if they perceive a significant risk of being met with armed opposition. Breaking into a home while no one is present is burglary. If someone is present, that changes the classification to robbery, and if a weapon is used or even threatened, it becomes armed robbery (or aggravated robbery). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/154 "2010-07-05T18:43:59Z")
The Second Amendment is a marvel of ambiguity, it firmly and unreservedly states two utterly divergent principles, leaving both sides of this argument to flounder. Myself, I find it “interesting” that so many “pro-gun” (for want of a better term) seem to feel that the premise of a need for a “well-regulated militia” seems to have dropped into the Amendment more or less at random. Perhaps one of the framers spilled a bowl of alphabet soup, and it spelled out those words. Or something. Or maybe they were just fucking around. But enough. I am willing to accept that the Supremes have ruled, and that is that. We of the “Fuck it! Just Keep The Goddam Things If They Mean That Much To You, Christ Jesus, I’m Sick of Talking About This!” Party accept that the core issue in our nation is a culture of violence and fear that infests our people. No amount of legislation, however well intended, will dent that culture. It must be done the hard way, the slow way, and it will take damned near forever. So be it. What cannot be fixed must be endured and worn away by the well-intended. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/155 "2010-07-05T18:56:45Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > It wasn’t about “hey guns are a fun pastime great for target shooting.” Guns are in the 2nd amendment as “armament,” as a weapon. > > If the purpose of guns is to be sport, they don’t deserve any more or any less constitutional protection as golf clubs or hunting bows. > > That they protect your house is a side benefit, the way a baseball bat is also a handy weapon–one that doesn’t get constitutional mention. > > The 2nd Amendment is neither about personal sport, nor personal protection. It was about an armed citizenship prepared for war. If you read the notes and papers of the founding fathers, esp the notes about their debates, they all agreed that The Right to Bear Arms, was for all of those reasons. First and foremost, was to fend off foreign invasion and to fight the United States Army in the event of the federal government out of control. Secondarily, they all agreed that guns are good sport, guns are needed to kill game, to defend against criminals, and guns are needed to shoot hostile indians. Jefferson and Washington both mentioned carrying handguns is a wise thing to do when walking city streets. Jefferson talked about shooting guns as being the best sport that any American can do. Their biggest concern was to have a Right to Bear Arms so that the people would always be at least as well armed as the regular U.S. Army. The single greatest reason, the one that all the founding fathers agreed, was for the Right to Bear Arms to be used against our own army. Generally speaking, for most of our history, private citizens were better armed than ordinary soldiers in the USArmy - I know my own family had repeating pistols and rifles long before they became standard issue for the US Army. Until 1934, any American citizen could legally buy and own any weapon in the world. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/156 "2010-07-05T19:22:25Z")
> [@Dragon Ash](#): > > First, you’re wrong by several orders of magnitude on the number of guns: 160,000,000 million would be over 500,000 guns for every man, woman, and child in the United States. There’s a lot of guns floating around, but not -that- many. Hmm… 300,000,000 folks give or take. 160,000,000 guns give or take. So two for every person in the US. Perhaps you should check your math. Oops, I said Million after my number. Do you really think that I think there are 500,000 guns for every person in the US? Is that how you debate? You call me on that and expect people to take you seriously? ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/157 "2010-07-05T21:32:01Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Hmm… 300,000,000 folks give or take. 160,000,000 guns give or take. So two for every person in the US. Do you really think that I think there are 500,000 guns for every person in the US? For the past 50 years, they have been saying over and over that there is 250,000,000 to 300,000,000 guns in the United States. I would think somebody has bought a few more new guns in the last half century? My guess is that we have LOTS!!! more than 300,000,000 guns in America that keeps getting quoted in the last 50 years, there now is probably MORE than 600,000,000 guns in America. 2 guns for every person in America is a much better guess. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/158 "2010-07-05T21:44:59Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Hmm… 300,000,000 folks give or take. 160,000,000 guns give or take. So two for every person in the US. Perhaps you should check your math? And my mistake. One gun for every two people. More or less. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/159 "2010-07-05T21:57:25Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > For the past 50 years, they have been saying over and over that there is 250,000,000 to 300,000,000 guns in the United States. > > I would think somebody has bought a few more new guns in the last half century? > > My guess is that we have LOTS!!! more than 300,000,000 guns in America that keeps getting quoted in the last 50 years, there now is probably MORE than 600,000,000 guns in America. > > 2 guns for every person in America is a much better guess. Why let facts get in the way of making stuff up? This is not a difficult thing to Google. While the total number cannot be known (as mentioned below) the likely number is a lot less than you are guessing. > [@](#): > > In its report Commerce in Firearms in the United States (February 2000), the ATF estimated that about 4.5 million firearms, including approximately two million handguns and about two million second-hand firearms, are sold in the United States each year. The ATF does not take into account guns that are destroyed or that no longer work. The ATF statistics also do not account for guns smuggled into or out of the United States or guns manufactured illegally. As these variables suggest, no one really knows the number of firearms in the United States. > > According to the ATF report Firearms Commerce in the United States—2001/2002, during the one-hundred year period from 1899 through 1999, an estimated 248 million guns became available for sale in the United States (not including those produced for the military). > > \ > > Putting all estimates together, by the end of 1999, the total number of guns privately owned or available for sale in the United States came to more than 260 million, nearly enough for every man, woman, and child in the country to own one. > > Read more: How Many Guns Are There and Who Owns Them? - Ownership By Private Citizens [http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1722/How-Many-Guns-Are-There-Who-Owns-Them-OWNERSHIP-BY-PRIVATE-CITIZENS.html#ixzz0sqbLD1Id](http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1722/How-Many-Guns-Are-There-Who-Owns-Them-OWNERSHIP-BY-PRIVATE-CITIZENS.html#ixzz0sqbLD1Id) If we take the 2 million/year and add ten years to that to bring it current we are around 280,000,000 guns in the US today (counting smuggling and such 300 million might be a good ballpark number). ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199/160 "2010-07-05T22:30:54Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > Their biggest concern was to have a Right to Bear Arms so that the people would always be at least as well armed as the regular U.S. Army. The single greatest reason, the one that all the founding fathers agreed, was for the Right to Bear Arms to be used against our own army. > > Generally speaking, for most of our history, private citizens were better armed than ordinary soldiers in the USArmy - I know my own family had repeating pistols and rifles long before they became standard issue for the US Army. Until 1934, any American citizen could legally buy and own any weapon in the world. Cool, sounds good. We still working with that understanding? Is there any reason at all to think that the American populous could in any way fight against the current US military? If that’s our working definition, we’re going to need those grenades. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-gun-ownership-lead-to-fewer-home-invasions/545199.md?page=9)