Didn’t say guns were any more (or less) dangerous than tobacco or cars. Why does it even matter? Or are you trying to argue guns aren’t dangerous, period?
Cite, my ass. Care to provide an example of other uses for guns besides killing things?
It’s more accurate to say that the purpose of the gun is to propel a projectile at a high rate of speed. As a result, some bad guys may be killed. Additionally, some bad guys may be scared away, some bad guys may never act on their nefarious ideas, some good guys may be able to defend themselves, and unfortunately some good guys may be injured or killed.
Has your original question been answered to your satisfaction?
I think safe storage is a worthwhile cause. I don’t think the incidents of theft of firearms should in any way influence the legality of possession or carrying of those firearms. I think being able to carry a firearm not only in the house, but everywhere a person travels would limit the need to leave firearms at home or in vehicles unattended. That being said, any valuables left at home can be used or converted to be used for nefarious intent.
Acutally, you can substitute good for bad anywhere in that paragraph, or leave it out entirely, and it’s still true. The bullet neither cares or knows of morality, and it is always important to remember that.
As for a non-lethal use of a gun: Target/trap shooting. I don’t see that sport very much different from golf or archery. Their gear is also potentially lethal. I like guns, and have owned them. The number of situations where having one on hand makes you safer from “bad” guys is very small, however.
Yep, been shooting for nearly 40 years. Never killed anything, nor had an accident. Target shooting is great fun. So is skeet.
That they provide protection and self defence is a side benifit. I swear, the more ignorant rantings I hear from anti-gunners, the more pro-gun I become.
And yet none of the visibly armed police in South Africa have managed to scare away the vuvuzelas.
I think so.
My conclusion is that the effectiveness of guns as a deterrent is based on culture. The US has a culture of gun violence, where as everything I’ve read recently shows that Switzerland as the opposite–a culture of gun as sport.
As was shown in that article, a news campaign showing women being trained with guns gave the impression that women were armed, and seemed to reduce the instances of rape, regardless of whether or not gun ownership went up. A news campaign encouraging self-defense guns at home reduced home invasions without the need to actually have more or less gun owners. The town was already heavily armed.
Essentially, the answer is no, gun ownership does not lead to fewer home invasions. A culture of fear does. As every gun advocate in the past few threads as stated, they feel safer having a gun, and said another way, they feel scared (or less safe) without one.
Likewise, criminals are scared that occupants are armed, and have altered their behavior accordingly: meaning that they either go in when the house is empty, or go in armed and ready for confrontation. What this says is that Americans don’t need to be scared of home invasions.
Notice, that all the statistics (from a gun rights website) show that the likelihood of a hot robbery in the US is extremely unlikely. Essentially, the NRA Armed Citizen list is deceiving people into believing that home invasions are more likely than they actually are. Americans don’t actually need guns for home defense any more, because the psychology of gun violence is in place. Criminal behaviour has been altered to negate the need.
The single worst thing that could happen in the US would be for a news report to describe how few homes actually have guns, and how few residents are ready to use the gun they have. Right now, it’s not the gun that keeps criminals out, it’s the fear. Which oddly enough, isn’t based on reality, but based on the availability heuristic pushed by the NRA.
If an example helps, consider that we can simply assume all houses have locks, and that locks are engaged at night. A criminal isn’t going to expect to find the door unlocked, and has already planned an alternative route. The locks now just make the resident feel safer. Should we stop using locks, no, probably not. Should we stop using guns? No, probably not.
As a comparison: for some reason Canadians aren’t scared enough of home invasions to demand the right to self protection, even though the stats show they are far more likely to have “hot” robberies. I know while living there the news loves to scare people with home invasion stories, particularly those targeting the elderly. I actually had grown so accustomed to the stories, I assumed it was normal. I am actually shocked and embarrassed to find out the US has such dramatically different stats. I wanted to believe that the US had more violent home invasions.
But in the end, the ban on handguns (just like the recent ban on pitbulls) is the direct result of what Canadians fear; and in this case the fear of armed robbers, of a random bullet from gang violence, or of school shootings trumps that of home invasions. Canadians don’t want to use guns to protect them from something, they want to use something to protect them from guns.
Americans want guns because they are scared of being attacked.
Canadians want guns banned because they are scared of being attacked.
I know of at least one gun-rights-advocate on this board that would describe that as the “scared gun owner fallacy.” But in the end, the issue is that of psychology. The things Americans are scared of versus what Canadians are scared of are completely at odds with their behaviour and the statistics.
Not at all, we’re scared of each other, they’re scared of us. Makes perfect sense.
This is a false equivalency (well, maybe not the bow and arrow). Most anything can be used as a weapon. Suggesting a golf club is on par (:D) with a gun is entirely missing the point. If they are equivalent then why carry a gun and not a golf club?
Been driving for nearly 30 years. Never killed anyone, nor had an accident. Guess automobiles are totally safe and accidents never happen. :rolleyes:
So far no one has shown that guns provide any reasonable measure of self defense and actually add a level of danger to the owner. Sure it happens that someone defends themself with a gun here and there but then people have jumped out of planes with no parachute and lived. Doesn’t mean it is a good idea.
Perception affects reality I suppose.
I disagree with your conclusions and characterizations of the motivation of gun owners and I think you confuse cause and effect.
Are you describing the criminal’s fear, or the home owners? I would say the perception of gun ownership grounded in reality is what leads to fewer home invasions.
I dont understand how you would conclude that Americans dont need to be scared of home invasions. It seems more accurate to conclude that Americans being armed has altered criminal behavior and that gun ownership should be encouraged to continue that pattern of behavior. I would not say being scared enters into that decision.
Again, how you come to this conclusion I dont understand. I would say that Americans need guns in place to maintain the perception that homeowners are armed. Just as publicity of an armed populace deters crime, knowledge of an unarmed populace could encourage it. This is a dynamic situation and saying that the need is no longer present ignores that.
I’m sure some Americans are scared of being attacked. I think people want guns so they are prepared to defend themselves. Fear or being scared doesn’t enter into it. Characterizing gun owners as being scared is not productive in my opinion.
A good analogy is the fire extinguisher. People can have a fire extinguisher to protect from a house fire, but you wouldn’t generally characterize this person as being scared of a house fire. I think gun owners would acknowledge that possession of a gun can increase the risk of injury or other costs, and they have weighed those against the potential benefits and decided that it is worth it to them. Fear or being scared isn’t part of that calculus.
I was responding to Der Trihs assertion that guns are not used for anything but to kill. Please try to follow along. And :rolleyes: yourself.
Except, you know, those people that have used them for self defense. And compared to the millions of guns and guns owners out there, the level of added danger is vanishingly small.
Bone, your post is an excellent rebuttal. And what I’ve noticed from it, and previous pro-gun posts, is the idea that fear and being scared are considered bad.
There is nothing wrong with saying I am scared of a kitchen fire. I have both open flames, and flammable material. A kitchen fire would destroy my own and potentially cause injury to me and my family. As the old saying goes, if you’re not scared your not paying attention. So I take precautions: I have a fire extinguisher (and training), smoke detector, and knowledge of how to cook.
Likewise, there is nothing wrong with being scared of a break-in or home invasion, they are a terrifying prospect.
(my bold)
This is absurd. Police are armed and in so being are safer. Is this assertion in question? To assert that guns provide no reasonable measure of self defense is as ridiculous as saying that fire extinguishers don’t put out fires. It’s nonsensical. The question should be are the costs associated with gun ownership greater or less than the benefits of that ownership. My answer is that freedom to own a gun is a benefit unto itself.
Suggesting that defensive gun use happens “here and there” and is on par with jumping out of a plane without a parachute and surviving trivializes the lives saved and harm avoided in what likely amounts to at least a hundred thousand incidents each year, and upward of several hundreds of thousands. Again, the comparison and trivialization is absurd. At least make an honest argument.
emacknight -
We have a different idea about the words scared and fear I guess. Those words to me have a negative connotation of irrational behavior. I’m not scared of a kitchen fire. I am aware it could happen and take precautions.
I own guns that I use for target shooting. I am aware that a home invasion could happen (however unlikely). As the guns would provide a form of defense for myself and my Wife, I take that into account when I consider the value the guns have besides target shooting. Simple as that.
What people? All we have confirmed is 80 or so people cited by the NRA in their magazine. Their 2.5 million number is thoroughly discredited and rather absurd on the face of it.
Others have pointed out other problems with anecdotal evidence, but here’s another point on that score: How do we know that the gun was relevant? Suppose the following scenario, for instance: A burglar is breaking into a house, where he believes that the residents are asleep, or off on vacation, or working the night shift, or otherwise won’t interfere with him. He’s probably a desperate crackhead, but he hasn’t completely destroyed all of his brain cells: The presumption that the residents won’t interfere with him was one factor in his choice of this particular house. In breaking in, he makes more noise than he intended, and wakes up the homeowner. He sees the homeowner coming, decides to cut his losses, and scrams before trying the house next door later that night.
Now, the homeowner might have grabbed his gun before leaving his bedroom, and he might then conclude that it was the gun that scared off the burglar, and write to the NRA with his story of daring home defense. But he doesn’t know that the burglar even saw the gun. Maybe just the presence of an awake person in the house was, all by itself, enough to scare off the burglar, in which case the gun didn’t actually do any good at all. The only one who actually knows why the burglar left is the burglar himself, and he ain’t telling.
The 2 million number comes from Gary Kleck’s work. The quote below comes from a pro-gun site (obviously), but has the sources of the data.
From Bone’s cite, looks like between 100 and 200 thousand people.
So, those people.
Algher:
You might wish to encourage the reader to access your cite directly, whereby he might gain insight into the disparity of numbers displayed. Amongst the defenses Kleck offers for his own numbers is the following tidbit:
I used the lowest estimate I could find so as not to argue about the upper end figures. I believe the true numbers of DGU to be higher but I think once you approach a certain point (100k is well beyond that point) then it is sufficient that DGU is significant - especially for those involved.
I also assume that the NRA’s efforts to fact-check are about as methodical as Penthouse’s, since the resulting stories are intended for the same purposes.