So, you agree the sports are both played with adapted weapons, much like target shooting and skeet shooting. No one would select a dedicated target pistol or skeet shotgun for home defense, either. I still don’t see how these sports are dissimilar.
Whack and Czarcasm - is there any level of DGU that you would accept as reasonable? There have been multiple studies that tried to address this question, many of which linked in this thread. On the high end you have 2.5M and the low end you have just north of 100k annually. I contend it doesn’t really matter which of these you go with since both yield a substantial level of DGU.
Of course, if you dont accept any of the current studies, then I guess this line of discussion is over.
Even still, personally the level of DGU is not that relevant. I dont think the burden of justifying a fundamental civil right is on the gun owner.
emacknight - I find it unrealistic that actual gun ownership levels wouldn’t somehow become known to those set to perpetrate home invasions. Reality causes perception.
I’m just trying to tell the difference between stats based on reported use to official agencies, stats based on reported use to biased agencies on either side of the equation, and anonymous reports to surveys.
Speaking for my self, I can tell you that it would DEFINITELY lower the recidivism rate relating back to my own house.
I guess you could extrapolate and come up with some good national numbers, if you can find (estimates of how many) other people like me who just do not tolerate home invasions.
I’ll duck back in here to say one more thing. I am not a statistician, and cannot speak on the figures, but I do have one anecdote to add. My wife was a jury member on a murder trial that in my mind would qualify as a home invasion. Two men had rented a house and never had utilities besides electricity connected in order to sell assorted drugs from it. A third knew of this, kicked in the door, then killed and robbed them. Each person had a pistol. One of the two drug dealers was able to get a shot off, but they were both still dead at the end of the exchange. In a world where everyone was armed with bows and arrows, the outcome would have probably been the same. The two dealers were sitting when the guy burst in the door, and being prepared for the ensuing exchange would have been the only thing that would have made a big difference with anything he could kill them from the door with.
When you change the weapons to clubs or knives, it gets much more unclear whether bursting in is enough of an advantage to allow him to take on two defenders and succeed. But it doesn’t seem that knowing the occupants had guns prevented this crime, it just made the perpetrator prepare better. They had guns, he had a gun and surprise. If everyone was unable to use a ranged weapon (unlikely, since even a knife can be thrown), then I suspect he would have just waited until he could have taken them out separately, and then completed the crime.
I’m not sure if the point is relevant, but pistols are rather inaccurate. I don’t think your average drug dealer has had much training, and some might not even realize that there are sights on top or that you shouldn’t hold pistols sideways. Maybe the killer actually knew what he was doing.
Yes, there are a million variables that can be tweaked in the situation to begin to give the two defenders a chance. However, even if you do start changing the situation to give them an advantage, I am not sure that it’s enough to overcome surprise. For instance, they had superior numbers already, but it wasn’t enough. If they had someone standing and waiting in an opposite corner, or under cover, they would certainly have had a chance. I don’t see them having much of a chance while sitting in the room without their gun already in their hand. I am assuming they weren’t holding them at the ready because only one of them got a shot off. I don’t know of anyone that’s willing to walk around with a loaded, cocked gun in their hand at all times, even the drug dealers I have known. I don’t see any other way for these two individuals to have increased their odds of surviving this situation, provided they were going to be sitting in the front room. That is one of the problems with an anecdote, though, it’s only one situation, not a model. It doesn’t really let us extrapolate with much certainty.
I understand that different methodologies would yield different results. There are what, 7 different studies that are referred to in this thread? Do you hold that any of them yield reasonable results, or do you dismiss all of them and their results? Your reason could be that their methodologies are not sound, they are not persuasive, or some other reason, it’s not really important as to the why. It’s fine if you do - it’s just there wont be any meaningful discussion in that case.
For the sake of discussion I used the figures from the lowest estimates for the sake of being generous to the opposing view and to further the discussion. I believe my position holds even in this case. Personally I find these estimates to be low, but it’s not necessary to flesh that out for these purposes. If you do not accept any results however, that puts somewhat of a roadblock in the discussion. Just let me know if I’m wasting my on this topic.
For one doper, a gun probably saved the lives of his entire family. See post #8 from this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=562010
That doesn’t answer the op, but makes for a scary thing to endure.
Is there a number of the ratio of crimnals being shot in one’s home to the ratio of someone being accidently shot (or killed) by a legal gun owner ?
When I was a bout 12 I almost shot a friend, kidding around. I didn’t know the gun was loaded; I pulled the trigger 3 times, then when I put the gun on my shoulder the gun went off and shot a hole in our ceiling. My husband has hunting rifles and I made him keep them apart and no ammo where it could be located. I felt I didn’t want to take the chance that one of my children or their friends could ever in fun do as I did.
I have scared bugerlers away from our house at 2 in the morning, by dialing the operator in the dark and reporting someone trying to break in. They were in my garage when the police came. When we lived in Chicago we had a burgular come in our bathroom window. I hollered and he ran away, we chased him with my husband’s bolo knife. He just got an old toaster that we bought at the Salvation Army for $1.00 and an old radio that didn’t work!! If we did have a gun,he could have shot us in our bed,he had come through our bedroom ,kitchen and was in our living room when I woke up and saw the light on.
From the CDC - Accidental gun deaths for 2007. 613.
From the FBI - Justifiable homicide by gun for 2007. 202.
I suspect that you are mis-remembering this event. You say when you put it on your shoulder, and pulled the trigger a fourth time, it went off. So, you are talking about a rifle?
Unless you loaded, or chambered a round after the first 3 trigger pulls, this simply can’t happen. Please understand that I am not dismissing your experience. But as described it can’t happen. The only reason I bring this up is to counter the idea that guns ‘just go off’.
They don’t.
This is why gun I stress education at an early age for children (or anyone) that have guns in the house. Heck, I think everyone should be taught basic gun safety.
Approximately three accidental deaths for every justifiable homicide?
Yep. So far as the stats that I see.
(If it matters, the justifiable homicides do not include law enforcement)
Considering the tens of millions of guns and gun owners, it looks like gun owners are a very safe bunch.
Overall, and considering the number of DGUs that did or did not not result in firing the gun(pick any number between 100,000 and 2.5 million), owning a gun is not as dangerous as some would say.
Apparently not for the person holding the weapon, at least.
Of course. Not so good for the criminal. What’s your point?
That being on the receiving end of a weapon does not automatically make one a “criminal”. Remember that pesky 3-1 ratio just a couple posts back?
Sure I do. I looked them up and posted those stats.
Nothing pesky about those numbers at all.
Have you forgotten about the 100,000 DGUs (to take the low number) and how many lives they may have saved? I’m not talking about the justifiable homicide number here. In most DGU the gun is not fired. Or if it is, the person is not killed.
Hand wave away DGU as much as you want, but it does exist.
What are there? 160,000,000 guns in the US? There where regrettably, 600 accidental deaths (2007). That anti-gun folks try to use these numbers to paint gun owners as irresponsible is just silly.
How many have they saved? How many have they taken?
In the context of “defensive gun usage”, by definition the person at the receiving end is a “criminal”, otherwise the usage would not be “defensive”. Therefore, the very definition renders your argument moot in this circumstance.