I guess I wasn’t clear. I pulled the trigger 3 times then when I put the rifle(a high powered Deer rifle) on my shoulder it went off,I didn’t put it there gently and that may have cause it to go off, but it did happen as i stated, and shot the hole in the ceiling. I didn’t pull the trigger 4 times!! It made a big hole in the ceiling and I have a witness that it went off as I stated,(if my friend is still alive).
I believe the majority of gun owners are not irresponsible, but Chaney is a good example of how even a trained gun owner can make a mistake. A neighbor told me of her brother and a friend who was hunting in Wisconsin, the bullet ricoched off a rock and killed his friend. He never got over it, even though it was an accident.
The ratio of using a gun for life saving and killing also says a lot, if the numbers are correct. In some of the larger cities like Chicago it seems there is a killing every day or close to it. Making it illegal doesn’t stop the bad guys use of a gun. It is a society that uses killing to solve problems that is at fault;some use knives or other means but we can’t outlaw knives etc. we should try to get to the reason people kill each other and why a gun is deemed necessary.
Based purely on the numbes above, there’s a 3 in 4 chance that you’ll kill someone by accident - more than likely a loved one - instead of killing someone in the act of defense. And you wonder why people think gun owners are irresponsible?
Plus, it’s not just the 600 accidental deaths involved here. It’s those 600, plus thousands upon thousands of other gun-related deaths, including suicide and homicide, that make people question why anyone would want a gun in their house, when there seems to be no significant amount of data suggesting that owning a gun makes you safer.
From UK here, my perception of the problem
I’m going to break this down into two categories
“US style” home invasion, violent entry into home, victims attacked, murdered, or restrained - This is incredibly rare, I can’t think of more than a handful of cases where I have heard of this happening and when it has it is usually linked to a crime against a business (home built into post office, bank managers family held hostage), the family is particularly wealthy, or the assailant is later found to have a motive other than theft.
Home broken into, intruder disturbed. - This is much more common, in the vast majority of cases this will result in the intruder fleeing the site without further incident. In a small minority of cases the home-owner is attacked (usually beaten) occasionally resulting in a death, especially if the home-owner is older.
In the second case it is incredibly unlikely that the intruder will have a gun. Firearms (as well as ammo) are very hard to get hold of for a casual criminal but more importantly the Police treat any crime involving a firearm very seriously and will devote far more resources to investigating them, given that an intruder knows that they will not be faced with an armed home owner there is little incentive to carry one and plenty of downside. Violent home invasions are more likely to be carried out by serious criminals and are already serious crimes, these sometimes involve firearms (rough guess - 50% of the time)
Bolding mine - I think this is a key point people overlook. I’d also add that the situation in the UK very much applies to Japan.
You’re discounting the millions of other legal “uses,” like hunters, and recreational shooting (various target and skeet/trap shoots). And you can’t handwave away those numbers, either, just because no one can supply hard numbers of such uses.
The usage .vs. accidents includes more than DGUS.
Not all, and from looking at the numbers, very few acts of self defence result in a death. Since we are talking about self defense, we must conclude that many DGUs save lives.
Bolding mine.
Nope that’s the ratio of Justifiable homicide against accidents. Not life saving. Two completely different things.
Yep, considering 160,000,000 million guns, and 600 accidental deaths I would say gun owners are very responsible. That’s a .00000375 chance that a gun will be involved in an accidental death.
Anti gun folks can continue to ignore DGUs, and all of the recreational uses for guns, but it won’t make that go away. I’m not ignoring the 600 accidental deaths, it’s unfortunate but insignificant compared to DGUs and all the other uses. Sure, if you could magically get rid of all guns, there would be no accidental gun deaths. I’m afraid that’s not going to happen though.
Well, that’s unusual. Incredibly so. The rifle was obviously in disrepair. Did your father have it fixed? He must have tested it after what happened to you.
Using your own stats, what is the chance that a justifiable homicide will happen? Would you say it is so low as to not even be a consideration when deciding whether or not to buy a gun?
I have never bought a gun, so I have never had to make that decision. I own 8 that have either been gifts or handed down from my father. As I have stated, that guns offer a way to defend oneself is a bonus. But not why I own them. Now, I’ve been shooting longer than I’ve been driving. Since I was 9 yo.
If I never had a gun, would I consider buying one? I have no idea. My knowledge and perception of them would certainly be different.
Justifiable homicide is different than DGU. If I was stuck in a place that I thought I should buy a gun to defend myself, I would not consider the justifiable homicide number. It’s meaningless when compared to DGU.
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.
Second, you need to look at the number of gun owners, since most gun owners tend to own more than one gun. I think the latest estimate I saw (from the FBI?) was a total of 60-80 million gun owners in the US.
Thirdly: as I repeated previously, it’s not just the accidental deaths that are the issue. It seems extremely likely that more people die from gun accidents than are shot in a justifiable homicide (i.e. act of defense). Add in all the possible DGU you want that didn’t result in the gun being shot, then let’s weigh that against the other 30,000+ deaths from guns each year. And we’re only talking about deaths here. Now let’s add in non-fatal shootings (CDC stat I saw was around 80,00 per year). Are you still so confident that your guns make you and the people around you safer?
So, in other words - guns are a recreation. A toy. Seems like a damned dangerous toy to have around the house.
How many lives have they saved?
I think there is an assumption on the pro-gun side that believes each DGU saved a life, but I disagree that it’s a 1 to 1 ratio. As was described many times above, the “gun” isn’t always the significant factor in the equation. Some times the occupants waking up, a dog barking, turning on a light, setting off an alarm, or calling the police is enough to scare away a robber. If there was a gun *somewhere *in the house we can call it a DGU and say it saved a life. But there are all the non-gun incidents in which the bugler is scared away.
The way the stats are playing out, I’m beginning to think the occupant’s gun is irrelevant. The criminal has already made one of two decisions: enter an unoccupied house and avoid confrontation, enter occupied house and win the confrontation.
In the first case, any confrontation (gun or no) scares away the criminal, because that was the plan.
In the second, few people when surprised are prepared to defend themselves, gun or no. Think about where your gun is during a break-in. Is it in your hand? Is it in a safe? Is it loaded? Is it even ready? A criminal in this stage of the game isn’t waiting around for you to get your shit together. He is going in fast, and making sure you stay unarmed. This is what high gun ownership has lead to, a much more hostile confrontation, when a confrontation occurs. The criminal element has been split into two camps, the larger being the ones to avoid confrontation with what they assume is an armed occupant. But there is now a group that going in expecting an armed occupant.
My perception of the problem now is that as a result of higher gun ownership the US has considerably fewer home-invasions (a good thing) but those home-invasions are much more hostile (a bad thing).
So which would you rather?
To say it again, the gun isn’t relevant now. The criminal has already decided to run at ANY confrontation. Or he has decided that you are armed and that he needs to overwhelm you.
Sounds like a hangfire to me. Bad ammunition combined with someone putting a gun away loaded, combined with a complete ignorance of gun safety on the person screwing around with it’s part.
I am 100% certain that they do not make me less safe. The reality of the situation is that I have yet to see an inanimate object do anything without input from a user. I am no more concerned about my guns operating in a way that will affect my safety or that of my family than I am of my television launching itself at me.
As far as “people around me”, if they are breaking into my house and/or threatening my life or the lives of my family, I don’t want them to feel safe, which is the whole point of a deadly weapon. I owe a criminal no consideration except that reserved to them by the law, which means that I cannot murder them.
Again, in the context of this thread, a defensive gun use requires someone to be committing a crime, otherwise there’s nothing to defend against. If you pull your gun and there is no crime being committed, you are the criminal. Is that too obvious a point?
Also, using 100,000 DGUs, they result in 202 justifiable homicides. That is a 0.2% chance a DGU will kill someone. To me that calls into question even the 100,000 number as that seems shockingly low when you are defending yourself with a gun. Using Kleck’s number of 15% of gun shots being fatal there should be 1,350 wounded people.
As cited earlier hospital data has them treating 70,000 people for gun shots in a year.
Something is not adding up right (or we have to suppose that the DGU’s send 1,350 people to the hospital and they criminals are sending 68,650 people to the hospital which would make DGUs a rather unsuccessful venture).
Please show stats showing that televisions are accidentally killing hundreds of people a year.
Ah, I see. Because no one would accidentally shoot a loved one, mistaking them for an intruder.
See above. The ‘defensive’ use of a gun can and does result in the death of someone not committing a crime.
Still want to stand by your ‘guns make me safer’ stance?
Please show statistics that indicate that firearms fire themselves.
An “accidental” shooting requires the negligent use of a firearm. Whether or not they choose to charge you with said crime is up to them, but it is a crime nonetheless.
See my response above.
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.
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. 