I will concede that point. The two groups (gun owners and CCW/CHL/whatever) are not one in the same. However, you can draw a correlation between the two groups. Persons with a CCW likely have a gun in their ownership, if not on their person, and so you can look at those stats.
Lawful gun owners, who do not have carry permits, and live in states without Constitutional Carry laws, likely are not carrying their weapons. But… unfortunately, I can’t find statistics to back that up.
It isn’t comparing the gun to anything at all; it is comparing the likelihood of hurting a loved one to the likelihood of hurting an assailant. You are just trying to misdirect the debate by willfully misinterpreting this statistic.
Perhaps they should wear diminutive yellow penises instead. Women gunners can wear large yellow penises.
That’s still the same statistic. I don’t understand where you think I’m confusing thing.
Look. I have kitchen knives, nice one. I use them all the time. They are more likely to cut me than an assailant. I have a tv in my apartment. It’s more likely to be watched by me than anyone else.
Any item that is owned by one person is more likely to be used by that person. Any item that is used by that one person has a potential for hurting them more than other people. It is just a matter of fact. My gun has a higher chance of hurting me than someone it’ll never come into contact with. What I can do is mitigate the risks by following safety measures.
I’m not really sure where you think I’m misunderstanding this statistic.
I think that a cost/benefit analysis might be part of the discussion here. When you watch television, there isn’t much in the way of a deficit when it comes to your health, and the benefit is enjoyment. When you use kitchen knives, you are much more likely(I hope) of having a benefit(freshly sliced veggies, fruits and meats) than a deficit(freshly sliced finger). Using this method, how would you judge the costs vs. the benefits of owning a gun?
Well, so far it hasn’t cost me anything, and so far it’s been a great benefit. So… I’d judge it rather well.
Goes to show why that may not be as reliable as previously sited.
Guns in the home largely pose no threat without the intent to cause injury. If they’re kept in proper storage, and safety rules are followed, then you’re mitigating the threats you claim.
The site has old statistics, but I don’t think they’d hardly be changed about the usage of guns in self-defense.
Here’s the source for that: Pulpless.Com, Inc. Central Vortex
And this has a relatively conservative guess on gun used for self defense: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
I’d say I’ll take my chances and keep my gun.
I claimed no threats when it came to guns-I asked you how the results panned out when you do a cost/benefit analysis for gun ownership.
I suppose I’m confused on what you want me to quantify.
Since I don’t know exactly what numbers you’re using as a data set.
However, as previously stated. In my personal experience, there has been a rather large benefit to gun ownership, and no negatives.
Your personal stats are positive? Good.
OK, now, I’m generally pro gun control, but, do you see that you’re coming across as someone who finds it a terrifying threat that some unknown other person has a gun at all?
This is a deceptive opinion article. For example:
Complete straw man, unfair to both sides. Everyone acknowledges this. Do I even have to provide links to prove it?
That severely distorts Harvard Public Health Professor David Hemenway’s critique, which can be read here:
http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf
Hemenway does say that the National Crime Victimization Survey takes measures to “reduce ‘telescoping’” (page 8 of above link). But he does not say that the measures actually worked. Instead, Hemenway concludes that the surveys of defensive gun use don’t show anything. This is because of problems inherent to surveying people about rare events.
Hemenway’s argument is difficult to summarize. But if even 1.4 percent of all respondents simply misunderstood the question, and gave the wrong yes/no answer as to whether or not they had brandished a gun to protect against crime, the actual number of annual protective events, in the US, could range anywhere from 2,500,000 down to zero. It’s true that the 1.4 percent comes out of thin air, which Hemenway acknowledges. The subtle point is that the number of people in any survey who give a mistaken or wrong answer to a yes/no question is most plausibly higher than that. So, surveying large numbers of people about rare events doesn’t work.
Your link goes on to state:
But the link in the above just obfuscates the issue by dismissing Hemenway’s arguments* and calling for more research that will be useless – because of the impossibility of surveying people about rare events.
To sum up:
The debate is all over the place now, I probably contributed to that, so I’ll just answer this for now as it seems to be the distilled point of gun owners.
My 3 year old goes to a preschool with a sign on the door that says firearms are not allowed on the premises. They are legally required to have that to avoid responsibility for someone who thinks it’s ok to carry a firearm into a preschool, without that sign it would be legally ok. That sums up my feeling of where the compromise seems to rest with regard to our legislation of guns in this country, and that’s pathetic.
A friend of mine went through this when his kid was younger. He is a cop. When his wife couldn’t drop the kid off, he would. He had to take his gun out of the holster, lock it in a case, lock the case in his trunk. After taking the kid in he had to reverse the process.
Before the daycare changed the policy, they were fine with him (in uniform) dropping his kid off with his gun holstered.
I don’t think most anti-gun people have more thana foggy notion of what they are trying to stop but they KNOW it has something to do with guns, especially guns that have pistol grips and collapsible stocks.
The guns are already out there in the hands of criminals. So tell me again why I should disarm myself dispite my constitutional right not to do so? If you convinced me that gun violence would end tomorrow if every law abiding gun owner gave up their guns today, I could be swayed but until I see cops running around with billy clubs instead of guns, I’m not going to believe it.
Gun people largely suport background checks. Havent you seen the polls?
Gun owners are in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of felons. haven’t you seen the polls?
Cost benefit is not usually part of the discussion when it comes to constitutional rights, at least not on this board. At least it is not a dispositive analysis. However…
Guns provide fun to the hobbyist, they provide security to people who live in less secure neighborhoods, they provide a means of defense during civil unrest in times without rule of law, they provide a bulwark in the event that some government far in the future turns tyrannical. The downside is 700 accidental/negligent deaths per year. The downside is 18,000 gun suicides per year that might be replaced by 18,000 suicides jumping out of windows or in front of trains (causing significantly more disruption of traffic and commerce). I don’t know of any law that will compel criminals to turn in their guns.
I thought uniformed police could carry their sidarm everywhere.
Circa 2005, suburb of Pittsburgh, policy was no guns. Maybe he was playing them, but he made a show of locking the piece up before taking his kid out of the carseat.
Yet the organizations that ostensibly represent “gun people” succesfully lobbied to defeat legislation to strengthen background checks, polls be damned.
Our laws must be consistent, but you know what, an off duty police officer in uniform carrying a firearm in the open bothers me less than Joe Schmoe concealing his, especially since there are more CCW civilians than police officers, off duty or otherwise.
I graduated high school with some idiots. I graduated college with some idiots. All kinds of fools apply and get legal sanction for all kinds of dangerous stuff. I find that ‘more dangerous stuff, allowed in more places, makes everyone safer’ an impossible argument to defend.
WHAT!?!?! In Pittsburgh? I spend some time in Pittsburgh because a bunch of marines I know ended up there and it seems like everyone walks around strapped in Pittsburgh.
And if you look at the polls after the vote, the NRA members were not very upset upset that the Manchin Toomey bill died. Either because they thought it was part of the whole AWB bullshit or because the AWB made them close to indifferent to the Manchin Toomey bill.
I support universal background checks. Hell I support licensing and registration and the death of the manchin Toomey bill didn’t bother me one bit (it surprised me but it didn’t bother me).
This may have already been said, because I skipped down after getting tired of watching people talk past each other. I apologize in advance if I am being repetitious.
I don’t understand the argument that a known CC holder is more likely to be robbed. Sure, they know the fact that you have at least one gun, and guns have economic value. But they also know that you carry a gun all the time, and are likely really good at using it. I am thus more likely to run into trouble. If I were a criminal, I’d use the list of CC holders to figure out who I shouldn’t try to steal from.
And isn’t that the entire argument for CC? That if a criminal doesn’t know who has a gun, he has to worry that everyone does? And thus everyone is safer because some people can carry concealed weapons?
Yeah, I’m still against publishing such a list, but that’s because I’m afraid for the people who don’t have guns. Privacy has value when sharing information can cause harm. And, while I’d never considered it before, that harm could come to someone other than the person whose privacy is being invaded.
CCW owners are less likely to get robbed while they are at home. But, I generally agree. Getting guns is a silly reasont to rob somenoe’s house right now, you can get a gun for less than $200 on the street.
The reason publishing ccw offends me is that it targets gunowners. In line with the OP, it is an attempt to persecute gun owners in a way.