Well, one of the studies that study relied upon has been shown to be bogus.
But that study was *“unable to weigh the risk of a violent death against any protective benefits of gun ownership.” * In other words, they only considered risk, not benefits. Since of course risk is increased with many choices, not considering any benefits makes the results worthless.
As that study concluded “Much of the debate in the literature has focused on the risks and benefits of gun ownership in terms of lives saved versus lives harmed. Studies of defensive gun use suggest that millions of defensive gun use incidents occur each year by people to protect themselves or their property against assaults, theft, or break-ins (30, 31). However, guns are also involved in unintentional firearm shootings and domestic altercations in the home and are the primary method used in suicides in the United States (1, 32). The body of research to date, including the findings of this study, shows a strong association between guns in the home and risk of suicide. The findings for homicide, while showing an elevated risk, have consistently been more modest. They suggest a need for more research to better distinguish the risk and protective factors associated with guns in the home, including an examination of the risk posed by forces both internal and external to the home.”
So, the study didnt control for protective benefits and they found the additional risk for homicides to be “modest”. I concede there is a add’l risk for suicide.
But I do agree: “a need for more research to better distinguish the risk and protective factors associated with guns in the home,…”
It was published in 2004, but used data from 1993 - near the apex of violent crime. The study also fails to perform any analysis on beneficial aspects of firearm possession so it’s pretty laughable to consider this a view that weighs costs and benefits if that’s what you’re trying to do.
And speaking to specific risk or not which is a pretty lame way to do analysis since if there is a firearm injury or death then necessarily there was a firearm present, but this study actually showed that if you live alone and are age 35 or younger there is a risk reduction with a firearm in the home (table 4). I don’t put much stock in this or any of the data since the rest of it appears fatally flawed.
Not exactly. Statistics on whether it is more dangerous on a universal level to have a saw, ladder, swimming pool, ATV or firearm don’t mean much if I want to have such things. If I want to have them to accomplish a task or for recreation, I will evaluate the usefulness and or enjoyment compared to the perceived risks for my own specific situation, and also use them in as safe and careful a manner as I can. I have a ladder to accomplish tasks around the home, and take appropriate care when using it. I have a swimming pool that I use for exercise and recreation, and take appropriate care in use and ownership. I have guns that I own for hunting, recreational shooting and self-defense, and take appropriate care in use and ownership. I really fail to see the “gotcha” that you seem to think you are employing.
I would turn your question around on you. Do you own a motorcycle, ATV, extension ladder or swimming pool? If so, why? They are all potentially or likely to cause injury compared to a household that doesn’t have these items.
As mentioned, these studies do not reflect the many times that guns are used to thwart crime without ever being fired, let alone someone being shot. My father used a handgun to scare away an intruder when I was young. Nobody in my family has injured or killed themselves with a gun. So, yes, in my specific case, having guns has proven to be safer than not having them, but not in a statistical sense that would ever show up in a study that didn’t try to enumerate all of the advantages of having guns. My father was a good guy with a gun who scared off an intruder, and he was no fallacy.
I do not have any of those items due to the risks involved and the fact that I don’t like tall ladders :o
But if I did have a swimming pool, say, and someone asked me “Doesn’t having a pool make your house a little more dangerous?” I would certainly say “Yes it does, but I’m willing to except the risks” instead of a flat out “NO! It’s actually SAFER than not having a pool”