Well, that parts easy. Since we’re faced with a whole lot of estimates I figured hey, we’ll just go with the very low end, from sources amenable to the opposite side of this argument.
Here’s what RAND corporation had to say In their analysis;
2018 RAND Corporation report, which stated that the Kleck-Gertz estimate of 2.5 million DGUs per year, and other similar estimates, “are not plausible given other information that is more trustworthy, such as the total number of U.S. residents who are injured or killed by guns each year.” The same report also stated that “At the other extreme, the NCVS estimate of 116,000 DGU incidents per year almost certainly underestimates the true number,” concluding that “… there is still considerable uncertainty about the prevalence of DGU”.
And since we have 132000 perpetrators killed or wounded in a single year, which is not an estimate but a hard fact, it’s pretty safe to say the dgu estimate of 100,000 is generously called conservative.
Especially after you consider that even the latimes and Washington Post tell us that only a small percent of dgu’s actually involve wounding or killing a perpetrator.
Quote;
NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year.
So if you’d rather we could go with 765,000
1million
2.5million
Those are all in between the unreasonably low number and the unreasonably high number.
I’m not sure why you’re complaining that i went with the lowest number most amenable to your position.
Defensive gun use is an unsatisfactory metric for measuring anything really. You can’t prove that the same results would not have been achievable with other methods. It seems to be a talking point for people who want to distract you from the absolute truth that more guns in your area mean more likelihood of you prematurely dying by gunshot.
In my country (where guns are not banned, but tightly regulated) any “defensive use” would be front-page news. I cannot imagine a modern society where there is so much casual violence that it has become normal to wave your gun around without having to file a report to the police afterwards.
Is the US really that violent? Is it really normal to threaten a would-be assailant with a deadly weapon? Shouldn’t those incidents be reported? Does anyone else think it is weird that those incidents aren’t reported?
To answer the OP:
What would you do since you dont[sic] own a firearm?
I do not know. The scenario is so far from my reality that I haven’t considered it. My house was burgled twice with me (and my wife) sleeping in it. I would imagine that when they would have woken me somehow I could have cleared my throat and sent him/her running. I don’t fantasize about confronting the burglar. in fact I’m not really bothered about it at all. (I did get better at locking up). I cannot imagine allowing a firearm (without a police officer attached) into my house.
In my anecdotal experience over the last decade the only person to have his home burglarized was a gun owner. In fact, they went in there because they were heroin kids and they wanted to steal his guns. Wait until single dad leaves home, walk out with the guns. (He came home as they were leaving and actually had one of his own guns pointed at him.)
And in my personal experience during that same decade, nobody I know that has a barking dog at home was burglarized. Woof.
In that case the police shouldn’t have them either right?
After all, they could face down criminals just as effectively without them.
More guns might increase your likely hood of dying by gunshot, just as states with oceans have more shark attacks, but it doesn’t increase your likely hood of premature death, at all, in fact states with the least guns have the highest violent crime rates and highest homicide rates.
So the correlation is not causal.
But your right, it doesn’t need to be measured statistically, just as any right doesn’t have to be qualified with statistics.
Your right to vote doesn’t depend on how many people use it.
This is great debates though, so if we just wanted only feelings and opinions it’s better suited to imho.
The high gun-registration states per the first page (Arkansas, New Mexico, D.C.) all have high homicide rates per the other page. (Except Wyoming which does not appear at all on the homicide page.) The low gun-registration states (Rhode Island, Delaware, Massachusetts, etc.) have the lowest homicide rates. Pray tell, how did you read the table to conclude the opposite?
(That’s assuming that the cbsnews page is meaningful — it starts with the disclaimer that its figures do “not include categories like pistols, which make up a large percentage of the guns in the U.S. As such, the total numbers of guns in each state would actually be much higher than the figures here.”)
Yeah, you’re right , in fact the cbs one is only listing 1934 act firearms , so full autos and sawed off shotguns and such, oops.
Here ya go.
Top 5 tx,FL,ca,va,pa
All some of the lowest homicide rates.
While DC has the highest despite being near last in gun numbers.
Admittedly , there are flaws in the numbers here too, for instance ND is listed very low, but that’s due to low registration, not low ownership.
But still, correlation is so all over the place you can’t reach a solid conclusion except that ownership and homicides do not go hand in hand and In fact favor higher ownership correlating to lower homicide rates in most cases.
The only real correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths is suicide. However again, suicide rates overall don’t change consistently, just the method being more often guns in places with easy access.
I think Littleman basically has you here, for all your flailing. Accidental harm from guns isn’t orders of magnitude more than from dogs, especially if you count real harm done in the gigantically larger number of dog bites which aren’t fatal or nearly so, even giving those cases a much lower weighting in the tally. But it’s not zero impact to be bitten by a dog and require stitches, especially a kid (mental trauma) or anyone where it’s your face.
Likewise you can train (most*) dogs not to be a danger to people, besides which some dogs are highly disinclined to hurt people even in an untrained state*. But you can also deal with guns in the house such that the risk of a tragic accident is essentially zero.
The parallel problem in both cases is that a lot of people don’t. Improper treatment and management (training, lack of spay/neuter, etc) of dogs by people is the overwhelming reason for dog bites. Improper handling of guns by people is the overwhelming reason for gun accidents.
*I think it would have been very hard to train our recent dog to not be friendly to everyone, part of her nature. And I doubt she got a lot of training in that while being used to breed fighting dogs before she came to us. That was just her. OTOH it was also just her to be a menace to other dogs, though probably also her previous experiences. We wouldn’t have counted on anyone’s claim to train her otherwise, she was just kept out of reach of other dogs her whole life. And some individual dogs can’t be trusted around people, no matter what people say about training. However in general the issue isn’t dogs, it’s how individual people manage dogs, and this is pretty much in parallel with the danger it poses to have a gun in the house, depends greatly on the owners and their actions
DC has the highest homicide rates and one of the lowest numbers of gun ownership.
The top 5 in gun ownership are some of the lowest rates in homicides.
Here’s a quote from the genius behind the impossibly low estimate if DGUs (David hemenway);
It is sometimes claimed that guns are particularly beneficial to potentially weaker victims, such as women. Yet of the more than 300 sexual assaults reported in the surveys, the number of times women were able to use a gun to protect themselves was zero.
So we’re supposed to conclude what, women are incapable of DGU?
Or that 100 percent of women in the surveys who did use a gun defensively were not sexually assaulted.
Referring to your first link (cbsnews), D.C. is shown with the 2nd HIGHEST rate of gun registration, behind only Wyoming. That’s Highest with an H.
BTW, those two first cites of yours were unusually amateurish. The cbsnews site expected me to click 51 times to see all 51(*) states. If you really want people to heed your stat, find a non-amateurish official source, post the link and write “this is my last and final link on the topic.”
Maybe your underlying point has some validity. But if the game is Whack-a-Cite, I’m not playing!
ETA: One thing was quite clear from the 2nd cite (map) you offered. The high gun homicide states were strongly correlated with the Trump-voting good 'ol boys states, often associated with gun nuttery.
Littleman has tossed his goal posts all the place in this thread, has misused and misquoted cites, has ignored any posts that he found to be inconvenient, and also has a tendency to not actually quote what he is responding to, so it is difficult to understand what he is even trying to argue. I have been consistent in my observation of the reality that dogs kill a total of a couple dozen people a year, while guns kill several times that of just children just from accidents.
He is trying to claim that dogs are more dangerous than guns, and everything that he has used to try to shore up his claim has proven him wrong.
He has cherry picked stats that he wants to use, and even with those cherry picked stats, he has not proven his case. I take it that you are with him in advocating that children should have easy access to a means of suicide, as you agree with him that children commiting suicide by gun is not something that you are willing to take into consideration when you consider the dangers of having a gun in your home.
Any “flailing” you see is part of your motivated imagination. Dog fatalities total for all reasons in all situations, are 20 or so a year. It requires much flailing and motivated reasoning to try to compare that number to any number involved with guns.
First, you have to say that uses of guns in crimes shouldn’t count, because reasons. I know why you don’t want to count them, because they go up against a big 0 for dogs, but the justification for not counting them is some seriously motivated reasoning on the part of gun advocates. I know you guys don’t like to count suicide, but I have laid out my reasons on several occasions as to why suicide is actually a bad thing that is increased by the prevalence of guns, but you refuse to even acknowledge child suicide that is facilitated by access to having a gun in the home.
All of this is some serious motivated reasoning and flailing to try to get a 5 digit number down to a number that is only multiples higher.
As the vast majority of those dog bites require a bandaid and some neosporin, and are only seen be a medical professional because everyone says that you should see a doctor for a dog bite, your concern of “gigantically larger number of dog bites which aren’t fatal or nearly so” should not be conflated with your example of “bitten by a dog and require stitches, especially a kid (mental trauma) or anyone where it’s your face.”
I got bit by a dog when I was 9. We went to the doctor, who gave us the same medical advice that you can find in any first aid kit or online now (internet wasn’t really a thing back then). No stitches, no trauma, just a wound that was a little less painful and traumatizing then the wounds that I would get on a regular basis falling off my bike or a out of a tree.
And unlike a gun, if your dog leaves your possession, it will retain its training to not hurt anyone. Unlike a dog, if you are trying to make a point to your kids about dog safety, and you point your dog at your kid and pull the trigger, it doesn’t shoot them in the head like a gun does.
And yeah, you can deal with guns in the house. But, many people don’t. They leave them out where kids can get to them. They “hide” them in the couch cushions or under the bed. Unless they are actually locked up in a safe to which the kids cannot get access, then the guns are a danger to your family.
And I’m for requiring people to get licenses and training before they can own a dog, and not only for the safety of the people and their community, but for the safety and health of the dog as well. I have expressed this in most dog threads that I have participated in. Requiring this would dramatically decrease the already very low number of severe dog injuries or fatalities.
However, gun advocates are against requiring licenses or training before owning a firearm, even though doing so would reduce the number of gun injuries and fatalities.
Difference is, is that I cannot conceal my dog. I cannot use my dog to hold up a bank or a gas station. I cannot use my dog in a drive by. I suppose you could use your dog for a home invasion, but has that actually ever happened?
My dog will not get taken out of my purse by my toddler in walmart and shoot someone in the head. If I walk into a Chili’s with my dog strapped to my back, it will not be controversial when the management asks me to leave. I am required to register my dog with the county, and I am responsible for anything that my dog does if it gets out, even if it is a criminal who lets it out.
And finally, you and he are comparing a 2 digit number to a 5 digit number, and trying to say that they are pretty much the same, or even that the two digit number is scarier than the 5 digit.
Are you really taking the side dogs are more dangerous than guns?
If I made that claim, quote it.
Oh wait, I didn’t, you’re arguing with a strawman created by exaggerating my claim.
All the while backing up your argument with nothing but your own opinions.
Btw we weren’t talking about overall crimes involving guns , just the risk vs benefit of having one for defense. Specifically the risk of accidents to children.
Just in case we are though, yet again, numbers of guns don’t correlate to numbers of homicides or violent crimes.
Guess we have to take the hard route and look at actual complex causal factors instead of the simple scary scapegoat of gun ownership.
First off, that’s a suspiciously round number for a specific and precise fact. Second off, my google-fooey is tested. Closest I could find was a reference in Wiki. So, where did you get that “hard fact”?
As well,…“perpetrators”? Were these people tried for the potential crime? Or is that your own assessment? Putting a little spin on the ball?
