I’m unfamiliar with Mustard and Kleck, but wasn’t John Lott discredited many years ago?
The American Rifleman magazine has a page every month with stories of armed citizens successfully defending themselves, usually against home invasion and/or burglary. They cite sources, I have no reason to believe they are not true.
They also have a blog.
That stuff is swell till you consider:
How are those related issues?
He is providing anecdotal evidence of people successfully defending themselves with firearms.
I am noting that while that is part of the equation it is also part of the equation to note that, statistically, firearms in the home pose more danger to the families that possess them than the criminals they want to protect themselves from are.
The police called. Your Freshman Comp 101 instructor is on a ledge, threatening to jump.
What I mean is, I don’t think you can validly talk about the efficacy of firearms for self defense and firearms that kill / injure people in household accidents, homicides, and suicides. They aren’t intrinsically linked, by my reckoning. A firearm could be a great self defense tool but still very dangerous to have in the home–in fact that is what firearms are. Maybe I’m reading too much into your response to control-z, but it seemed like to me your statistics about accidents, homicides, and suicides was offered up as some sort of “counterpoint” to the self defense argument.
Counterpoint only inasmuch as I do not think the two should be separated.
One could say (totally made up number here) that people who own guns protect themselves 1000 times a day from criminals.
That would be a compelling reason to get a firearm.
However, it is also relevant to the discussion to also note (and again also totally made up number here for example purposes) that 5000 times a day gun owners somehow manage to shoot themselves or get shot by a family member by accident.
Without context the first number alone suggests you are safer having a gun and that is not necessarily the case.
If the OP wanted firm numbers and no discussion of the broader issue this should be in GQ.
So are you making the argument that firearms are effective self-defense tools but the danger of having them in the home outweighs any benefit?
Life is full of tradeoffs.
Maybe someone likes to race cars. It is dangerous but they think it is a risk worth taking.
To each their own.
One should be cognizant of both the pros and the cons to a given course of action. After that you are free to make up your mind.
It does seem however that, statistically speaking, a gun in the home puts you and your family in more danger than it protects you from. That said maybe you live in a high crime area and that assessment changes. Or other factors may apply.
It just seems prudent to be aware of all the factors impacting the choice (or at least as much as is practicable) and make a considered choice.
Knowing that guns can both protect you and your family and put it at risk go hand-in-hand. Doubtless many people are aware of that but I believe also that many probably do not think about it that way.
Two caveats however: first, the number of times a gun is fired in self-defense doesn’t cover the number of times that brandishing or threatening to use a gun deterred an assailant. Or even more broadly, given that it’s public knowledge that many, many homes have guns in them, how many people think better of even trying to burglarize or invade a home? Here’s how one study put it (the term “instrumentality” is used to refer to the theory that the presence of guns leads to crimes and deaths that would otherwise not have happened):
And secondly, one has to presume that the reported criminal assaults and homicides includes a number (perhaps a substantial number) due to the activities of career criminals such as gang members and drug dealers, who will be little deterred by gun control laws or even the absence of firearms.
(Missed edit window). The point I wanted to make was that everything can’t be reduced to statistics, because statistics takes as a given that casual factors are distributed effectively at random. Applied to firearms, it ignores that some people, and some classes of people, seem to have little misuse of firearms and others seem to have much more. This leads to what I’ve termed the “naive epidemiological model” of guns, where guns are treated as a vector of injury and death.
Very, very few gun owners carry with the intent to be Wyatt Earp. They pay the money and they take the training course because they want to be able to defend themselves, not because they want to be SuperCop. Very erroneous misconception on your part.
I’d agree, but I liken it to chainsaws. There are something like 30,000 chainsaw injuries every year. The vast majority, if not almost all of them, can be prevented through appropriate safety procedures and an understanding of how to properly use what is potentially an extremely dangerous tool. That being said, situations in which you need a chainsaw, it’s vastly more effective than most of the available alternatives.
Guns are dangerous, but guns aren’t random machines of death. Some things in life you can only do so much to protect yourself. For example if you drive a car there is always a chance that some extremely negligent driver takes you out, even if you’re taking all the proper precautions. But guns, like chainsaws, through proper storage, safety, and usage you can meaningfully reduce your chance of being part of those accident statistics.
Suicide is a different thing, I don’t even think it’s really that fair to lump them in with suicides. Suicide rates, at least from what I’ve seen country to country, are not correlated with gun ownership rates. There are means of quick and relatively painless self-destruction that people who do not have guns can employ.
Homicide, as in your spouse using your gun to kill you, is obviously something you can’t reduce your chance of through proper gun safety and ownership. But the accidents are not random or unpredictable. Guns are insanely safe from a mechanical point, they don’t just “go off” and they almost never fail in a way that kills the user (chainsaws are probably more likely to have a mechanical fault kill a user than a gun.) So truly adhering to gun safety rules can almost erase your chances of killing yourself or a loved one in a gun accident.
Yeah but the statistics tell the story.
To me it is akin to everyone thinking they are a good driver and it is all the other assholes who get it wrong and cause problems.
Clearly there are a lot of goofs who do not do their due diligence to be safe. Many gun owners are very careful and cognizant of safety yet, obviously with the statistics, many aren’t. And sometimes even with the most careful people shit happens.
Bottom line is the statistics speaks for itself. There are abundant opportunities for people to learn and practice firearm safety yet many do not (that or firearm safety classes are bullshit and do not work but I do not believe that).
Seems to me while the NRA (to name one organization) provide lots of firearm education they will never support making owning a firearm contingent upon passing a class in firearm safety.
It’s be akin to allowing anyone a drivers license and only hoping they took some road safety classes.
I had a close friend commit suicide by sucking on a gun. I can never know for sure but after lots of grieving and discussions with other close friends of his our opinion is absent that gun he’d be here with us today (inasmuch as we believe the gun was handy in a moment of weakness and absent that he would not have found another means).
I agree this one is hard to pin down. Some people mean to kill themselves and will not be denied. If a gun is handy they will use that. Absent a gun they will find other means and instead of being a gun suicide statistic they’d be an other form of statistic.
Nevertheless, if a gun is not handy, there are some who would not manage it (has to be…maybe one…maybe lots…I have no idea).
I know having dark moments is something most people I have talked to about this have experienced. Those darkest hours of the night and a point in your life where the world seems to be crashing in on you and the future seems hopeless. Miserable times yet most of us get past it and learn we can get through it.
Personally I know I am glad a gun was not handy in those moments. I am NOT a suicidal person but I shudder to think what I might have opted for in those bleakest of moments. I am very happy that wasn’t there and got through it. One tiny sliver of time with a gun and an irrevocable decision while depressed and I would not be here to annoy some Dopers.
TL;DR version: A gun handy when you are feeling really depressed and suicidal offers an all too easy means to see it done. Most times it is irrevocable.
When it comes to crimes of passion is where I think having a gun handy really causes problems. Beating, choking, stabbing and whatnot are distinctly more personal ways of ending someone. Certainly people do those things but a gun is so much more efficient and less “hands on” (not sure how else to put it) that makes it attractive and something “easier” to use (easier as in more willing to use than other options to kill someone).
There was one time in my life if I had a gun I am almost certain I would have used it. I was being chased by four guys in a car (I was in a car too with two female friends). Long story but it was kind of an epic chase and more than a little dangerous at many points. I finally got stuck and they got out of the car and came at me. In the end there was a lot of yelling and threats but it ended with them breaking one of my windows and tearing my antenna off.
If I had a gun I would have pulled it. Turned out well enough in the end but no way for me to know that it would. I would have been defending myself and righteously so. If I had a gun handy several people would have been shot that night.
I wonder how far someone with a gun on them will try to resolve the situation before pulling the gun. No gun and (per force) they will have to work harder and longer at a peaceful resolution. With a gun they are more likely to be belligerent and escalate knowing they have an ace in the hole.
Sans weapons fights happen and bloody noses ensue. Have a gun handy and will you accept a bloody nose or pull the gun?
The difference is that a chainsaw and a car each perform a task, and so we decide how much we value that task (i.e firewood and getting around) and consider if that justifies the risk. With guns (in the context of self defense), reducing the risk of violent death IS the task they perform. Talking about the extent to which they CAUSE the violent death of their owners isn’t just the usual “benefit vs. risk” discussion, but gets to the root of whether guns are actually effective self-defense tools or not.
Right, but that’s not the point. The point is if you choose you can significantly reduce how dangerous a gun is in your house. Aggregate statistics are fine for some reasons, but for an individual person trying to decide if they want a gun in their home, they can only go so far. If someone is committed to owning that gun responsibly then the statistics, which include vast numbers of people who do not practice safe gun ownership, are not really very relevant.
That’s political, and seems out of line with the intent of this thread.
To quote you, statistics don’t lie. I checked on suicide rate per capita for country after our earlier exchange. A lot of countries with vastly lesser gun ownership than the United States have significantly higher suicide rates than us. In the aggregate, I do not believe guns can be blamed for suicides. Sure, in the individual/anecdotal case they can be, but someone who really wants to die will find a way.
Yes, guns are definitely used to lethal effect in crimes of passion where no killing would have happened otherwise. But it takes us full circle now, I’m not sure what any of that has to with whether or not guns are frequently used for self defense.
Self defense is defending yourself from a criminal or someone who intends to do you harm. For those purposes that same tool being used to by people who want to off themselves or people who use the tool improperly and accidentally kill themselves just doesn’t seem all that relevant to me.
Can you provide cites?
Different countries have vastly different gun laws making guns anywhere from ubiquitous to very difficult to obtain. Not to mention some countries are real shit holes where people may be more prone to wanting to off themselves to escape not to mention some societies are somewhat cooler with suicide (e.g Japan has a very high suicide rate…far higher than the US…but low gun ownership compared to the US).
Again…noting the number of times guns are used for self defense is meaningless by itself.
I imagine if I had a tiger as a house pet no one would ever fuck with me. Better than having a gun when it comes to home protection.
I also think having a tiger around poses a bigger threat to me and my family than the off chance the tiger will save me from a home invader.
Why? I just googled “suicide rate by country”, can you not do the same? It’ s fatuous to pretend we both have huge books full of this information, I researched it as I went along, no reason you shouldn’t do the same. As you have noted about Japan (and as is true for other countries), suicide rates do not correlate especially with gun ownership.
But that is the actual topic of the thread, whether guns are used for self defense regularly or not. The fact that guns are used for other purposes doesn’t undermine the data on self defense, primarily because self defense is self defense, murder and suicide are murder and suicide. You don’t have to intrinsically link them, and shouldn’t.