Thanks Bone, you said it better than I could.
Fair point; I should have characterized the thread as such, not the study itself.
If nothing else, then, even if you disagree with me, that thread answers Lumpy’s question about why I (in lieu of Hentor) disregard such studies.
But here I have to disagree. Lumpy is the one who claims that there are studies that show a “positive [net] impact” of firearm ownership, his words not mine. Epidemiological studies like Kellerman’s directly address the question of whether owning a firearm is a positive or negative net impact on one’s life expectancy. Studies of defensive gun use do not directly address that question, and therefore cannot support his claim. You can disagree all you want but this is a basic fact. Lumpy set the goalposts, I merely threw out the DGU example to ensure that he adhered to them.
Let’s be perfectly clear, then. I’m not looking for evidence of positive outcomes, I’m looking for epidemiological evidence of a positive net benefit. That requires, at a bare minimum, subtracting all of the negative outcomes (including domestic violence, suicide, and accidental shootings) from all of the positive outcomes (defensive gun uses that can reasonably be said to have saved a life). Certainly both of those things exist – accidents happen, and guns are used to save lives. But just as you wouldn’t be satisfied with me linking to a study showing that guns greatly increase the chance of a “successful” suicide attempt as convincing evidence that gun ownership is bad, I likewise won’t accept you linking to a study showing that guns are sometimes used to save lives as evidence that gun ownership is good.
Once again, Lumpy claims that there are studies that show a positive net benefit to gun ownership. His goalposts, not mine.
Defensive gun use would not be necessary if there weren’t so many guns around. Flood the country with guns and people will necessarily have to start using them for defence.
A study that shows that defensive gun use exists is not an argument against gun control. It’s the opposite. It indicates that guns are such a problem that people need to use them for defense. Reduce the number of guns overall and subsequent studies will undoubtedly show reduced cases of defensive use.
Thank you, Bone and Lumpy, for supporting the case for better gun control.
No, Kellerman’s studies do not address the question of whether owning a firearm is a positive or negative net impact on one’s life expectancy. They mostly deal with firearms as an increased risk of suicide or homicide. There is no comparison to the positive impacts because Kellerman doesn’t concede the positive impacts in his studies. They are not the focus of his studies. That’s why I quoted the section from the Obama Administration report:
The goalpost moving is that you’ve stated that any study of DGU is to be disregarded. That condition was not set by Lumpy, hence the goalpost moving.
But here you take the same position you did in the other thread, that the only positive outcomes are those that can be said to have saved a life. Positive outcomes can exist even when a life is not saved. Injury can be avoided, property can be defended, crime can be prevented - all of these things are positive outcomes which you’ve dismissed.
We’re not arguing the validity of any particular study right? Your main contention is the existence of any study that shows these positive outcomes. So if you take the most favorable study, say, 2.5M DGU per year arguendo, that is near 2 orders of magnitude greater than all firearm deaths. It is an order of magnitude greater than firearm deaths and injuries. If those are true, then I’d consider that a net positive. But if you won’t accept anything on the benefit side of the comparison it’s no doubt you draw the conclusions you have.
Then we are at an impasse.
“Net benefit” is a bs reason to crusade against gun rights. Your counting on suicides to bolster your point. I strongly reject the notion of my liberties being limited due to the actions of the troubled or depressed.
You only think DGU applies to defending yourself against someone with a gun?
And this is silly, because you assume I’m a crusader against gun rights. I’m a huge fan of gun rights, I think everyone should be allowed to own a handgun if they want, even for personal protection if they want. For most people, though, I just don’t think the science supports their decision.
And this is entirely Hentor’s point. When faced with the science, the response isn’t, “Well that’s interesting,” it’s to ignore it completely and change the subject to Freedom!
Again, no. The existence of any study that shows a positive net benefit, not any positive outcome. As in, if I, a father of 3, were to go buy a gun and keep it in my house for personal protection, is that a smart thing to do backed up by science.
Your consideration is simply wrong, and you don’t understand science. That’s pretty much what it comes down to.
B.S. A 90-lb woman being threatened by a 200-lb man needs a gun. A person outnumbered 3-1 by attackers needs a gun.
That would make sense if there was a law that says the 90 lb. woman gets a gun but the 200 lb. man doesn’t, or that when a person is outnumber 3 to 1, only the person that is outnumbered is legally entitled to be carrying a weapon.
Yes, but guns still change the equation. To a first approximation, a bullet doesn’t care how big you are; the 90-lb woman and the 200-lb man are now roughly equal. And even with a 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 advantage, the attackers now face a non-zero risk of injury or death, whereas before their numbers made them virtually omnipotent over and invulnerable against their victim. The old saying “predators prefer easy victims” applies here (Unless they’re psychos willing to escalate to gunning down victims and looting the bodies, which would swiftly draw the most draconian of responses).
Despite our “gun culture”, we in fact haven’t yet seen enough people routinely carrying to bestow a herd-immunity deterrence. The closest examples are places where locally the level of legal carry is high, which apparently have dramatically lower crime rates than areas that try (and fail) to eliminate guns. I concede that if it were truly possible for there to be no guns at all (which it isn’t) that would be a workable solution, at least to gun violence (see preceding paragraph). So, imho, would be a situation in which almost everyone routinely carried. Either extreme would work better than our current situation.
And, of course, having a gun makes predation easier for human predators, which is why lax gun laws in the US are matched with high homicide rates, when compared to other wealthy nations.
Gun ownership rates correlate with gun death rates, which will comes as no surprise to people who have experienced reality for extended periods. Your modest proposal for everyone to carry a gun (including felons? schoolkids? prisoners? Fair’s fair, after all) is nothing more than a prescription for an increased firearm homicide rate.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3985396/gun%20ownership%20states.png)
The majority of scientists who study firearm violence agree, of course, because of extensive reality study and experiences.
“I [David Hemenway, a professor with reality credentials from Harvard] also found widespread confidence that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%). Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).”
I can understand how you, as a gun lover, would think a fully-armed populace would be awesome. What I don’t get is how you so casually ignore those who would rather not have a gun. I assume that you, as a lover of freedom, respect their choice to forego guns (which puts them in the majority, by the way). Your hare-brained lunacy would require a majority of people to go against their will. Can you justify that?
If everyone possible is armed, do we develop a herd immunity to gun violence, or do we develop a herd immunity to protection from gun violence?
There’s no equation to change. If both people in a confrontation have guns, all that matters is who shoots first. “A bullet doesn’t care how big you are”, nor does it care who’s right and who’s wrong, yet you’re treating guns like they convey some kind of moral authority.
LOL:D Dead bodies really appreciate “the most draconian of responses” in their name. Go ahead, ask them.
I think the premise is that if the bad guy is aware that two-thirds of the people he meets will be packing, the odds that he will choose an unarmed victim are not very good, hence all those “normal” people out there with guns will extend their statistical mantle of protection over the unarmed pussy weirdos just by changing the overall balance of things. You can get by going without because so many are carrying.
Or it might lead more of the bad guys to start carrying, and you might discover the true ultimate meaning of crossfire.
And, of course, with the odds such as they are, the bad guy might seek to improve his position by stealing a “normal” person’s gun, which should be a pretty likely play. The problem with having a gun for self-defense is that you have to be able to use it: take a sap to the head and your sidearm becomes an instant liability.
Good point. When everyone has guns, no one thinks of the possibility of not having guns. Kind of like these young scamps…
So much snark to dig through…
If 90%+ of all their victims are unarmed, yes. Which was the whole point I’m trying to address.
No wise-ass, no one is proposing that people who aren’t legally responsible or have forfeited their rights be allowed guns.
Snark.
More Snark.
More lying with statistics. I’ll bet that that study made no allowance for the prevalence of guns in the homes of criminals and gang members; and that it only counts “defensive” gun uses if someone actually drew and fired a gun, ignoring the number of times that displaying or simply possessing a gun deterred an assault.
No one’s saying you have to do anything; just don’t demand a veto power over what everyone else does.
As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, all the people inclined to shoot first already have guns; and that would only change if you could make it effectively impossible for people to obtain guns- good luck with that. And if there really were that many marauders out there who would commit murder if their victims didn’t meekly submit, then yes there would be a “draconian response”. Once upon a time we hanged people who murdered in the commission of an armed robbery. Now they get a plea deal for 25-to-life.
Thank you eschereal; even if you don’t agree with me, you at least evince comprehension of what I’m saying.
See my response above. I truly stand agog when people say that we must stay unarmed or the predators will just escalate. If we have that big a predator problem, we need to start culling.
Lumpy’s vision is a fairy tale. Even with the amount of gun violence today, only a tiny fraction of the population is armed in public. For two-thirds of them to start carrying in the open, gun violence would have to be so bad that severe gun control would be necessary or society would collapse.
The arms race between criminals and the law-abiding public is unbalanced by its very nature and always will be. If there were no guns at all, criminals would use whatever weapons they could find to get the upper hand. If the public is armed, they’ll get more guns and bigger guns, or ambush their victims instead of confronting them face-to-face. It’s way too easy to nullify whatever defensive utility a gun has for the average citizen.
The idea that an armed society is a peaceful society is part of the myth that has grown around guns that, astoundingly, confers morality on them. In place of a mythical superhero, it’s the gun that represents Courage and Justice and Patriotism. Gun owners are warriors in the battle for freedom (if anyone thinks that’s hyperbole, those very words were shouted gloriously by an NRA executive at one of their conventions). The myth gives the dullard with a pretend military rifle the moral authority to disregard social standards and guard a recruiting center like he’s defending the Alamo. Arming the public enforces justice because heathen bad guys are no match for the moral righteousness of a little handgun. No wonder they resist gun control so vehemently. In their minds, it’s immoral.
Okay, sorry for the length. I got on a roll.
tldr: guns are God.
I see no particular moral superiority in not being armed. At a minimum it’s abrogating any personal responsibility for one’s defense to a professional warrior caste; who, from the examples given in the Controversial Encounters thread, are hardly shining paladins. At worst it’s squeamish fear or even smug pseudo-pacifism.
I have yet to hear of anyone who accepted any of the “Gun-Free Home” signs being offered for free.