The gun you bought to protect your family, is it more likely to endanger them?

The subject is incorrect. My gun is more likely to protect my family. Yours may not. My family has not been injured but I have twice turned away criminals with it. So my score is 2-0.

Protector protection wrote:

The subject is incorrect. My gun is more likely to protect my family. Yours may not. My family has not been injured but I have twice turned away criminals with it. So my score is 2-0.

Why would you keep living in an area where you need a gun to deter criminals? If you're serious about protecting your family, you'd move them somewhere safe.

Protector protection wrote:

The subject is incorrect. My gun is more likely to protect my family. Yours may not. My family has not been injured but I have twice turned away criminals with it. So my score is 2-0.

Good, so you’re a statistical anomaly. Should public policy be based on statistical anomalies? Let’s apply this logic to tax law - people who make a certain amount less than the average household income pay no income taxes. Maybe we should raise that threshold and base our poverty line on CEOs and NBA players?

whom says the owl wrote:

gayalienshrek123 wrote:

theres an estimated 3 million lives saved annually with a gun.

Estimated by who?

Estimated by gayalienshreck123 one of the most respected researchers on letsrun.com

Truth b told wrote:

It surprises me how many people extremely knowledgeable in gun safety, many even training others, have family members harmed by guns.

Just an anecdote, but I actually know someone affected by this. I read in the local paper maybe a decade ago that some young boy (2-4 yo?) accidently killed himself playing with his father's gun a couple blocks from where I lived. I recognized the dad's name - he used be an ex-housemate of mine (before he had the kid) who worked as a private security guard. The death must be one of the 38 accidental shooting deaths of children in 15 years in Alaska that were counted in this article. One of the dead included the son of a state trooper.

The whole problem with this issue is it quickly degenerates into a pro versus anti gun lobby battle with each side taking an extreme view. This leads to the situation where responsible gun owners (the ones who keep their guns unloaded and locked up) find themselves defending the irresponsible gun owners (the Rambo types who need a gun in every room, fully loaded with a high capacity magazine with one in the chamber and the safety off in case a dozen bad guys suddenly burst through the door). The 2nd Amendment soon gets brought up as justification for any behavior regarding gun ownership.

If the debate moved to a pro responsible /anti irresponsible debate then there would probably be a consensus and a workable solution. But this would require groups deeply involved in the issue, such as the NRA to agree that irresponsible gun ownership is a problem.

No, public policy shouldn’t be based on anomalies. Owning a gun, free speech, freedom of religion, these things are God given rights that can’t be taken away by the Government. That is the law of the land.

doctorj wrote:

So do knives.

I get your drift pal, you don't like guns, many of us do, so be it. Your opinion is just that, and hurtfully for you, not going to change the Constitution either.

I didn't read the thread as an effort to change the Constitution.

I read it as a warning that if you bought a gun for protection then you would be more likely to endanger yourself or your family with it than protect them with it.

And that seems statistically true.

I don't know how often people accidentally knife themselves but agree they also don't often use a knife to protect themselves.

But they are useful for cutting steak and preparing food to cook with.

Nice data mining, Mr. NRA wrote:

Breaking News wrote:

No reasonable person or responsible gun owner would fault you for that. Gun ownership is most definitely not for everyone. Respect for knowing yourself and being honest.

It’s really sad to see the pathetic unidimensional straw manning of a complex topic and lack of good faith effort exercised by the anti-gun contingent with regard to such a complex and multivariate issue. What is obvious is that those opposed to gun ownership really seem to derive substantial moral superiority, or at least satisfaction, from a carelessly (or deliberately..) narrow swath of information without ever truly entertaining the possibility that their own misunderstanding, biases or fear more than likely overrides their “reasoning.”

But you do you, as they say.

How many boards are you monitoring right now, lobbyist?

Just this one. I appreciate the compliment.

The rest of this thread ?

Raddison wrote:

If the debate moved to a pro responsible /anti irresponsible debate then there would probably be a consensus and a workable solution. But this would require groups deeply involved in the issue, such as the NRA to agree that irresponsible gun ownership is a problem.

I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, there are a ton of very wealthy people out there who make their living by riling up Rambo gun owners and anti-gun fearmongers. It's hard to have a rational discussion when heavyweight influencers pump ridiculous amounts of money into media outlets. And, of course, most people prefer emotional prejudice to rational discussion anyway.

God Given Rights wrote:

No, public policy shouldn’t be based on anomalies. Owning a gun, free speech, freedom of religion, these things are God given rights that can’t be taken away by the Government. That is the law of the land.

For real. Good Lord Baby Jeebus explicitly promises all of those things to every American in the Book of Yeehaw, Chapter 4 verse 20.

Ruppolini wrote:

Protector protection wrote:

The subject is incorrect. My gun is more likely to protect my family. Yours may not. My family has not been injured but I have twice turned away criminals with it. So my score is 2-0.

Why would you keep living in an area where you need a gun to deter criminals? If you're serious about protecting your family, you'd move them somewhere safe.

I'm sure that the family referenced below thought they were safe. Lot of good it did them, if so. Murder however in many cases is a random event (except perhaps in the gang world), the only way to mitigate the threat is to be vigilant and prepared.....and trained. One does not want to become Dr. Petit, or any member of his family. At least having a firearm handy and being trained to use it..........MIGHT have tipped the balance more towards survival. We will never know. As far as suicide goes...........unfortunately I have known a number of people, including my brother who committed it. Three by hanging, one by CO inhalation, one by knife. One via firearm. Another (former RN employee of mine who had just gotten married), unknown to me. Not likely via firearm however. While suicide by firearm is the leading cause, my observation is that someone intent on ending their life will do so by any means possible. So the argument that by reducing firearms in the home one will reduce the suicide rate falls on deaf ears.

tarckstar wrote:

If I have an unloaded gun in a safe in one part of the house, and ammo in a same in another part of the house, how does this protect me in the event of a home instrusion? Will the intruder wait for me while I gather my gun and ammo?

I'll bank on my dogs, thanks.

Hey, trackstar, I just wanted to let you know that your family is far more likely to be bitten by your dogs than to be protected by them. With 4.7 million dog bites occurring in the US each year, 800,000 of which require medical attention, you might want to consider the risk of bringing those dogs into your home.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

While suicide by firearm is the leading cause, my observation is that someone intent on ending their life will do so by any means possible. So the argument that by reducing firearms in the home one will reduce the suicide rate falls on deaf ears.

I hear what you are saying but it seems so easy to shoot yourself on impulse.

The other methods of suicide take more commitment.

You think the suicide rate would be unchanged if those that shot shot themselves did not have access to a gun?

I know many would find another method but you think all of them would?

Also if you don't own a car the chances of you dying in a car crash go way down. We should all get rid of our cars!

L L wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

While suicide by firearm is the leading cause, my observation is that someone intent on ending their life will do so by any means possible. So the argument that by reducing firearms in the home one will reduce the suicide rate falls on deaf ears.

I hear what you are saying but it seems so easy to shoot yourself on impulse.

The other methods of suicide take more commitment.

You think the suicide rate would be unchanged if those that shot shot themselves did not have access to a gun?

I know many would find another method but you think all of them would?

I do. But thats just my opinion. I don't believe there is any data to back it up, for obvious reasons. Most suicides typically are thought out solutions for problems that one thinks they have no control over. Where I live, there are many more people that take their own lives by jumping of one of the many high bridges in the state, then by firearms.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

L L wrote:

I hear what you are saying but it seems so easy to shoot yourself on impulse.

The other methods of suicide take more commitment.

You think the suicide rate would be unchanged if those that shot shot themselves did not have access to a gun?

I know many would find another method but you think all of them would?

I do. But thats just my opinion. I don't believe there is any data to back it up, for obvious reasons. Most suicides typically are thought out solutions for problems that one thinks they have no control over. Where I live, there are many more people that take their own lives by jumping of one of the many high bridges in the state, then by firearms.

What state do you live in? And how big is the disparity between jumping off a bridge suicides and gun suicides?

Comparing dogs to guns is silly. The vast majority of dog bites aren't fatal - usually 35-40 people die from dog attacks every year in the US. You're more likely to die driving to the pound to adopt a dog than you are to die from a dog attack.

Meanwhile, gun deaths are orders of magnitude more common (30k/yr as opposed to 30/year).

And gunshots are much more likely to be fatal than dog bites - e.g. in 2010, 73k people went to the ER with nonfatal gunshots, while 31k died from gunshots. Obviously the context matters here, because it would be foolish to say that all gunshots are equal. You're much more likely to die from mugging or suicide attempt than you are to die from an accidental firearm discharge. But the point still stands.

It's easy to live without a gun. It's difficult to live without a car unless you live in a major metro area and/or are unemployed and have a magical machine in your house that provides you with food/clothing/etc. Cars are also impossible to hide, have a higher cost of acquisition, have an extensive licensing and insurance process, and are subject to police activity while operating.

"A total of 48.0% of the participants were impelled by sudden inclinations to attempt suicide."

So it seems pretty evenly split between impulsive and non-impulsive.

Where would that be? Regardless, suicide by firearm is far more convenient than jumping off a bridge, and I'd argue that it's the role of public health officials to make suicide as difficult as possible.

what did it cost? wrote:

CrackStar wrote:

Hey, trackstar, I just wanted to let you know that your family is far more likely to be bitten by your dogs than to be protected by them. With 4.7 million dog bites occurring in the US each year, 800,000 of which require medical attention, you might want to consider the risk of bringing those dogs into your home.

https://www.caninejournal.com/dog-bite-statistics/

Comparing dogs to guns is silly. The vast majority of dog bites aren't fatal - usually 35-40 people die from dog attacks every year in the US. You're more likely to die driving to the pound to adopt a dog than you are to die from a dog attack.

I informed trackstar of the risk he was incurring by keeping dogs in his home. Where did I compare dogs to guns, crackwagon? Now that you mention it, though, he is more likely to be bitten by his dogs than he is to be shot by a gun.

CrackStar wrote:

I informed trackstar of the risk he was incurring by keeping dogs in his home. Where did I compare dogs to guns, crackwagon?

Oh I'm sorry, I just assumed you were comparing the two given that you posted about the risk of owning a dog in a thread about guns in response to a point about the risk of owning a gun.

Now that you mention it, though, he is more likely to be bitten by his dogs than he is to be shot by a gun.

Are you suggesting that gunshots and dog bites have the same outcome? Or are you going to say "lol I wasn't implying that you crackwagon."