5 ms·

A person and their family are 3x more likely to be shot if they have a gun in their house, so "defence" isn't a great reason to have a gun.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
That doesn't follow. I'm probably much more likely to be electrocuted because my house has electricity, but that doesn't mean electricity doesn't serve its purpose.
- yongjik 7y ago
  On the other hand, nobody argues electricity is an essential human right because you need it to fight electrocution. Guns might serve some purposes in some situations. It's just an incredibly lousy tool for "defending ourselves", with negative utility on average.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > On the other hand, nobody argues electricity is an essential human right because you need it to fight electrocution. Sorry, I didn't know you required an absolutely perfect analogy to understand the point.
  - zepto 7y ago
    “With negative utility on average” - perhaps, but not based on anything stated here. If you have a source, it would help.
    - Retric 7y ago
      “Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death“ https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death Gun ownership has benefits, but safety is not one of them. Much like how most home robberies take place in the day, the perception of safety from gun ownership is at odds with reality. Hell, you are 25% more likely to be robbed in Alaska than New York State.
      - temporaryvector 7y ago
        I think you're confusing safety with self-defense. The argument isn't that guns make you safer, it's that they give you the ability to defend yourself if you are already in an unsafe situation. On average, most people will never be in a situation where they need to defend themselves, thus getting a gun will increase their risk of a self-inflicted wound. Accidents of all kind (not just guns) are much more frequent than violent altercations. But the crux of the matter is not that, the question that needs answering is "If you are already in a situation where your life is at risk from another human being, does having a gun make it better or worse?" We don't actually know the answer to that question, since statistics on defensive usage of guns are pretty bad. Another point to make is that there's an undercurrent of personal responsibility. The danger presented by having a gun in your home is something that can be managed if you are a responsible gun owner, but the risk of violence against your self is not something you can easily control. This is the important part, owning a gun for self defense is not about making you safer, it's about transferring the risk from something you have no control over to something you have some measure of control over. Thus, arguing that owning guns increase your risk of dying from a self-inflicted gunshot wounds holds no weight with people who want to own guns, since it's a fundamental misunderstanding of why one would want to own a gun for self defense.
        Retric 7y ago
        Looking only at a subset of situations is why people play the lottery and generally make sub optimal choices. It’s easy to ignore the odds and support any argument, but it’s a bad habit to get into. That said, feeling more secure is by far the most likely situation. While it’s far safer to leave your house in the event of a home invasion than to confront the robbers. Feeling like you can defend yourself is empowering.
      - read_if_gay_ 7y ago
        Correlation is not causation, that entire article is based on a common fallacy. To name a few counterexamples: 1) Switzerland. Gun ownership is similar to the US but there’s way less crime. 2) Kennesaw, Georgia. Gun ownership is mandatory for every home and crime rates are far lower than in the surrounding counties.
  - briffle 7y ago
    Nobody argues owning a gun is an essential human right. They argue it's a constitutional right.
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      To the contrary, the constitution doesn't grant rights. It protects essential human rights. There's a reason arms are right up there with free speech and privacy.
    - zeveb 7y ago
      > Nobody argues owning a gun is an essential human right. I do — it's a constitutional right because it is a fundamental ('essential') human right. A free citizen (i.e., not a child or prisoner) has a right to wield violence in defense of himself, others and property; to restrict that right (as opposed to restricting unjust exercises of violence) is IMHO fundamentally unjust.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  I'm not sure I'd get electricity installed in my house to help prevent electrocution.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- elil17 7y ago
  Yeah but you can’t use a gun to fry an egg
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Well Ted Cruz says in Texas it's used for cooking bacon. https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/03/429014888/ted-cruz-makes-mmm-machine-gun-bacon?t=1564390138797 https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/03/42901... And here you have a more Soviet styled recipe for eggs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojg_def2mzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojg_def2mzM
- 693471 7y ago
  There isn't an electrocution epidemic
  - whenchamenia 7y ago
    Nor is there one surrounding gun crime, but news is scary no?
    - 693471 7y ago
      I think "gun deaths at their highest rate in 40 years" qualifies https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/chart-of-the-day-us-gun-deaths-skyrocket-driven-by-a-rise-in-suicides/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/chart-of-the-day-us-g...
- stordoff 7y ago
  I'm not sure this analogy really works. Electricity kills as a side-effect of its intended use. If gun ownership makes it more like that you will get shot, it has failed at its intended use (self-defence).
zepto 7y ago
This doesn’t tell us anything about whether having a gun or not is a good idea for self defense. Someone with a >3x greater than average likelyhood of getting shot might bring it down to 3x by having a gun themselves.
ltbarcly3 7y ago
I think you make a great point, but why stop at guns? Each thing should have a list of pro's and con's made for it, and if the con's outweigh the pro's (on average) then we can just make that thing illegal. Probably we should start with television. Sure, people get some enjoyment from owning a TV, but think of how much they aren't exercising. Surely owning a TV dramatically increases the probability you are going to be obese and eventually develop heart disease. You are way more likely to watch a TV if you have a TV in your own house.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  Very interesting! I get your point, making buying things illegal on the basis of the average of their pros and cons is a slippery slope. We should probably allow people to buy and sell whatever they want. Who cares if hitmen murder people, the people demand more hitmen!!! Hitmen can kill people that want to kill me, which makes me feel safe!!! Who cares if my judgement is extremely arbitrary and the hitmen are 3x more likely to shoot me than the people I want killed. Awesome. You've really opened my eyes here. For all the other laws we can evaluate them based uhhhh, not on their pros and cons.
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    > You've really opened my eyes here. Once upon a time, there was a wise Zen master. People traveled from far away to seek his help. In return, he would teach them and show them the way to enlightenment. On this particular day, a scholar came to visit the master for advice. “I have come to ask you to teach me about Zen,” the scholar said. Soon, it became obvious that the scholar was full of his own opinions and knowledge. He interrupted the master repeatedly with his own stories and failed to listen to what the master had to say. The master calmly suggested that they should have tea. So the master poured his guest a cup. The cup was filled, yet he kept pouring until the cup overflowed onto the table, onto the floor, and finally onto the scholar’s robes. The scholar cried “Stop! The cup is full already. Can’t you see?” “Exactly,” the Zen master replied with a smile. “You are like this cup — so full of ideas that nothing more will fit in. Come back to me with an empty cup.” https://medium.com/the-mission/empty-your-cup-a-zen-proverb-on-accepting-feedback-f1cce7bfe4a7 https://medium.com/the-mission/empty-your-cup-a-zen-proverb-...
throwawaylolx 7y ago
That's a classic "correlation doesn't imply causation" situation. Those owning guns may have guns exactly because they have a high chance of getting shot, and owning a gun actually lowers the chance. Not saying that this is the case or not, but your statement is misleading.
ummonk 7y ago
People who are likely to be shot obtain guns to defend themselves. Who would have thought?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

That doesn't follow. I'm probably much more likely to be electrocuted because my house has electricity, but that doesn't mean electricity doesn't serve its purpose.

yongjik 7y ago
On the other hand, nobody argues electricity is an essential human right because you need it to fight electrocution. Guns might serve some purposes in some situations. It's just an incredibly lousy tool for "defending ourselves", with negative utility on average.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > On the other hand, nobody argues electricity is an essential human right because you need it to fight electrocution. Sorry, I didn't know you required an absolutely perfect analogy to understand the point.
- zepto 7y ago
  “With negative utility on average” - perhaps, but not based on anything stated here. If you have a source, it would help.
  - Retric 7y ago
    “Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death“ https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death Gun ownership has benefits, but safety is not one of them. Much like how most home robberies take place in the day, the perception of safety from gun ownership is at odds with reality. Hell, you are 25% more likely to be robbed in Alaska than New York State.
    - temporaryvector 7y ago
      I think you're confusing safety with self-defense. The argument isn't that guns make you safer, it's that they give you the ability to defend yourself if you are already in an unsafe situation. On average, most people will never be in a situation where they need to defend themselves, thus getting a gun will increase their risk of a self-inflicted wound. Accidents of all kind (not just guns) are much more frequent than violent altercations. But the crux of the matter is not that, the question that needs answering is "If you are already in a situation where your life is at risk from another human being, does having a gun make it better or worse?" We don't actually know the answer to that question, since statistics on defensive usage of guns are pretty bad. Another point to make is that there's an undercurrent of personal responsibility. The danger presented by having a gun in your home is something that can be managed if you are a responsible gun owner, but the risk of violence against your self is not something you can easily control. This is the important part, owning a gun for self defense is not about making you safer, it's about transferring the risk from something you have no control over to something you have some measure of control over. Thus, arguing that owning guns increase your risk of dying from a self-inflicted gunshot wounds holds no weight with people who want to own guns, since it's a fundamental misunderstanding of why one would want to own a gun for self defense.
      - Retric 7y ago
        Looking only at a subset of situations is why people play the lottery and generally make sub optimal choices. It’s easy to ignore the odds and support any argument, but it’s a bad habit to get into. That said, feeling more secure is by far the most likely situation. While it’s far safer to leave your house in the event of a home invasion than to confront the robbers. Feeling like you can defend yourself is empowering.
    - read_if_gay_ 7y ago
      Correlation is not causation, that entire article is based on a common fallacy. To name a few counterexamples: 1) Switzerland. Gun ownership is similar to the US but there’s way less crime. 2) Kennesaw, Georgia. Gun ownership is mandatory for every home and crime rates are far lower than in the surrounding counties.
- briffle 7y ago
  Nobody argues owning a gun is an essential human right. They argue it's a constitutional right.
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    To the contrary, the constitution doesn't grant rights. It protects essential human rights. There's a reason arms are right up there with free speech and privacy.
  - zeveb 7y ago
    > Nobody argues owning a gun is an essential human right. I do — it's a constitutional right because it is a fundamental ('essential') human right. A free citizen (i.e., not a child or prisoner) has a right to wield violence in defense of himself, others and property; to restrict that right (as opposed to restricting unjust exercises of violence) is IMHO fundamentally unjust.
tomlockwood 7y ago
I'm not sure I'd get electricity installed in my house to help prevent electrocution.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
elil17 7y ago
Yeah but you can’t use a gun to fry an egg
- jacobush 7y ago
  Well Ted Cruz says in Texas it's used for cooking bacon. https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/03/429014888/ted-cruz-makes-mmm-machine-gun-bacon?t=1564390138797 https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/03/42901... And here you have a more Soviet styled recipe for eggs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojg_def2mzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojg_def2mzM
693471 7y ago
There isn't an electrocution epidemic
- whenchamenia 7y ago
  Nor is there one surrounding gun crime, but news is scary no?
  - 693471 7y ago
    I think "gun deaths at their highest rate in 40 years" qualifies https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/chart-of-the-day-us-gun-deaths-skyrocket-driven-by-a-rise-in-suicides/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/chart-of-the-day-us-g...
stordoff 7y ago
I'm not sure this analogy really works. Electricity kills as a side-effect of its intended use. If gun ownership makes it more like that you will get shot, it has failed at its intended use (self-defence).

zepto 7y ago

This doesn’t tell us anything about whether having a gun or not is a good idea for self defense. Someone with a >3x greater than average likelyhood of getting shot might bring it down to 3x by having a gun themselves.

ltbarcly3 7y ago

I think you make a great point, but why stop at guns? Each thing should have a list of pro's and con's made for it, and if the con's outweigh the pro's (on average) then we can just make that thing illegal. Probably we should start with television. Sure, people get some enjoyment from owning a TV, but think of how much they aren't exercising. Surely owning a TV dramatically increases the probability you are going to be obese and eventually develop heart disease. You are way more likely to watch a TV if you have a TV in your own house.

tomlockwood 7y ago
Very interesting! I get your point, making buying things illegal on the basis of the average of their pros and cons is a slippery slope. We should probably allow people to buy and sell whatever they want. Who cares if hitmen murder people, the people demand more hitmen!!! Hitmen can kill people that want to kill me, which makes me feel safe!!! Who cares if my judgement is extremely arbitrary and the hitmen are 3x more likely to shoot me than the people I want killed. Awesome. You've really opened my eyes here. For all the other laws we can evaluate them based uhhhh, not on their pros and cons.
- CompanionCuuube 7y ago
  > You've really opened my eyes here. Once upon a time, there was a wise Zen master. People traveled from far away to seek his help. In return, he would teach them and show them the way to enlightenment. On this particular day, a scholar came to visit the master for advice. “I have come to ask you to teach me about Zen,” the scholar said. Soon, it became obvious that the scholar was full of his own opinions and knowledge. He interrupted the master repeatedly with his own stories and failed to listen to what the master had to say. The master calmly suggested that they should have tea. So the master poured his guest a cup. The cup was filled, yet he kept pouring until the cup overflowed onto the table, onto the floor, and finally onto the scholar’s robes. The scholar cried “Stop! The cup is full already. Can’t you see?” “Exactly,” the Zen master replied with a smile. “You are like this cup — so full of ideas that nothing more will fit in. Come back to me with an empty cup.” https://medium.com/the-mission/empty-your-cup-a-zen-proverb-on-accepting-feedback-f1cce7bfe4a7 https://medium.com/the-mission/empty-your-cup-a-zen-proverb-...

throwawaylolx 7y ago

That's a classic "correlation doesn't imply causation" situation. Those owning guns may have guns exactly because they have a high chance of getting shot, and owning a gun actually lowers the chance. Not saying that this is the case or not, but your statement is misleading.

ummonk 7y ago

People who are likely to be shot obtain guns to defend themselves. Who would have thought?