6 ms·

> As Jim Jefferies puts pretty well: there's almost no reason to own a gun if you aren't a hunter except for that you like guns. There are (conservatively) hun

> As Jim Jefferies puts pretty well: there's almost no reason to own a gun if you aren't a hunter except for that you like guns. There are (conservatively) hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses per year in the United States, and evidence to suggest this actually lowers the rates of various types of violent crimes (including "hot robberies", where the home owner is still in the house when it is being burglarized). The right to self-defense is a foundational human right, and logically entailed from that is the right to effective means of self-defense.

arinlen 4y ago
> There are (conservatively) hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses per year in the United States, and evidence to suggest this actually lowers the rates of various types of violent crimes (including "hot robberies", where the home owner is still in the house when it is being burglarized). Source?
- lliamander 4y ago
  > Defensive Use of Guns > Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319 https://doi.org/10.17226/18319. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15
ohgodplsno 4y ago
>There are (conservatively) hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses per year in the United States In all civilized countries, these are called murders. Someone entering your home does not give you the right to shoot them.
- pirate787 4y ago
  Incorrect. Castle doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
  - aqzman 4y ago
    I believe the individual you responded to is stating that from a moral perspective it's murder, not from a legal perspective. I would agree with them as well.
  - lliamander 4y ago
    That only removes the duty to retreat, in states where such a duty is imposed (which is very few). You still have to meet the other criteria for self-defense.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Why not? You are upstairs when an intruder with a statistical 30-40% chance of being armed on an unknown mission that is hopefully just robbing you with a 7% chance of causing your family harm. Police are 10-30 minutes away. Most people don't sleep in the same room as the entirety of their family so if you hunker down and hope they go away you are leaving for example your kids exposed and hoping the intruder doesn't hurt them. If you startle them they could open fire sending a stray bullet into your kids room or they could wander into your bedroom in search of more loot and end up in either a struggle or a hostage situation. Worse than all of the above they will do it again and again with few opportunities to get busted because statistically few of these crimes actually solved. Your families safety is the only thing that matters here. If playing Rambo will increase the risk to your family you shouldn't do it. If shooting the intruder will increase the safety of your family by even the smallest fraction of a percent at the cost of certainly killing a burglar you should absolutely do so. Lets say the harsh truth. The only people prowling around invading other people's homes are awful people of negative value to humanity. From a purely utilitarian perspective you shooting them today would just mean that they stop hurting actual people of worth tomorrow. For your own moral health you shouldn't hurt them if it is possible to avoid it and preserve your other goals but there is no situation in which you ought to prize any number of burglars over even 1% chance of your family members getting hurt. Your outrage isn't moral its a plea for greater harm in service of a dysfunctional moral code where your children are less important than the meth addict who is terrorizing your neighborhood.

arinlen 4y ago

> There are (conservatively) hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses per year in the United States, and evidence to suggest this actually lowers the rates of various types of violent crimes (including "hot robberies", where the home owner is still in the house when it is being burglarized). Source?

lliamander 4y ago
> Defensive Use of Guns > Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319 https://doi.org/10.17226/18319. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15

ohgodplsno 4y ago

>There are (conservatively) hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses per year in the United States In all civilized countries, these are called murders. Someone entering your home does not give you the right to shoot them.

pirate787 4y ago
Incorrect. Castle doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
- aqzman 4y ago
  I believe the individual you responded to is stating that from a moral perspective it's murder, not from a legal perspective. I would agree with them as well.
- lliamander 4y ago
  That only removes the duty to retreat, in states where such a duty is imposed (which is very few). You still have to meet the other criteria for self-defense.
michaelmrose 4y ago
Why not? You are upstairs when an intruder with a statistical 30-40% chance of being armed on an unknown mission that is hopefully just robbing you with a 7% chance of causing your family harm. Police are 10-30 minutes away. Most people don't sleep in the same room as the entirety of their family so if you hunker down and hope they go away you are leaving for example your kids exposed and hoping the intruder doesn't hurt them. If you startle them they could open fire sending a stray bullet into your kids room or they could wander into your bedroom in search of more loot and end up in either a struggle or a hostage situation. Worse than all of the above they will do it again and again with few opportunities to get busted because statistically few of these crimes actually solved. Your families safety is the only thing that matters here. If playing Rambo will increase the risk to your family you shouldn't do it. If shooting the intruder will increase the safety of your family by even the smallest fraction of a percent at the cost of certainly killing a burglar you should absolutely do so. Lets say the harsh truth. The only people prowling around invading other people's homes are awful people of negative value to humanity. From a purely utilitarian perspective you shooting them today would just mean that they stop hurting actual people of worth tomorrow. For your own moral health you shouldn't hurt them if it is possible to avoid it and preserve your other goals but there is no situation in which you ought to prize any number of burglars over even 1% chance of your family members getting hurt. Your outrage isn't moral its a plea for greater harm in service of a dysfunctional moral code where your children are less important than the meth addict who is terrorizing your neighborhood.