6 ms·

So you are safer if you don't have a gun? Did I understand correctly?

jeffbee 4y ago
Sure but that's always been the case. People with guns at home shoot themselves, their spouses, or are shot with their own gun by burglars, at a rate obviously greater than that of people without guns at home. People with guns at home kill themselves at triple the rate of normal people.
- doitLP 4y ago
  “Normal people”? Your bias is showing. 42% of US households have at least one gun.
  - supercanuck 4y ago
    25 percent of California adults live in households with firearms.
- joshgachnang 4y ago
  You're being downvoted (or were when I commented) but that last part is absolutely what the data say, and I've seen data that say the rates are much higher than triple vs non-gun owners. Lots of suicides are in the heat of the moment and when there isn't an easy, painless way to kill yourself, you don't (e.g. if you take a lot of pills, you have a window where you can realize you don't want to die and call 911). Of course there will be people who plan it out and go through with it in other ways.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  CDC report under Obama demonstrated those with guns at home have much less physical injury during home invasion than those without guns. >People with guns at home kill themselves at triple the rate of normal people. Those studies are widely known to have serious statistical problems since those with suicidal tendencies also may purchase a gun, completely breaking the independent variable requirement to make such a claim. [1] for example at least addresses that these are real issues. Also, Japan's suicide rate, without guns, is larger than the US suicide and homicide rates combined. I think you're pushing as true things that are not demonstrated, and may well be untrue. [1] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-availability-suicide.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/fir...
  - foolfoolz 4y ago
    got a link to that cdc report?
    - HideousKojima 4y ago
      https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3
      - zorpner 4y ago
        > Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration. 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. It's important to remember, in the context of this obviously intentionally vague language, that until 2018 the CDC was explicitly prohibited from conducting research into the statistics of gun violence by the Dickey Amendment, and has only published cursory data in the few years since that research ban was abolished. But -- that language still remains in legislative force: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/22/heres-what-congress-is-stuffing-into-its-1-3-trillion-spending-bill/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/22/... > Language in the report accompanying the bill clarifying that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can, in fact, conduct research into gun violence. A long-standing rider known as the Dickey Amendment, which states that no CDC funds “may be used to advocate or promote gun control,” has been interpreted in the past to bar such research. The amendment itself remains.
- slowhand09 4y ago
  Women have abortions at a much higher rate than men. That is the logic you just used.
themaninthedark 4y ago
Imagine you have a safe at your house to keep your important documents protected. Now imagine that the government requires you to register your safe because a child could be trapped in your safe. Now imagine that the database was leaked. Your important documents were safer because you had a safe, now they are less safe because thieves know exactly what houses have home safes and thus where they should go to steal from.
- kelnos 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure "important documents" in the average person's home safe have very little value to thieves.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    Suppose he's talking about real safes, security safes. Not fire safes. And suppose this conversation is about real guns. Not nerf guns.
  - ssalka 4y ago
    replace "important documents" with "fat stack of cash"
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  what is a random thief gonna do, wipe his ass with my birth certificate? Do people without a safe have no birth certificates?
quarantaseih 4y ago
No. My anonymous gun ownership make me and my neighbors safer because I: 1. Can protect myself and my family. 2. Gun seeking criminals (e.g. Mexican drug cartels) that are better armed for the occasion do not know to target my house for my rifles, shotgun and handgun. 3. Burgling my very (yet cool) progressive neighbors is risky since every other house in America has a gun (I found a corner of swing state America that looks down on lawn signs). Widespread gun ownership significantly lowers the EV of committing crime.
- threeseed 4y ago
  > Widespread gun ownership significantly lowers the EV of committing crime Be useful to post evidence of this claim.
  - quarantaseih 4y ago
    im not stating a statistical fact. All Im saying is, all else being equal, there is an extra nevative term in the expected value equation that goes boom and has a P ~ 0.5
- zorpner 4y ago
  As all statistical evidence indicates, your family is far more likely to be killed by your gun than by any other. Your gun ownership endangers your family.
  - quarantaseih 4y ago
    Like everything in stats you have a conditional probability given that I, like most gun owners, am a responsible gun owner. I have a safe, trigger locks, don't have a history of violence, etc. The small minority who are irresponsible gun owners get slaughtered increasing the numbers for the larger pool. That partition function in the denominator is key! So, no. My gun does not endanger my family.
- albertopv 4y ago
  "Widespread gun ownership significantly lowers the EV of committing crime." That's a serious claim. USA is first by incarceration rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcera... even with 120 arms every 100 persons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... South states (where AFAIK at least looking at international news, people is more willing to own a gun) have incarceration rate really high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra... Probably there's a problem with illegal immigration, that doesn't explain everything, overall is incredibly higher than other western countries. This is quite old https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/ "Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. Also: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/sites/default/files/2014-2020%20SUMMARY%202020%20GRAPHIC%20with%202019%20CDC.jpg https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/sites/default/files/2014-... Almost all KPI but Defensive Use are increasing since 2014. Of course it's only correlation with number of arms, much higher in USA than most other countries. But, there's a 2013 CDC study https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-... that says * "that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal" * "stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals." Or another one https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm: that says "In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." Or from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Effect_on_crime_and_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_... it's not clear if concealed arm licenses had impact on crime, in any way. Also, you must really be willing to use a gun. Uvalde police waited 45 minutes before going in, protocol says to go in as soon as possible, they were scared. They are humans afterall, even if trained. So, it's not really clear to me that more arms means more or less safety. But I know this: in 2020 Chicago alone (where AFAIK there are what you could call "strict laws") there have been almost 3 times murders than whole Italy. Rate is about 60 times, and Chicago is not even in top 10 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...). Something to think about.

Sure but that's always been the case. People with guns at home shoot themselves, their spouses, or are shot with their own gun by burglars, at a rate obviously greater than that of people without guns at home. People with guns at home kill themselves at triple the rate of normal people.

doitLP 4y ago
“Normal people”? Your bias is showing. 42% of US households have at least one gun.
- supercanuck 4y ago
  25 percent of California adults live in households with firearms.
joshgachnang 4y ago
You're being downvoted (or were when I commented) but that last part is absolutely what the data say, and I've seen data that say the rates are much higher than triple vs non-gun owners. Lots of suicides are in the heat of the moment and when there isn't an easy, painless way to kill yourself, you don't (e.g. if you take a lot of pills, you have a window where you can realize you don't want to die and call 911). Of course there will be people who plan it out and go through with it in other ways.
ChrisLomont 4y ago
CDC report under Obama demonstrated those with guns at home have much less physical injury during home invasion than those without guns. >People with guns at home kill themselves at triple the rate of normal people. Those studies are widely known to have serious statistical problems since those with suicidal tendencies also may purchase a gun, completely breaking the independent variable requirement to make such a claim. [1] for example at least addresses that these are real issues. Also, Japan's suicide rate, without guns, is larger than the US suicide and homicide rates combined. I think you're pushing as true things that are not demonstrated, and may well be untrue. [1] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-availability-suicide.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/fir...
- foolfoolz 4y ago
  got a link to that cdc report?
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3
    - zorpner 4y ago
      > Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration. 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. It's important to remember, in the context of this obviously intentionally vague language, that until 2018 the CDC was explicitly prohibited from conducting research into the statistics of gun violence by the Dickey Amendment, and has only published cursory data in the few years since that research ban was abolished. But -- that language still remains in legislative force: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/22/heres-what-congress-is-stuffing-into-its-1-3-trillion-spending-bill/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/22/... > Language in the report accompanying the bill clarifying that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can, in fact, conduct research into gun violence. A long-standing rider known as the Dickey Amendment, which states that no CDC funds “may be used to advocate or promote gun control,” has been interpreted in the past to bar such research. The amendment itself remains.
slowhand09 4y ago
Women have abortions at a much higher rate than men. That is the logic you just used.

themaninthedark 4y ago

Imagine you have a safe at your house to keep your important documents protected. Now imagine that the government requires you to register your safe because a child could be trapped in your safe. Now imagine that the database was leaked. Your important documents were safer because you had a safe, now they are less safe because thieves know exactly what houses have home safes and thus where they should go to steal from.

kelnos 4y ago
I'm pretty sure "important documents" in the average person's home safe have very little value to thieves.
- robonerd 4y ago
  Suppose he's talking about real safes, security safes. Not fire safes. And suppose this conversation is about real guns. Not nerf guns.
- ssalka 4y ago
  replace "important documents" with "fat stack of cash"
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
what is a random thief gonna do, wipe his ass with my birth certificate? Do people without a safe have no birth certificates?

quarantaseih 4y ago

No. My anonymous gun ownership make me and my neighbors safer because I: 1. Can protect myself and my family. 2. Gun seeking criminals (e.g. Mexican drug cartels) that are better armed for the occasion do not know to target my house for my rifles, shotgun and handgun. 3. Burgling my very (yet cool) progressive neighbors is risky since every other house in America has a gun (I found a corner of swing state America that looks down on lawn signs). Widespread gun ownership significantly lowers the EV of committing crime.

threeseed 4y ago
> Widespread gun ownership significantly lowers the EV of committing crime Be useful to post evidence of this claim.
- quarantaseih 4y ago
  im not stating a statistical fact. All Im saying is, all else being equal, there is an extra nevative term in the expected value equation that goes boom and has a P ~ 0.5
zorpner 4y ago
As all statistical evidence indicates, your family is far more likely to be killed by your gun than by any other. Your gun ownership endangers your family.
- quarantaseih 4y ago
  Like everything in stats you have a conditional probability given that I, like most gun owners, am a responsible gun owner. I have a safe, trigger locks, don't have a history of violence, etc. The small minority who are irresponsible gun owners get slaughtered increasing the numbers for the larger pool. That partition function in the denominator is key! So, no. My gun does not endanger my family.
albertopv 4y ago
"Widespread gun ownership significantly lowers the EV of committing crime." That's a serious claim. USA is first by incarceration rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcera... even with 120 arms every 100 persons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... South states (where AFAIK at least looking at international news, people is more willing to own a gun) have incarceration rate really high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra... Probably there's a problem with illegal immigration, that doesn't explain everything, overall is incredibly higher than other western countries. This is quite old https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/ "Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. Also: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/sites/default/files/2014-2020%20SUMMARY%202020%20GRAPHIC%20with%202019%20CDC.jpg https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/sites/default/files/2014-... Almost all KPI but Defensive Use are increasing since 2014. Of course it's only correlation with number of arms, much higher in USA than most other countries. But, there's a 2013 CDC study https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-... that says * "that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal" * "stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals." Or another one https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm: that says "In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." Or from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Effect_on_crime_and_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_... it's not clear if concealed arm licenses had impact on crime, in any way. Also, you must really be willing to use a gun. Uvalde police waited 45 minutes before going in, protocol says to go in as soon as possible, they were scared. They are humans afterall, even if trained. So, it's not really clear to me that more arms means more or less safety. But I know this: in 2020 Chicago alone (where AFAIK there are what you could call "strict laws") there have been almost 3 times murders than whole Italy. Rate is about 60 times, and Chicago is not even in top 10 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...). Something to think about.