5 ms·

Isn't bringing up potential killers or rapists just fear-mongering in order to justify gun ownership? Is there any data supporting that gun ownership results in

by sheri 14y ago

Isn't bringing up potential killers or rapists just fear-mongering in order to justify gun ownership? Is there any data supporting that gun ownership results in fewer rapes or deaths? I find defense being thrown about as a very valid reason for owning a gun, but in a country like the US, is there concrete evidence that gun ownership caused fewer home break-ins? I don't hope to be in a situation where I need a gun near me, but I also don't hope for someone confronting me having a gun in his/her hand.

OGinparadise 14y ago
When it happens to you, the % jumps to 100%/. end.of.story. Suppose you make illegal all guns right now. Do you think it will be hard for a crook to his hands on a now illegal weapon? All I need to know: A gun will help me defend myself and family. A gun can be kept safe by adhering to certain known gun safety principles. Accidents happen but then a brick from a building's facade can smack you in the head in the morning. Cops are great, if you have one right there, right when you need him/her. So, I think to myself, why not have one? Leaving all fun aside, it's a piece of mind.
- jackowayed 14y ago
  This is a common argument, and while it has some merit, it also reeks of illusion of control bias. Guns make people feel safer because they feel more in control of their safety. In reality, if someone is armed and has broken into my house, I want it to be absolutely clear to them that I am unarmed. I want them to know that they have no need to attack me, and that they should just take some of my stuff and get out (by far the most likely reason they're there), leaving me unharmed. The alternative possibilities sound much worse to me. This is true in almost every situation where people talk about guns being useful against crime. I think I am more likely to harm myself, to incite the other party to harm me, to harm a bystander (maybe someone in my household), or to harm someone that I perceive as a much more serious and dangerous criminal than they actually are, than I am to successfully be a "good guy with a gun who stops a bad guy with a gun".
  - anonymoushn 14y ago
    My impression, from speaking to gun owners, is that in most situations in which a gun is useful you do not actually end up firing it. Your mention of "almost every situation" brought to mind the Portland mall shooting, where the shooter stopped and killed himself after seeing another man taking aim at him[1]. Other much more publicized mass shootings may have gone significantly better if the government did not publicly designate large, completely unsecured areas in which only criminals are allowed to have firearms. [1]: http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-s...
- virtualritz 14y ago
  This is the same fallacy that makes people who are afraid of flying say they feel safer driving (in) a car because they are 'in control'. It doesn't change the fact that in reality they are orders of magnitude more likely to get hurt or even die while being in a car than while being on an airplane. Not having a gun when someone armed threatens me will most likely increase my chances of survival/getting out of the conflict unharmed. Maybe with a gun I have a better chance of retaliation but I'm also more likely to die. The bottom line is: any weapon you /add/ to a conflict rises the stakes for /all/ parties involved. And vice versa.
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    > Not having a gun when someone armed threatens me will most likely increase my chances of survival/getting out of the conflict unharmed. Maybe with a gun I have a better chance of retaliation but I'm also more likely to die. And this is known as the fallacy of making things up and asserting that they are most likely true.
    - virtualritz 14y ago
      The 1st sentence can be easily backed up by statistics about gun crimes. The 2n part is purely speculative on my behalf but I'd dare say that's straightforward enough to conceive by noticing the word 'maybe', prominently placed at the beginning. ;)
      - monochromatic 14y ago
        I'd be curious to see your statistics. If they control for situations where two criminals have guns and are shooting at each other (i.e., they're actually about defensive gun use by the good guys) I'll be pretty shocked.
      - qu4z-2 14y ago
        I agree with you, but I just wanted to point out that it's fairly easy to read the Maybe as applying only to the first clause: > (Maybe with a gun I have a better chance of retaliation) but (I'm also more likely to die).
- clicks 14y ago
  Just a general observation: your forceful, emotional phrasing/expressions only serve to discredit your position. 'end of story', 'All I need to know' are expressions that begin to end a discussion, they certainly don't make way for a healthy and productive exchange of ideas. (I don't mean to knock on you here, just thought I would point it out so you can think about this on your own. Cheers).
  - OGinparadise 14y ago
    'end of story', 'All I need to know' are expressions that begin to end a discussion, they certainly don't make way for a healthy and productive exchange of ideas. No exchange of ideas on this topic, I've considered them all and I have decided to be armed while in my home. Whether I use it, how and when I use are a different story, but at least I may have that option. Others may choose not to have a gun, it's their choice.
    - quesera 14y ago
      > No exchange of ideas on this topic So you are commenting just to offer your hard-won life wisdom to the rest of us? Thank you?
- krschultz 14y ago
  Have you ever actually had an intruder in your home? I have had it happen twice. Once right after we moved into a brand new house (3-4 days after move in). Some local kids had figured out that the front door could be opened because the lock was installed wrong and were using the house to party while it was empty. They hadn't realized that people moved in. Our golden retriever scared the crap out of them and they never made it 5 feet into the house - even though the dog was on the second floor. Now there is a solid defense system. I'll note that at the time, we had 5 guns locked up in the closest safely stored. The dog was down the stairs and dealing with the situation before I was even conscious enough to think. The whole thing would have been over before the guns were out if it was worse than some dumb kids. Second time it happened was only 18 months ago. This was a little different because I was on a boat at night, but again I was certain that two big adult men were robbing boats in the vincity. I called the cops. The cops sent the coast guard. We hunkered down and hid (probably not the right call, should have turned on the lights). I wish I had a gun in that moment, they were 15 feet from our stern and definitely coming onboard. There is no where to go on a boat like that. I had a mag light and a radio, and when the guys started heading for my boat I hit them with the light. Meanwhile the cops went from sneaking over at 5mph to screaming over at 45mph. That defused the situation, but if there weren't cops and/or I had a gun I would have definitely shot a round or two into the water to scare them off. Possibly more. When the cops actually picked them up, it turned out they were 2 14 year olds sneaking onto boats at night stealing booze. The cops made them apologize for scaring the crap out of us, so I met them. They couldn't have been 115 pounds each. If I hadn't saw them, I honestly could have sworn under oath they were 300 pound linebackers based on their silhouettes on other boats. Thank god I didn't have a gun that day, I'm almost certain I would have shot one of them. This is how kids get shot while holding skittles and even trained police officers confuse wallets for guns. Your mind plays tricks on you. My lessons learned: keep the lights on. Own a dog. If there are intruders, make them totally aware you are there because most of the time, they want nothing to do with people. I'm not against owning guns, but if you store them safely they won't be as much help as you think.
  - largesse 14y ago
    Nice story, but it's a bit like management fad books. Experiences of a sample size of one extrapolated to the status of general truth.
runeks 14y ago
> Is there any data supporting that gun ownership results in fewer rapes or deaths? The claim was that "guns have no useful purpose". To refute this assertion, we don't need to prove that gun ownership results in fewer rapes or deaths (on, for example, a nation-wide basis), only that when someone attempts to harm you, a gun can be useful in defending yourself. I mean, when you buy a bag of chips you don't ask yourself whether there is proof that chips actually results in a more satisfied society. You buy them because you feel it benefits you, and that's an entirely acceptable justification, in my opinion.
Symmetry 14y ago
Well, people dissuading a killer/murderer by brandishing a gun and people being otherwise killed by guns are both very rare events, so I'd say that if one is "just fear-mongering" so is the other. In practice it's very hard to figure out whether gun ownership causes a reduction in crime, because it's well known that crime causes gun ownership and you have to have to be lucky in finding a good natural experiment to get around that. I'm not aware of any convincing research on the subject one way or the other, I'm afraid. And before bringing up the number of gun deaths that would be considered justified versus suicides or murders, we do have pretty good evidence that in those cases where a gun prevents a crime it's mostly by the threat of its use, not its use itself.

by sheri 14y ago

OGinparadise 14y ago

When it happens to you, the % jumps to 100%/. end.of.story. Suppose you make illegal all guns right now. Do you think it will be hard for a crook to his hands on a now illegal weapon? All I need to know: A gun will help me defend myself and family. A gun can be kept safe by adhering to certain known gun safety principles. Accidents happen but then a brick from a building's facade can smack you in the head in the morning. Cops are great, if you have one right there, right when you need him/her. So, I think to myself, why not have one? Leaving all fun aside, it's a piece of mind.

jackowayed 14y ago
This is a common argument, and while it has some merit, it also reeks of illusion of control bias. Guns make people feel safer because they feel more in control of their safety. In reality, if someone is armed and has broken into my house, I want it to be absolutely clear to them that I am unarmed. I want them to know that they have no need to attack me, and that they should just take some of my stuff and get out (by far the most likely reason they're there), leaving me unharmed. The alternative possibilities sound much worse to me. This is true in almost every situation where people talk about guns being useful against crime. I think I am more likely to harm myself, to incite the other party to harm me, to harm a bystander (maybe someone in my household), or to harm someone that I perceive as a much more serious and dangerous criminal than they actually are, than I am to successfully be a "good guy with a gun who stops a bad guy with a gun".
- anonymoushn 14y ago
  My impression, from speaking to gun owners, is that in most situations in which a gun is useful you do not actually end up firing it. Your mention of "almost every situation" brought to mind the Portland mall shooting, where the shooter stopped and killed himself after seeing another man taking aim at him[1]. Other much more publicized mass shootings may have gone significantly better if the government did not publicly designate large, completely unsecured areas in which only criminals are allowed to have firearms. [1]: http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-s...
virtualritz 14y ago
This is the same fallacy that makes people who are afraid of flying say they feel safer driving (in) a car because they are 'in control'. It doesn't change the fact that in reality they are orders of magnitude more likely to get hurt or even die while being in a car than while being on an airplane. Not having a gun when someone armed threatens me will most likely increase my chances of survival/getting out of the conflict unharmed. Maybe with a gun I have a better chance of retaliation but I'm also more likely to die. The bottom line is: any weapon you /add/ to a conflict rises the stakes for /all/ parties involved. And vice versa.
- monochromatic 14y ago
  > Not having a gun when someone armed threatens me will most likely increase my chances of survival/getting out of the conflict unharmed. Maybe with a gun I have a better chance of retaliation but I'm also more likely to die. And this is known as the fallacy of making things up and asserting that they are most likely true.
  - virtualritz 14y ago
    The 1st sentence can be easily backed up by statistics about gun crimes. The 2n part is purely speculative on my behalf but I'd dare say that's straightforward enough to conceive by noticing the word 'maybe', prominently placed at the beginning. ;)
    - monochromatic 14y ago
      I'd be curious to see your statistics. If they control for situations where two criminals have guns and are shooting at each other (i.e., they're actually about defensive gun use by the good guys) I'll be pretty shocked.
    - qu4z-2 14y ago
      I agree with you, but I just wanted to point out that it's fairly easy to read the Maybe as applying only to the first clause: > (Maybe with a gun I have a better chance of retaliation) but (I'm also more likely to die).
clicks 14y ago
Just a general observation: your forceful, emotional phrasing/expressions only serve to discredit your position. 'end of story', 'All I need to know' are expressions that begin to end a discussion, they certainly don't make way for a healthy and productive exchange of ideas. (I don't mean to knock on you here, just thought I would point it out so you can think about this on your own. Cheers).
- OGinparadise 14y ago
  'end of story', 'All I need to know' are expressions that begin to end a discussion, they certainly don't make way for a healthy and productive exchange of ideas. No exchange of ideas on this topic, I've considered them all and I have decided to be armed while in my home. Whether I use it, how and when I use are a different story, but at least I may have that option. Others may choose not to have a gun, it's their choice.
  - quesera 14y ago
    > No exchange of ideas on this topic So you are commenting just to offer your hard-won life wisdom to the rest of us? Thank you?
krschultz 14y ago
Have you ever actually had an intruder in your home? I have had it happen twice. Once right after we moved into a brand new house (3-4 days after move in). Some local kids had figured out that the front door could be opened because the lock was installed wrong and were using the house to party while it was empty. They hadn't realized that people moved in. Our golden retriever scared the crap out of them and they never made it 5 feet into the house - even though the dog was on the second floor. Now there is a solid defense system. I'll note that at the time, we had 5 guns locked up in the closest safely stored. The dog was down the stairs and dealing with the situation before I was even conscious enough to think. The whole thing would have been over before the guns were out if it was worse than some dumb kids. Second time it happened was only 18 months ago. This was a little different because I was on a boat at night, but again I was certain that two big adult men were robbing boats in the vincity. I called the cops. The cops sent the coast guard. We hunkered down and hid (probably not the right call, should have turned on the lights). I wish I had a gun in that moment, they were 15 feet from our stern and definitely coming onboard. There is no where to go on a boat like that. I had a mag light and a radio, and when the guys started heading for my boat I hit them with the light. Meanwhile the cops went from sneaking over at 5mph to screaming over at 45mph. That defused the situation, but if there weren't cops and/or I had a gun I would have definitely shot a round or two into the water to scare them off. Possibly more. When the cops actually picked them up, it turned out they were 2 14 year olds sneaking onto boats at night stealing booze. The cops made them apologize for scaring the crap out of us, so I met them. They couldn't have been 115 pounds each. If I hadn't saw them, I honestly could have sworn under oath they were 300 pound linebackers based on their silhouettes on other boats. Thank god I didn't have a gun that day, I'm almost certain I would have shot one of them. This is how kids get shot while holding skittles and even trained police officers confuse wallets for guns. Your mind plays tricks on you. My lessons learned: keep the lights on. Own a dog. If there are intruders, make them totally aware you are there because most of the time, they want nothing to do with people. I'm not against owning guns, but if you store them safely they won't be as much help as you think.
- largesse 14y ago
  Nice story, but it's a bit like management fad books. Experiences of a sample size of one extrapolated to the status of general truth.

runeks 14y ago

> Is there any data supporting that gun ownership results in fewer rapes or deaths? The claim was that "guns have no useful purpose". To refute this assertion, we don't need to prove that gun ownership results in fewer rapes or deaths (on, for example, a nation-wide basis), only that when someone attempts to harm you, a gun can be useful in defending yourself. I mean, when you buy a bag of chips you don't ask yourself whether there is proof that chips actually results in a more satisfied society. You buy them because you feel it benefits you, and that's an entirely acceptable justification, in my opinion.

Symmetry 14y ago

Well, people dissuading a killer/murderer by brandishing a gun and people being otherwise killed by guns are both very rare events, so I'd say that if one is "just fear-mongering" so is the other. In practice it's very hard to figure out whether gun ownership causes a reduction in crime, because it's well known that crime causes gun ownership and you have to have to be lucky in finding a good natural experiment to get around that. I'm not aware of any convincing research on the subject one way or the other, I'm afraid. And before bringing up the number of gun deaths that would be considered justified versus suicides or murders, we do have pretty good evidence that in those cases where a gun prevents a crime it's mostly by the threat of its use, not its use itself.