Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense [ARTICLE]

[cc_ryder]

Tell a lie often enough, and people will believe it. If someone questions a statement you know to be true, you begin to question it even if in your own mind. Example: I left the keys on the kitchen counter. Wife: I did not see them there. Result: doubt.
I believe we must start to counter the lies with truth that can be read by the average person on a daily basis. I never thought of myself as a writer, but I am willing to try. Some on this forum and other forums are very good at the written argument. Perhaps we should all try writing editorials and submitting them to publications. We our preaching to the choir on gun forums. We need a forum in the local news paper for the rest of the community to read.

 

[CharlieK]

This is like running through a freshly plowed field. Try this on for size:
Link Removed

 

[FN1910]

Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense

I didn't bother to read the article but I can't argue with the above statement at all and would be shocked if it wasn't true. I would be greatly surprised if the number of times guns are used in self defense comes anywhere close to the number of times that they are used stupidly. Now you can argue all you want to about what is meant by being used stupidly but to me most are of pure stupidity. For instance I have no other description for it when two friends get in an argument over a $10 football bet and one shoots the other. Or how about when a 17 year old at a party decides to scare everyone by shooting someone with what he thought was an unloaded gun. Or maybe the fellow standing in line at Wal-Mart and has his gun suddenly go off in his pants pocket. How do you want to define stupidity or how about self-defense. Maybe the fellow who is defending himself from the perils of two teen agers who decided to cut across his front yard while walking home.

 

[Grognard Gunny]

Re the above: "Accidental" gun deaths, US; 400-600 per annum. Deliberate murders, of all degrees, US; 14-18K per annum.

Notes: Most murders of deliberate (1st degree) are drug/gang related. (Roughly half of all, IIRC.) Mainly illegal gun "holders" at that. "Rage" murders happen, amongst illegal gun holders as well as legal gun holders. The same is true for those who "go postal".

The above from some analysis I did a couple of years ago, building a "case" to use against "hype stats" anti-gun types. .... and represents as well as I can remember the "facts" and numbers.

GG

 

[Grognard Gunny]

Oh, nearly forgot the important factoid: Number of BGs "dispatched" by home owners, generally less than 100 per annum. (However, if you count the number of times a gun is brandished by a home owner, ending the confrontation right there..... the NRA insists it runs into the hundreds of thousands, which, I might add, I don't quite believe is quite that high..... but even five thousand avoided more serious incidents a year makes it worth the while, IMHO.)

GG

 

[sargedog]

My papaw used to say don't try to feed me a crap sandwich and call it steak. Crap is crap. I also think that if someone is that desperate to get out of this world they will do it whether they have a gun, a rope, or a bottle of pills. I am truly sorry for people that have these problems and feel like suicide is the only way out.

 

[Doc Mustang]

I am a bit late to this party but, let me clear a few things up. First this is a review study, meaning it takes into account many studies on a subject and tries to form a conclusion. Its primary weakness is that it is very subject to inclusion bias. Meaning you can skew your study results in any direction you want depending on what inclusion criteria you select.

Review studies are also subject to the strengths and weaknesses of the studies that are used. Garbage in equals gargage out. Since this was a public health study it likely included only other public health studies. The majority of these studys were performed using a case-control model. All of these were flawed studies and have been discredited elsewhere. There is significant bias introduced in what you call a "case" and what you call a "control" with multiple confounding factors which can be difficult to control for.

I expect that within the body of the public health literature there are quite simply not enough studies, and not enough studies of a varied design to compensate for the weaknesses of previous studies and a review will only echo the flawed results of those studies.

Lastly, many academics discount the uninted or unseen results. Like in the classic economic fallicy of the broken window, you cannot see what you cannot see. You cannot see the women who are NOT raped because they showed a gun. You cannot see those who are not killed or robbed because they pulled a gun.

Gary Kleck and John Lott have been criticized for attempting to examine this portion of the equation. If the public health profession would examine the criminology literature they would find that over the last several years it has been evolving away from a gun control model and toward a "responsible ownership" model.

Because this does not suit the ideology of some, it has been discounted.

Academia is a mess.

 

[fudo]

Typical anti-gun hit piece by socialist wanna be bureaucrat.

 

[Ringo]

Life Is Tough, Even Tougher If You're Stupid ~John Wayne

 

[wild eyed willy]

It's probably safe to assume that the vast majority of accidental firearms discharges are due to stupidity rather than equiptment malfunction. Gun owners who treat every gun as if it were loaded and lock up all firearms to keep them out of un trainned fingers should not have this problem.

The number of BG's killed by GG's and GG's killed by BG's are deliberate shootings and I suspect the BG's killing GG's is a higher number. These shootings don't fall into the stupidity factor, being intentional actions.

The number of deliberate self shootings and spouse or family members shootings is not really stupidity related either, they should fall into the catagory of mental illness.

So if you want to compare the numbers of stupid firearms discharges, against all of the other stupidity related accidents that occure in this country IE: jet ski accidents, skiing accidents, boating and so forth... People doing stupid things in general ,,, What number do you think will be higher..... I vote for people doing stupid things....

The bottom line here is you have to compare apples to apples, or your results are meaningless

 

[FN1910]

It's probably safe to assume that the vast majority of accidental firearms discharges are due to stupidity rather than equiptment malfunction. Gun owners who treat every gun as if it were loaded and lock up all firearms to keep them out of un trainned fingers should not have this problem.

The number of BG's killed by GG's and GG's killed by BG's are deliberate shootings and I suspect the BG's killing GG's is a higher number. These shootings don't fall into the stupidity factor, being intentional actions.

The number of deliberate self shootings and spouse or family members shootings is not really stupidity related either, they should fall into the catagory of mental illness.

So if you want to compare the numbers of stupid firearms discharges, against all of the other stupidity related accidents that occure in this country IE: jet ski accidents, skiing accidents, boating and so forth... People doing stupid things in general ,,, What number do you think will be higher..... I vote for people doing stupid things....

The bottom line here is you have to compare apples to apples, or your results are meaningless

I think you make several good and valid points especially abut comparing apples to apples. The problem here is there aren't any apples, oranges or pears to compare and in fact there really isn't much way to compare anything when trying to make these types of studies. As several have pointed out that there isn't a valid definition of stupid to use in such a study nor is there a true definition of accidental vs. negligent to use. Any study related to this is going to start out biased and whoever is making the study is just going to use the data to prove their point whether it be pro or anti gun.

The best part of your response is that people do stupid things whether it is with guns, cars, boats or climbing a mountain. That is just a fact that exists no matter what your definition of stupid is. I don't think it matters what facts you use or what you want to study the odds of someone doing something extraordinarily stupid far outweigh the likelyhood of them doing something extraordinarily good.

 

[Grognard Gunny]

Yep. We might as well ban stairs, if our REAL intent is for public safety. The "falling down stairs" deaths are roughly the same for ALL gunfire deaths, per annum.

We won't go into the "tool" that is the number one killer in the US.... the motor vehicle. (Diabolical laughter here.)

GG

 

[Grognard Gunny]

Case of point: Some five or so years ago we had a heck of a nasty wind storm go through the area. Trees down, power out, sounded like a freight train going through, they never DID prove a tornado. At any rate, despite it being midday of a workweek, not a single soul was harmed by the storm. Not one.

That very afternoon, however, one stalwart soul decided that he was going to start his "cleanup", he had a couple of trees down in his yard. Said citizen got out his trusty chain saw, cranked her up and started working on one of the trees down. His choice to start was a branch that had been "folded" under the trunk of the tree (therefore under considerable tension... you KNOW where this is going, right?). Unfortunately, he was standing right where the tension, if released, would naturally straighten out the branch. It let go, suddenly, and just about took off his head. (Think tomato versus baseball bat.)

So, you might ask..... is that "Death by chainsaw"? "Death by tree?" (Cases could be built for either.) "Death by stupidity?" (Also a possibility.) Seems the coroner was perplexed also, it was reported in the paper as a death due to the storm. Probably the weakest of the possibilities for reporting. But the stats remain the same for that particular storm: One death.

GG

 

[charliej47]

I believe it. Situations where self-defense is actively needed are few and far between. Stupidity is active 24/7.

I read one of the articles from one of the federal agencies where it describes the likelihood of being the victim of a crime. When you read the article it states that by the time you are past the "retirement age" that you stand a huge percentage point. Something like in the 90 percent range.

This is not violent crime but any crime. The percentage of violent crime for that age group reaches into the 60 percent range.

This means to me that the older I get the more likely I am of being assaulted in some fashion and it did happen.

I WILL NOT be without the means of protecting myself and my family PERIOD!

 

[Grognard Gunny]

I read one of the articles from one of the federal agencies where it describes the likelihood of being the victim of a crime. When you read the article it states that by the time you are past the "retirement age" that you stand a huge percentage point. Something like in the 90 percent range.

This is not violent crime but any crime. The percentage of violent crime for that age group reaches into the 60 percent range.

This means to me that the older I get the more likely I am of being assaulted in some fashion and it did happen.

I WILL NOT be without the means of protecting myself and my family PERIOD!

Never realized that the "odds" stacked up against you to that degree. It DOES come to follow, however, that BGs, ever on the lookout for "soft targets" would tend to gravitate toward those that do not look like they could defend themselves very well. Thus, the tendency for the elderly to be attacked would go up.

Would appreciate a "link" to that report if you would. I'd like to read it for my own information.

GG

 

[wild eyed willy]

It figures the storm got the blame for killing this fool.... Good story.

 

[BC1]

Horse manure! read "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott.

Amazon has it starting at $2.99 --> Amazon.com: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics) (9780226493633): John R. Lott Jr.: Books

 

[JimPage]

The bogus contention that firearms availability affects suicide rates suffers from the fact that Japan is virtually gun free but has twice the suicide rate of the USA.

 

[fuhr52]

I my experience people intent on committing suicide will make it happen. Maybe we should out law pills, automobile, IV medications, rope, bridges, trains, water....

 

[marcparis]

Dangerous pools

Whenever statisticians talk about the dangers of a gun in the house, tell them that we'll get on it right after we ban all residential pools. The number of children killed per 1,000,000 residential pools is more then 50 times greater then the number of children killed by firearms per 1,000,000 firearms, so clearly the priority is to ban residential pools. Many of the people who bring up these arguments claim that they aren't anti gun - they just want to save lives. If they don't switch to trying to ban residential pools then you can call them what they truly are - biased liars.