And who says I have to point a gun at someone to kill them with one. People have and do get shot thru walls, ceilings, by ricochets (in automobiles) etc.
And none of them have anything to do with home protection. For instance it was a 60 lb 8 year old shooting a MICRO-UZI on automatic, a weapon with a known high kick back that fires 20 rounds a second, being supervised by a 15 year old. http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/01/trial_of_edward_fleury_for_uzi_1.html There are 310 million people in the US and there are about 200 million guns/rifles and about 40% of homes have a gun. To that we add about 5 million new guns and rifles a year. http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2010-interim-firearms-manufacturing-export-report.pdf And yet gun accidents per 100,000 people continues to fall. To an all time low of .2 per 100,000 in 2006. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Among children, such deaths have decreased 90% since 1975. The odds are more than a million to one, against a child in the U.S. dying in a firearm accident. To put those rates in perspective, the rate of fatal accidents is 72.34 per 100,000 registered motorcycles and 13.1 per 100,000 cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety Or use this site: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html Select Unintentional Causes of Death Display the top 15 unintentional causes of death for ALL age groups. Firearms won't be on the list. It won't appear in the top 15 for any age group and it won't be in the summary for all age groups. Code: All Ages 2008 1 Unintentional MV Traffic 37985 All Ages 2008 2 Unintentional Poisoning 31116 All Ages 2008 3 Unintentional Fall 24013 All Ages 2008 4 Unintentional Suffocation 6125 All Ages 2008 5 Unintentional Unspecified 5911 All Ages 2008 6 Unintentional Drowning 3548 All Ages 2008 7 Unintentional Fire/burn 2992 All Ages 2008 8 Unintentional Other Land Transport 1545 All Ages 2008 9 Unintentional Other Spec., classifiable 1447 All Ages 2008 10 Unintentional Natural/ Environment 1409 All Ages 2008 11 Unintentional Other Spec., NEC 1160 All Ages 2008 12 Unintentional Pedestrian, Other 1089 All Ages 2008 13 Unintentional Other Transport 981 All Ages 2008 14 Unintentional Struck by or Against 891 All Ages 2008 15 Unintentional Machinery 693 Yet you want to debate this by using the actions of the stupidest people you can find as your metric?
So a woman who pulls a gun to defend herself against an angry boyfriend in her home, and chases him out of the house with it - has nothing to do with home protection? Agreed. Now give every young woman in the US a gun (which is what Me-Ki-Gal was proposing) and watch that skyrocket. I'm not debating anything. Get a gun if you like. Don't get one if you don't want one. They are dangerous tools that can both help you and harm you or your family - and thus the decision to use one should be up to the individual.
Or, at least you get to kill some people before you die Similarly, I think of the auto dealer in Missouri who ran a promotion handing out vouchers for assault rifles with new car purchases. A reporter asked him about the necessity of such weapons for personal defense, and the auto dealer responded by discussing an occasion in Florida where two people were killed in a home invasion: "I don't know a single shotgun would have worked for them. With an automatic they might have died," Mark Muller explained, "but they would have taken some of the bastards down too." Comforting thought, I suppose. Except one is no longer capable of thinking it at that point.
My first husband was a Master Firearms Instructor, and so I am not unfamiliar with firearms. I was ducking for cover a few years ago when .22 caliber bullets struck my tin-sided hay shed and I was in the corral cleaning pens. I started yelling like a banshee to alert those involved that they were creating a hazard. Never did see the culprit but at least the shooting stopped. I am reasonably certain I know which parties were involved, some young lads out hunting rabbits in the dense cover behind the subdivision that I live in. They were not obeying the regulation that states no firearm is to be discharged within 1 km of a dwelling. :bugeye: Fortunately, neither my horse nor I were struck, but it is damnably unnerving to find oneself in such a situation.
What about injuries from guns that did not result in death? A home protection scenario could result in another hitting a family member without intending to and how many people shoot others while loading a gun or cleaning? Resulting in death or not. I may have to load my gun for home protection and I may also clean it from time to time. Let's put guns used for protection in perspective. How many gun owners have ever had to use a gun to fend off an intruder in their home? Weeding out the liars. You cannot say someone's concerns about firearm usage is somehow frilled and they need to get over it. That is more ridiculous than any statistic proving how safe it is to keep a gun in your home. We all have thresholds. Why should mine be the same as yours? We are talking guns here, not fast food. You could never convince me guns in the hands of humans are not potentially dangerous. Very few owners are "the best and highly trained". http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAP/29103 keep searching there are many more. search "AAP stance on guns"
Clearly the trend would mirror the trend for people unintentionally killed by guns. But the data is available in the previous link. I looked at 2001-2009 Unintentional Injuries that resulted in ER visits followed by Hospitalization (that way we can deal with just reasonably serious injuries) Code: All Ages 2001 2009 1 Unintentional Fall 5,660,812 All Ages 2001 2009 2 Unintentional MV-Occupant 1,584,976 All Ages 2001 2009 3 Unintentional Poisoning 1,033,636 All Ages 2001 2009 4 Unintentional Other Specified 922,887 All Ages 2001 2009 5 Unintentional Struck By/Against 424,485 All Ages 2001 2009 6 Unintentional Other Transport 334,034 All Ages 2001 2009 7 Unintentional Motorcyclist 319,982 All Ages 2001 2009 8 Unintentional Overexertion 245,491 All Ages 2001 2009 9 Unintentional Pedestrian 223,855 All Ages 2001 2009 10 Unintentional Unknown/Unspecified 221,047 All Ages 2001 2009 11 Unintentional Pedal Cyclist 189,249 All Ages 2001 2009 12 Unintentional Cut/Pierce 175,612 All Ages 2001 2009 13 Unintentional Other Bite/Sting 139,372 All Ages 2001 2009 14 Unintentional Foreign Body 121,516 All Ages 2001 2009 15 Unintentional Machinery 92,725 Doesn't make the list. From the previous linked source: So it's substantial. Have I asked you to "get over it"? No, I haven't. Except you have been going on and on about how unlikely home invasion is and how dangerous guns are and how you would never have a gun in the house at the same time you've been going on and on about being totally familiar with guns and shooting and even having shooting trophies up the wazoo. So in essence you are setting yourself up as a self proclaimed Gun Expert who also appears to be totally against having guns in the home for self defense. So yeah, you are gonna get some push back.
I would like to know the details on the human to human defensive use of guns. Studies or statistics never tell the whole story and the source of the stats must be considered carefully as well. I never said home invasion was not possible I asked how many actually end well because a homeowner used a gun on the perpetrator or threatened the perpetrator with an actual gun. Asking questions is not making assumptions, it is just that, asking questions. So, I shoot but don't keep guns in my home or use them for protection. Why is that so difficult to accept? I don't follow the stereotype. If you think I set myself up as a gun expert, fine. I mean to set myself up as a gun enthusiast who is very familiar with firearms. I am not basing my reasoning as one who hasn't a clue about guns. I have weighed my decision from both sides. Asking questions is not making assumptions, it is just that, asking questions. No, you have not said get over it in so many word and I did not put that in quotes. But your intent is repeatedly clear. I have been pushed too so I have been pushing back too. Just like you. I can't argue alone. BB
On the other hand, there are surveys which indicate that civilians use firearms for predominately self-defense purposes. For example, Kleck and Gertz (1995) found that each year there are some "2.2 to 2.5 million defensive uses of guns of all types by civilians against humans".[7] Additionally Cook and Ludwig (1997) found that there were about 1.5 million defensive uses annually.[8] These surveys are unable to tell us how successful these defenses are, what the effects would be if the defenders did not have guns for defense, or if the defenders are themselves criminals. Bolding mine, BB Adoucette, You left the bolded qualifying statement out. It speaks volumes. In fairness, however, I will continue to read the article.
You asked That was the answer to the question you asked. You want a different answer, then ask a different question. And NO, the bolding doesn't "speak volumes", as the people were obviously still around to answer the surveys. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2751_136/ai_n24254483/ Arthur
Bolding mine, BB If you are so concerned with the exact wording of my question you didn't answer it with your statistitics. So the survey was asked only to those survivors who had actually used the gun? Not witnesses or from a police report? I am sure the injured could answer too. If I shot my kid in the process of shooting an intruder i could answer the survey too. If my gun resulted in an accident in my home and a month later I shot an intruder or vice versa I could answer the survey too. Did the survivor get shot too but had the benefit of quick medical care?
I am still reading the article so posting this will probably be a bad idea. My take on the article is that the fact that civilians do shoot criminals and thus, the possibility of a civilian owning a gun (as opposed to taking away all civilian gun rights) is a deterrent to crime. One of the reasons I am pro-gun is because I believe in some ways it may result in keeping the crime rate down, not low, but down.. But I believe it is the possibility of coming across an armed victim rather than actually waiting until a gun is in the perpetrator’s face that may also keep crime down. And there are a lot of ways to perpetuate that possibility to a criminal other than actually having a gun in your possession. I don’t believe that many home invasions, personal assaults, etc ., are stopped only because the offenders actually get shot or shot at by homeowners or see a gun in their victim’s hand. Store owner and robberies, yes. Since it is claimed that gun ownership reduces crime I don’t believe necessarily that a criminal says to himself: “Hmm, that guy or home, could have a gun. But I will attempt my crime anyway and wait and see if a gun is actually stuck in my face.” No, I believe some criminal would also assess a head of time the probability of a gun without actually having to see one. And a likely probability of a gun is the deterrent. If you are that concerned about being a victim there are a lot of ways to perpetuate the possibility of a gun to a criminal other than actually having a gun in your home. --Keeping an empty gun case, open, with empty ammo boxes inside could prevent you from being a potential target --so could gun trophies --a dead animal on the wall --pro gun/hunting stickers and notices on/in your car or home or front door The above if a visitor cases your place --gun rack in your vehicle -- where you live could also be a deterrent if it’s a place where every other home is assumed to have at least one gun. --Your reputation as well can be a deterrent. Most who know me probably assume my home is loaded for bear All and more could prevent you from being a potential target Having said I believe that gun rights probably result in reduced crime. I wonder, are accidental shootings between father and son or brother and brother child and child, classified as crimes? So does gun ownership result in less “criminal intent” crimes yet more accidental “in house” events, resulting in death or injury? I don’t know. “There were 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.”Wiki Gun Violence in the United States".So, accidents happen. I am not only concerned with the death of a family member, injury is high on my list too. Quoting Adoucettes same article: GUNS AND JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: DETERRENCE AND DEFENSE by Lawrence Southwick, Jr. “Putting together all of these results, we find that there is a good correspondence among them. They are derived from different approaches, so that correspondence adds credibility to each method. Somewhere around 0.8 to 2.0 million violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians. In addition, another 1.5 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by armed civilians. There may be some overlap in these two categories because of the ways in which the data are collected, but there are almost certainly some two to four million fewer completed crimes each year as the result of civilian gun ownership. Returning to Figure 1, the numbers of crimes "A. Deterred by Police/Courts/Corrections" are unknown. The numbers in "B. Stopped by Police" are certainly quite low because police usually respond after the crime is completed. The numbers in "C. Deterred by Civilians" would seem to be around 0.8 to 2.0 million. The numbers in "D. Stopped by Civilians" are around 1.5 to 2.5 million. Finally, the numbers in "E. Completed Crimes" are about 3.5 million, based on NCVS data. Without the civilian guns being used to deter and stop crimes, the numbers of completed crimes could well double. It would undoubtedly be the case that increased gun ownership would further reduce crime. [Page 245]” Are some of these civilians stopping crime store owners stopping a robbery, etc? Those who live day to day with violent crime at their doorstep? Who are the subjects for their study? How do they relate to me personally so that I feel the need to put a gun in my house and car, as opposed to just enjoying shooting and fighting for gun rights as I do? As I said earlier if crime was that bad where I lived I’d move, not buy a gun and stay there. If I cared about my family enough to have a gun, I'd care enough to move out of a place I felt I would need it. BTW, how many who argue with me actually vote for Pro-gun politicians? So who is hurting whose gun rights or putting their money where their mouth is? Vicarious voting of progun politicians via support of a gun organization, so you dont have to get your hands dirty, doesn't count. One certainly doesn't have to vote lfor a ProGun politician just for gun rights, but ease up on the "guns are dangerous" opinions of others if you leave your gun rights to those who would take them away. I am not going to change anyone’s mind and you won’t change mine. Besides, “Welcome to the Internet!” We could play article tag all year long. And banter semantics till one of us gets shot by another forum member. So I will agree to disagree and move on. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks for the debate.
Hmmmm......point goes to Arthur on this one I think. I don't run away from dangerous places as the whole world is a dangerous place, and I have been in far more dangerous places than Detroit. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "When the man and the tiger are 2, there is danger. When the man and the tiger are 1, there is no danger." That's a koan I learned once.
Yes, I said I was done and I am, but after rereading my last post which was written impatiently and in haste I had to rewrite it, if anyone cares, for more clarity and to maybe clear up any misunderstandings. Though I have not read any comments and won’t, my last post was a mess. Something I excel at Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------------------------------------- My take on the article Guns and Justifiable Homocide: Deterrence and Defense by Lawrence Southwick, Jr. before having finished it is: The fact that civilians do shoot criminals (a deterrent to crime) just gun ownership, or the possibility of a civilian owning a gun (as opposed to taking away all civilian gun rights) is also a deterrent to crime as well. Since it is claimed that gun ownership reduces crime I don’t believe necessarily that a criminal says to himself, at least not all criminals: “Hmm, that guy or home, could have a gun. But I will attempt my crime anyway and wait and see if a gun is actually stuck in my face.” Which seems true as explained in the article quoted originally by Doucette –Guns and Justifiable Homocide: Deterrence and Defense by Lawrence Southwick, Jr. But instead, I also believe some criminals would also assess a head of time the probability of a gun without actually having to see one. And a likely probability of my using a gun in my home for protection is a deterrent to stopping a potential crime. As the article also stated. If you are that concerned about being a victim and want to be seen as a gun owner, without having a gun in your home, there are a lot of ways to perpetuate the possibility of a gun to a criminal --Keeping an empty gun case, with closed empty ammo boxes inside --a dead animal on the wall --pro gun or hunting stickers and notices on/in your car or home or front door --a gun rack in your vehicle -- where you live could also be a deterrent if it’s a place where every other home is assumed to have at least one gun. Not because of crime in the area but because the area is thought to be made up of hunters or gun enthusiasts --Your reputation as well can be a deterrent. The above suggestions are if say a visitor in our out of your house is casing your place Some of the above suggestions can be seen as arguable and laughable but they can work going by the assumption that gun ownership deters crime. All and more could prevent you from being a potential target. Though, certainly not guarantee it. I believe that gun rights probably result in reduced crime, but it would obviously also hold true that gun ownership not only results in less “criminal intent” crimes but also results in more accidental “in house” events, resulting in death or injury. “There were 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.” Wiki Gun Violence in America ( if you trust Wiki) So, accidents happen. My reasoning for not using a gun for protection even though I am pro gun, is that I am not only concerned with the death of a family member, injury is high on my list too. And there is also up for consideration: Criminals who want to find homes with firearms to steal and criminals who think if you might have a gun then they bring their own for protection. Quoting Adoucettes same article: GUNS AND JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: DETERRENCE AND DEFENSE by Lawrence Southwick, Jr. “Putting together all of these results, we find that there is a good correspondence among them. They are derived from different approaches, so that correspondence adds credibility to each method. Somewhere around 0.8 to 2.0 million violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians. In addition, another 1.5 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by armed civilians. There may be some overlap in these two categories because of the ways in which the data are collected, but there are almost certainly some two to four million fewer completed crimes each year as the result of civilian gun ownership. Returning to Figure 1, the numbers of crimes "A. Deterred by Police/Courts/Corrections" are unknown. The numbers in "B. Stopped by Police" are certainly quite low because police usually respond after the crime is completed. The numbers in "C. Deterred by Civilians" would seem to be around 0.8 to 2.0 million. The numbers in "D. Stopped by Civilians" are around 1.5 to 2.5 million. Finally, the numbers in "E. Completed Crimes" are about 3.5 million, based on NCVS data. Without the civilian guns being used to deter and stop crimes, the numbers of completed crimes could well double. It would undoubtedly be the case that increased gun ownership would further reduce crime. [Page 245]” Obviously, some of these civilians using guns to stop crime, are store owners stopping a robbery and other scenarios which do not apply to me and my home such as those who live day to day with violent crime at their doorstep or who are criminals themselves. So, why should I feel the need to put a gun in my house and car, as opposed to just enjoying shooting and fighting for gun rights as I do when I don’t need them? Yes, anyone can be a victim no matter who you are or where you live. But since my spouse and I have made a commitment not to use guns in our home or vehicle or strapped to our side for protection then: If crime was so bad where we lived that we felt so endangered that we would feel the need to break our conviction and put a gun in our home then, we would also care about our family enough to move out of that place. Because we don’t want the risks a gun in our home poses. BTW, how many who argue with me actually vote for Pro-gun politicians? So who is hurting whose gun rights or putting their money where their mouth is? Vicarious voting, of progun politicians, via support of a gun organization, so you dont have to get your hands dirty, doesn't count here. I certainly understand about the predicament of voting Progun with a politician that turns your stomach over choosing one you like better but is anti-gun. And I don’t begrudge anyone that predicament. But my point is if you leave your gun rights to those who would like to take them away then shouldnt' one ease up a bit on those with such opinions as "firearms are dangerous" or "I don't want a gun in my home" . . My spouse read my posts and rightly said I should clarify my “we don’t hunt” or “run around the woods shooting guns” comments. We don’t, but my spouse and kids have each hunted but not in over 12 years. Except, one son and my spouse each took a deer in our backyard about 8 years ago, I had forgotten about that one. The kids did not like it and even 3/4 grown ones would refuse to hunt. But again, none of our immediate family hunts. I’ve never even pointed a gun at an animal. We also had guns in our home until our oldest started walking- then they were put into a gun case- then eventually moved out of our house and into a safe in our garage attic (some 23 years ago). We have none on our property anywhere, nor have we had any on our property in years. So as I had mentioned in an earlier post, we weighed our decision to not keep guns in our home from both sides. It has been a process of actions, thoughts, and changing opinions on firearms. And yes, we still like to shoot and believe in gun rights. I am not going to change anyone’s mind and you won’t change mine. Besides, “Welcome to the Internet!” We could play article tag all year long. And banter semantics till one of us gets shot by another forum member. So I will agree to disagree and move on. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Thanks for the debate. For example, Kleck and Gertz (1995) found that each year there are some "2.2 to 2.5 million defensive uses of guns of all types by civilians against humans".[7] Additionally Cook and Ludwig (1997) found that there were about 1.5 million defensive uses annually.[8] These surveys are unable to tell us how successful these defenses are, what the effects would be if the defenders did not have guns for defense, or if the defenders are themselves criminals. And yes, Doucette, your leaving out the bolded statement above does "speak volumes" to me because it shows the statement does not specifically relate to home invasion type crime. Which was exactly what I asked in my question you were answering. Whew! Enjoy any holiday time! BlueBaby
Except we do have the statistics for the deaths and injuries and clearly they don't rank in the top 15 causes for either death or injury.
No it doesn't. It was about defensive use, and FAR fewer people have carry permits than have weapons in their home (about 1 million carry permits to ~50 million homes with guns at the time that study was done), and so while one can't exactly answer the question, the number of defensive uses is so high, that it's obvuious to anyone without an agenda to push, that indeed a lot of the defense is done at the home. Arthur
