Guns used for lawful self defense

[Ian]

Ian

This type of argument is just another version of the general insanity that is American gun culture. The fallacy that guns are a solution to a problem rather than the problem itself.

Most of this recent discussion is about home invasions. Expert advice on how to cope with home invasions is readily available.
http://www.professorshouse.com/Your-Hom ... tatistics/

Compared to murders by family members, murders during home invasions are few and far between. Likewise women getting raped in home invasions. It happens, but it is far more common for rape to come from a person known to the woman victim.

The responses I have seen in this thread are ridiculously paranoid and over-hyped. Most home invasions can be avoided with a few precautions, and if they happen, can have harm minimised with sensible and non violent behaviour. Drawing a gun is about the most stupid thing anyone can do. It almost guarantees that a situation that can be kept under control will escalate out of control, leaving someone badly injured or dead.

It is noteworthy that people opposed to the commonsense way of coping are arguing with anecdotes, which any rational person knows is a fallacious method of debate.

The anecdotists never mention all the suicides and accidents that happen because of guns being around.
Or the people killed by being MISTAKEN for robbers.
Or the people killed because someone has the gun at home, and goes home in a rage, gets it, and kills someone .

Or the little kids who pick up a loaded gun and set it off, killing some other little kid.

Or the fact that the criminals guns start their career as proper kosher weapons of self-defence.

I'm aware of all of that. Which is why my gun is locked in a safe, and my wife and I are not only just the only two people who know the keypad combination, we're the only two people (besides you guys) who even knows that the gun exists.

As for the rage, we don't have it. And the odds of us killing someone by mistake are incredibly low. Nobody ever comes into our house unannouced. Once our kids are teenagers and up late, we'll keep that in mind - I don't intend to ever shoot at an unidentified shadow.

Besides, submitting to somebody who breaks into my house is simply not going to happen. You can tell yourself that drawing a gun is the dumbest thing that I could do, but I couldn't disagree more. There's one thing considerably dumber than that: being submissive to the invader and hoping that it all works out in the end. Fugheddaboutit. I will not be a coward. The best way to end up a victim is to act like one.

Quote statistics all you like, I understand them very well and I'm more on your side than you think. But most of those people who end up statistics from have a certain amount of stupidity in common. My weapon is locked up very safe, and I'm also very confident about the abilities of my wife and myself to use it properly. My kids will never shoot each other, my wife and I will never shoot each other or ourselves, the gun will never be discovered in an open drawer by someone else, etc. The statistics you believe to be a debate trump card are nothing of the sort because they simply don't apply to me. I actually prefer the anecdotes to the stats, as I can relate to them more.

[Blind groper]

Ian

Your response to an intruder will obviously be your response, and I cannot change that. However, I think you should try to change your thinking on one point. Doing the sensible thing is not the same as being a coward. Sometimes it requires considerable courage and solid cool thinking.

[Ian]

We disagree on what the sensible thing is. I'm not going to sit up in bed, put my hands in the air and say "take what you want and please don't hurt us." Not a chance in hell, at least not if I have a good five seconds or so to retrieve my gun. There's a difference between bravery and recklessness, but there's also a difference between caution and cowardice. If somebody breaks in, odds are good that he/they are already well aware that people are at home.

Better to have a gun and never need it than need one and not have it. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.

[Blind groper]

Ian

Simply having a gun in the home increases risk to you and your family.
Dr. Kellerman carried out interesting studies on this, though (of course) the NRA did its best to try to discredit his work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

I quote :

"54% of firearm-related deaths occurred in the home where the gun was kept
70.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved handguns
0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry
1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense
there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings"

You will note that the times when someone successfully used a gun in self defense is dwarfed by the times the gun in the home resulted in a tragedy.

And (later edit) from a more recent Kellerman study.

"after adjusting for other factors (such as a police-report history of violence in the home, a convicted felon in the home, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, race, etc.) there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home; this risk was not attributable to any particular "high risk" subgroup(s) identifiable by the above factors but was evident to some degree in all subgroups
this risk was essentially entirely attributable to being shot by a family member or intimate acquaintance with a handgun which was kept loaded and unlocked in the house
this risk was significantly less than the increased risk due to sociological factors (rental of a home instead of ownership, living alone) but close to that associated with the presence of a convicted felon in the home (see table at right)."

[Ian]

Like I said, shove the statistics. I don't doubt any of them, but I have little personal interest in them for reasons which I already described.

[Blind groper]

Like I said, shove the statistics. I don't doubt any of them, but I have little personal interest in them for reasons which I already described.

Hmmm.

Ian, not wanting to be rude, but do you really think that rejecting data is living up to the standards implied by the word "rationalia"?

[Svartalf]

The best option is gun safety training for children, which should be mandatory in public and private schools, starting in the first grade and continuing through high school graduation with increasing skills like marksmanship, maintenance and the law, so that on graduation the graduate with no criminal record gets his/her concealed carry permit along with a government-issued handgun and military battle rifle that they are required to keep maintained and remain proficient with and which they must bring with them if and when they are called to duty in the Militia. .

To quote someone from the last post : You really are stupid, aren't you?


What a wonderful way to give violent criminals their start in life. Trained to kill, and given weapons as well. Wow!

America's homicide rate, which is already at least four times as high as the truly civilised nations, will go through the roof. Ten times as high perhaps. Another 25,000 dead people each year. Shot by criminals trained and equipped by the government. Just think of all the immigrants who will want to come to America, to join the "land of opportunity".

Best way to help common citizens defend themselves against violent criminals is that they should too have weapon training and be allowed to carry. The police just isn't up to the job.

[JimC]

Good points, Mistermack.
Thank you for them.

In the USA, the greatest numbers of deaths by firearm is suicide. In the USA, there are 12,000 hand gun suicides each year. Normally, a would-be suicide has an impulse to kill him/herself, which lasts for a limited period - a few minutes to a couple of hours. If they can find a convenient means of killing themselves in that period, there is a death. If not, the person passes the critical period (in most cases) and there is no death.

If a person keeps a hand gun at home, that is an invitation to suicide, and the hand gun owner is putting his/her family at terrible risk. If the idiot insists on owning an hand gun anyway, it should be locked away where kids cannot get hold of it. Of course, if that happens, the hand gun is pretty much useless as a defense against a home invader, anyway. But locking it away very substantially reduces the risk of someone getting killed.

60% of all suicides in the USA are by hand gun. In other countries, such deaths are very few and far between, and the lack of hand guns no doubt saves lives by the thousands.

To be fair, people have posted about a gun-lock thing which can be quickly released by a 4 digit code... At least some gun owners are sensible in this regard, not like those who leave a loaded pistol in a bed-side drawer...

But that, of course, does not change the easy suicide option the gun-owner has, which was of course your main point...

[Blind groper]

Best way to help common citizens defend themselves against violent criminals is that they should too have weapon training and be allowed to carry. The police just isn't up to the job.

More guns means more homicides and more suicides. More tragedy.

Much better to work on having fewer guns (especially hand guns, which dominate in both homicides and suicides), and better police.

There is a range of non firearm techniques and equipment that the ordinary citizen can use very effectively to thwart the would-be violent criminal.

[JimC]

Best way to help common citizens defend themselves against violent criminals is that they should too have weapon training and be allowed to carry. The police just isn't up to the job.

More guns means more homicides and more suicides. More tragedy.

Much better to work on having fewer guns (especially hand guns, which dominate in both homicides and suicides), and better police.

There is a range of non firearm techniques and equipment that the ordinary citizen can use very effectively to thwart the would-be violent criminal.

Would you include things like capsicum spray, batons or tasers?

[Blind groper]

Not sure about batons, but yes to the other two. In addition, there is a wide range of sonic alarms available, which punch out up to 130 decibels, with a noise that is literally intolerable, and sends both victim and assailant running (hopefully in opposite directions!)

[JimC]

Here is my ideal, SF solution...

Real stun-guns...

But they could be used for nasty purposes, I hear you say...

Every use of a stun-gun sends a message to law-enforcement authorities, with the biometrics of the user. If you have stunned a burglar, well and good (and you get a rebate from your insurance company). The police collect his comatose body, and whisk him away. If you have used it for nefarious purposes, your ass is toast...

[Wumbologist]

Ian

Simply having a gun in the home increases risk to you and your family.
Dr. Kellerman carried out interesting studies on this, though (of course) the NRA did its best to try to discredit his work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

I quote :

"54% of firearm-related deaths occurred in the home where the gun was kept
70.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved handguns
0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry
1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense
there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings"

You will note that the times when someone successfully used a gun in self defense is dwarfed by the times the gun in the home resulted in a tragedy.

And (later edit) from a more recent Kellerman study.

"after adjusting for other factors (such as a police-report history of violence in the home, a convicted felon in the home, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, race, etc.) there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home; this risk was not attributable to any particular "high risk" subgroup(s) identifiable by the above factors but was evident to some degree in all subgroups
this risk was essentially entirely attributable to being shot by a family member or intimate acquaintance with a handgun which was kept loaded and unlocked in the house
this risk was significantly less than the increased risk due to sociological factors (rental of a home instead of ownership, living alone) but close to that associated with the presence of a convicted felon in the home (see table at right)."

This study has been rightfully debunked by sources other than the NRA. Biggest and most obvious flaw is that it's tabulating deaths, as if to say that one cannot successfully defend their home from an intruder without killing them, when in fact the majority of defensive gun uses occur without a shot being fired. A kill to kill ratio is fallacious as it only tabulates the least common result of a successful armed home defense, death of the intruder, while ignoring incapacitated, surrendering, or fleeing intruders.

[Blind groper]

So, Wumbo, like the rest of the irrational rationalia people, you think that guns do not kill?

[Svartalf]

Best way to help common citizens defend themselves against violent criminals is that they should too have weapon training and be allowed to carry. The police just isn't up to the job.

More guns means more homicides and more suicides. More tragedy.

Much better to work on having fewer guns (especially hand guns, which dominate in both homicides and suicides), and better police.

There is a range of non firearm techniques and equipment that the ordinary citizen can use very effectively to thwart the would-be violent criminal.

The price of doing business?

Violent offenders will find other implements if denied guns, while honest people will be left defenceless. So between having them, or not, I prefer the former option in spite of its unsavory aspects.