Guns, homicides, and Sarah Palin -- Discuss (FSZ)

Quote: boymimbo

It's very cool if you want to start a militia... ;)

Or just protect yourself.

Quote: AZDuffman

Or just protect yourself.

If anyone thinks they are "protecting themselves" by owning a gun, they are sadly mistaken. The number of accidental household deaths from gunshot wounds outnumbers the number of "intruders foiled in the act!!!!!!" by a factor of several hundred.

Quote: mkl654321

I can't speculate on your reason for owning all them shootin' irons.

Its fun, its interesting, its entertaining. Gun have fascinated people since they were invented. I have some flintlock pistols that are things of beauty, they're art. If you can't see it, oh well.

Quote: mkl654321

Because there's too strong a correlation with the state this happened in, the recent political climate, and violence-exhorting rhetoric like the Sarah Palin ad. Granted, he could simply be a crazy person. But that wouldn't rule out him being a conservative. I assume that if he were a liberal, he would have sought out a conservative to blow away--it's a much easier species to find than liberals, at least in Arizona.

Ah, so now the whole STATE must be nutjobs because, well, after all it is AZ. Will you insult TX as well?

You still have yet to show Sarah Palin calling for violence. I have not seen her call for any violence, your stretching of her clever ad notwithstanding. I have heard people make all kinds of comments about her from an incorrect preceived lack of intelligence to suggesting she should have aborted her child. But never a call for violence. Maybe you saw Tina Fey impersonate her and got confused like so many other lefties?

Quote: mkl654321

You have forfeited the privilege I alluded to in my previous post.

I knew that you would eventually run and hide when someone would not let you get away with your wild allegations that you cannot back up with any facts. This was fun!!!!!!

Quote: mkl654321

If anyone thinks they are "protecting themselves" by owning a gun, they are sadly mistaken. The number of accidental household deaths from gunshot wounds outnumbers the number of "intruders foiled in the act!!!!!!" by a factor of several hundred.

The facts are, gun suicides are considered 'accidental' and each year about 55% of 'accidental' gun deaths are suicides. Kinda skews the stats, huh.

Quote: mkl654321

If anyone thinks they are "protecting themselves" by owning a gun, they are sadly mistaken. The number of accidental household deaths from gunshot wounds outnumbers the number of "intruders foiled in the act!!!!!!" by a factor of several hundred.

Lets see the real numbers. Or are you once again simply making something up? Put up or shut up.

Quote: mkl654321

If anyone thinks they are "protecting themselves" by owning a gun, they are sadly mistaken. The number of accidental household deaths from gunshot wounds outnumbers the number of "intruders foiled in the act!!!!!!" by a factor of several hundred.

Please cite a fact on this. One you have not made up and by an unbiased source.

And consider the mere fact that a criminal knows guns are around reduces crime. All you need to do is look at cities with the strongest gun control laws and you find the most gun violence. If a criminal saw "this house protected by Smith and Wesson" or an NRA sticker and moved elsewhere that would be a intgruder foiled, would it not?

Quote: AZDuffman

Ah, so now the whole STATE must be nutjobs because, well, after all it is AZ. Will you insult TX as well?

You still have yet to show Sarah Palin calling for violence. I have not seen her call for any violence, your stretching of her clever ad notwithstanding. I have heard people make all kinds of comments about her from an incorrect preceived lack of intelligence to suggesting she should have aborted her child. But never a call for violence. Maybe you saw Tina Fey impersonate her and got confused like so many other lefties?

I wouldn't know. I'm not left-handed. However, she is a shallow-thinking moron, and that ad is rich proof of that. If she and her handlers couldn't envision a possible backlash from it, than she and they are as thick as bricks. "Clever"? It was about the stupidest thing they could have done.

But you, blinded by your ideology...or something...think she's intelligent. Wow.

And as far as Arizona goes, I lived there twice (neither time, voluntarily) and I have to say that I've never been surrounded by such a sea of reactionary old farts and heat-packin' rednecks in my life. It's not a nice place. Everyone uses their car horns as if it was mandatory to do so. They elected Evan Meacham, a certifiably insane person, to the governorship. And everyone hates everyone else, even though they're nominally on the same side of the political spectrum. And of course, everyone hates the Mexicans. Fun!

Quote: EvenBob

The facts are, gun suicides are considered 'accidental' and each year about 55% of 'accidental' gun deaths are suicides. Kinda skews the stats, huh.

Much like anyone under 18 is considered a "child" for gun injuries. So a 15 year old gang-banger gets shot in a gang war it is considered a "child gun death" and gullible people think it was some poor 6 year old in the suburbs who accidently got shot by finding a gun he thought was a toy.

Anyone I ever met who owned guns knew how to and did keep them secured in a safe manner. That part is what really drives lefties nuts. Lefties hate guns but are often in awe of them. I worked with one who I still am friends with. His gf (who would "like Obama if he weren't so conservative") fired one and told him about it. He was kind of jealous and kept asking my about firing one as he knew I owned one. This went on over a week and if I had a safe place I would have dragged him in the car and showed him how to fire one then made him do it. This was NY and I wasn't sure how OK it would have been to do. In PA I could have just disassembled it and put it in the trunk then gone to the woods.

Quote: mkl654321

I wouldn't know. I'm not left-handed. However, she is a shallow-thinking moron, and that ad is rich proof of that. If she and her handlers couldn't envision a possible backlash from it, than she and they are as thick as bricks. "Clever"? It was about the stupidest thing they could have done.

But you, blinded by your ideology...or something...think she's intelligent. Wow.

And as far as Arizona goes, I lived there twice (neither time, voluntarily) and I have to say that I've never been surrounded by such a sea of reactionary old farts and heat-packin' rednecks in my life. It's not a nice place. Everyone uses their car horns as if it was mandatory to do so. They elected Evan Meacham, a certifiably insane person, to the governorship. And everyone hates everyone else, even though they're nominally on the same side of the political spectrum. And of course, everyone hates the Mexicans. Fun!

So anytime anyone puts out an ad they have to think of anything an insane person might do? Maybe you think the government should clear any ad before it goes up? But yes, I do find her intelligent. Someone who was a mayor and govenor and cleaned up both places. Understands the oil industry so she wouldn't have to "figure out who's ass to kick" when someting went wrong. I am not in awe of someone book smart and sidewalk stupid just because they read a teleprompter well, maybe you are?

Thanks for your lovely statement about the fine people and state of AZ. It shows how you are avoiding all the "hate-filled rherotic" you claim to not like. Hopefully you don't run a conservative over with your car after seeing a Toyota ad with a car using people as traffic cones or something like that. We never know how ads will affect people you know......

Quote: AZDuffman

Lefties hate guns but are often in awe of them.

On that Sarah Palin show, she had that Kate woman from Kate + 8 on a few weeks ago. Sarah took her to a gun safety meeting and when Kate saw a table covered in rifles and other types of guns, she recoiled like it was covered in roiling snakes. I think Libs are terrified of everything, including and especially guns. They don't understand them or the people that own them and don't have any inclination to try. Their noses are too high in the air for them to ever bother.

Not that I want to help out mkl, but let's try this link here. Yep the analysis is probably too liberal. But the stats in this study show that

Quote: study

Of all the methods of murder, guns were responsible for 49.8 percent of the victims killed at home. In homes that kept a gun, the overall murder risk was 2.7 times greater, but for gun homicides it was 4.8, while for non-gun homicides it was 1.2. Notice that 1.2 is not significantly different from 1, so there was no increased risk for non-gun homicides. In other words, people who kept a gun in the home were at higher risk for gun homicides only, not any other type of homicide. This is an important point, because it strongly suggests that gun availability tends to turn ordinary family arguments into something fatal, rather than the murder victims knew they were at risk and armed themselves with a gun.

Also in the same study

Relationship of offender to victim (percent)

Quote: study

Spouse 16.7
Intimate acquaintance 13.8
First-degree relative 9.5
Other relative 2.9
Roommate 2.9
Friend or acquaintance 31.0
Police officer 1.0
Stranger 3.6
Unknown (unidentified suspect) 17.4
Other 1.4

Or, from a nonbiased study (National Archive of Crime Justice Data):

Quote:

1993 - 2007
Universe: United States hospitals providing emergency services.
Data Type: administrative records data
Methodology: The sample design of NEISS is a stratified, probability sample of all United States hospitals that had at least six beds and provided 24-hour emergency services. There were four hospital-sized strata (defined as very large, large, medium, and small, based on the number of annual ED visits) and one children's hospital stratum. From 1993 through 1996, there were 91 NEISS hospital EDs in the sample. In 1997, the sampling frame was updated so that in 1997 through 1999 the sample included
101 NEISS hospital EDs. In 2000-2001, one NEISS hospital dropped out of the system, so there were 100 NEISS hospital EDs in the sample. In 2002, another hospital dropped out of the system, so there were 99
NEISS hospital EDs in the sampling frame. In 1997, CPSC collected firearm-related cases using the "old" and "new" NEISS hospital samples for a nine-month period. This dataset includes data from the "new" sample. The overlapping "old" sample is not included. Comparisons of weighted estimates based on the "old" and "new" samples indicated a difference of about 1 percent in the overall national estimate using these samples. The characteristics of firearm-related cases from these two
overlapping samples were also very similar.

Survey says (Richard Dawson, please):

Number of gunshot wounds at the home, reported: 12,127

Caused By:
0 Unknown 23.7%
1 Stranger 8.2%
2 Self 40.5% (most are unintentional shootings -- EvenBob, be careful when handling your equipment!) and suicides.
3 Friend/acq 12.9%
4 Spouse/ex 1.8%
5 Oth relative 7.3%
6 Other/no see 5.5%


Note: these are not murders, these are emergency room cases, and wouldn't cover things like dead at the scene. In fact, only 6 percent of these reports were DOA.

Quote: boymimbo

Note: these are not murders, these are emergency room cases,

Any stat is meaningless and useless, even 55% are suicides. How many people fall off ladders in their homes every year and are seriously hurt? How many fall in the tub? How many are stabbed or overdose on script drugs? Should all these things be banned because they were misused? Of course not, how silly. Should guns be banned for the same reason? Of course not, how silly.

More data, source FBI 2009 Uniform Crime Reports:

Justiable homocides by private citizen: 261.
Total murder victims: 13,636.
Victims are strangers: 1,676.

Other fun facts:

Murders of Blacks by blacks: 2,604.
Murders of Whites by blacks: 454.

Murders of Blacks by Whites: 209
Murders of Whites by Whites: 2,963.

I don't want to weigh in on whether handguns should be legal or not. But studies are absolutely right. You are far more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than without. The protection argument's a bunch of crap, in my opinion. You may *feel* better with a gun in your house, but you are far more likely going to hurt yourself (unintentional or not) or someone else who is not a stranger.

Quote: boymimbo

I don't want to weigh in on whether handguns should be legal or not. But studies are absolutely right. You are far more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than without. The protection argument's a bunch of crap, in my opinion. You may *feel* better with a gun in your house, but you are far more likely going to hurt yourself (unintentional or not) or someone else who is not a stranger.

Only ONE stat matters. Only ONE! How many gun owners are there in the US and what percentage hurt themselves with their own guns? Its incredibly small, get over your bad selves already.

I would find it very hard to believe that greater prevalence of guns equates to lower instances of gun violence.

This thread is a spin off from Smoking in Casinos. I moved it here, in the Free Speech Zone, so have at it.

Quote: EvenBob

Only ONE stat matters. Only ONE! How many gun owners are there in the US and what percentage hurt themselves with their own guns? Its incredibly small, get over your bad selves already.

To your point, that stat doesn't even matter. You're still alive, and you own guns. Personal responsibility. In fact, if you win $10,000 in a slot, you have the advantage. Slots are profitable!!!

My point is that you are far more likely to be killed with a gun in your house than without. It may be very small, but here's more evidence (someone said "you haven't found a single stat") in a 2009 University of Pennsylvania study published (peer reviewed) in the American Journal of Public Health which concludes:

Quote: Study

The most striking finding from the study is that individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, the adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.5.

The study concludes that: “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.

So go ahead, protect yourself.

Or from the journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, by a joint Harvard / UCLA study, which concludes:

Quote: Abstract

Violent death is a major public health problem in the United States and throughout the world. METHODS:: A cross-sectional analysis of the World Health Organization Mortality Database analyzes homicides and suicides (both disaggregated as firearm related and non-firearm related) and unintentional and undetermined firearm deaths from 23 populous high-income Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development countries that provided data to the World Health Organization for 2003.

RESULTS:: The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries.

Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children.

CONCLUSIONS:: The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.

And yet, another study from 2007 published in Social Science and Medicine.

Quote: Abstract

Two of every three American homicide victims are killed with firearms, yet little is known about the role played by household firearms in homicide victimization. The present study is the first to examine the cross sectional association between household firearm ownership and homicide victimization across the 50 US states, by age and gender, using nationally representative state-level survey-based estimates of household firearm ownership. Household firearm prevalence for each of the 50 states was obtained from the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Homicide mortality data for each state were aggregated over the three-year study period, 2001-2003.

Analyses controlled for state-level rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, per capita alcohol consumption, and a resource deprivation index (a construct that includes median family income, the percentage of families living beneath the poverty line, the Gini index of family income inequality, the percentage of the population that is black and the percentage of families headed by a single female parent). Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.

Boy! The Wizard split the thread apart while I was composing, and I don't want to re-read both threads to see where everything related to guns went. I think most went here, so this is where I will post.

Please note: I do not mean this post to be overly critical of boymimbo. His was just a convenient recent post that included an alleged statistic. I am using his statement as an example, and plenty of other posts (many with the opposite viewpoint) could be analyzed in the same manner. (And I'm referring to his post on the previous page -- I was struggling to compose this when he posted right above. Haven't read that one in detail yet.)

I think many of the “statistics” in this thread could easily be both accurate and very deceiving, perhaps "untruthfully accurate". I also suspect many of the reports of such statistics are presented in a biased manner -- not just here but in the media, political propaganda, general conversation, etc. Here are a few issues that might affect a statistic such as:

Quote: boymimbo

... You are far more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than without. ...

First, what does this even mean? Does this statistic mean (a) given that you have been killed, then (b) your house is more likely to have a gun than not? Or does it mean (a) given that you have a gun in your house, then (b) you are more likely to be killed than if you didn’t? Those are quite different claims.

The times I have seen this claim made, I think the second interpretation is usually implied – presence of the gun in the house increases the likelihood of someone being killed there. (I think that is boymimbo's position.)

How in the world could anyone possibly get reliable data for this? It would require knowledge of who has guns and who does not. Sure, there is probably data for those cases where someone is killed, but in order for the statistic to be reliable/useful/believable it would require gun-ownership information for all the people who are not killed. I don’t think that anything close to accurate data is available for that.

On the other hand, perhaps many people do use this “statistic” and express it with the first interpretation: if you are killed, you are more likely to own a gun than not. I, personally, think understanding that interpretation would require a lot more information about the group of people who are getting killed. Maybe the people who live in situations where there is a greater-than-average risk of being killed -- and in which more people actually do get killed -- maybe those folks feel threatened and sense a real incentive to keep guns around, so there is a high ownership level. If someone does get killed, perhaps the gun didn’t cause them to get killed, it just wasn’t effective in their case in preventing the killing. That is, the gun ownership was the result of a lot of killing going on rather than the killing being the result of owning a gun.

Please understand that I am not trying to take the opposing viewpoint from boymimbo or from anyone else who has posted above. I am not presenting the "suppose" and "perhaps" and "maybe" aspects of this post as truths, facts, or statistics. I have no idea whether they are true or not. They are just the kind possibilities that I think are not fully considered when people quote “statistics” to prove their own biased positions. Some people make up statistics and others just distort the meanings. We know the statement from Mark Twain, but he attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Yes, someone could try to structure this in some sort of Bayes's Theorem format, but I highly doubt that all of the dependencies and the cause/effect directions would be properly represented.

Quote: President Barack Obama

They bring a knife to a fight....We bring a gun.

For balance.

I also think stats are silly. Too much depends on factors that may or may not apply to you or your area. I own many guns and have since the age of 10 (and quite frankly, am jealous of EvenBob's ability to afford such an assortment). I make no effort to hide this fact and can also occasionally been seen in my yard with anything from pea shooters to shotguns to assault rifles (semi-auto of course, I live in wretched NY). I have never been robbed, assaulted, instigated, called bad names, or had my grass walked upon (Jehovah's still stop by, tho =P). Is this because I'm a known carrier? I suppose the answer is yes or no depending on which side of the fence you choose to sit on, but personally I don't think it does. Am I more likely to die or receive severe injury because I own them? Absolutely, simply for the fact that guns cause damage and I'm surrounded by them. The same could be said for the threat of fire taking my house because I own electric devices that can short circuit. Should the Amish decry my TV and wonder how I could dare put my family in danger because of my wish to watch it? Would they declare that I stop because they dont? Of course not.

Personally, I think that accidents happen. Just look at automobiles. "But guns are made for killing". Yeah, so are knives. But sensible people use knives as tools, just as sensible gun owners use guns as tools. And stats showing guns are resposible for X amount of killings/injury/accidental shootings dont mean squat, IMO. Crazy people, irresponsible people, ignorant people, they will always find a way to screw up things for the 'good man'. Outlaw guns in their entirety and we will only see the increase of Louisville Slugger slayings, errant slingshot injuries, and cases where some 4 yr old killed his playmate because he got into his daddy's stash of throwin' rocks. My point is and my beliefs are, that the problem is not with guns but with people. The same can be said for any single other hot topic conversation. The topic is only a problem because of what people do to/with the topic, simply removing the topic still leaves the problem person.

I share EvenBob's...love?...of guns. The history of them, the engineering, just the way they look. Yes, some of them are absolutely beautiful to the eye. I love the competition of them. Target shooting, clay shooting, plinkin old bean cans, it's fun. I love the sense of responsibility I feel, which I can instill in other shooters and my family. I no longer hunt, for my own personal reasons, but hunting has given me so much in the form of responsibility, care for the environment, respect for life, and the ability to live 'in the wild'. Survival training, in other words. The loss of the right to guns would be the loss of a very big part of my person.

As far as home protection goes, I'm still somewhat torn on the subject, mostly because I do live in NY. I'm being purposfully dense and sarcastic in saying this, but it's not terribly far from the truth, that in NY in a home invasion scenario, the assailants bullet/blade basically has to already be on its way to maiming you before you could fire to protect yourself. Otherwise, YOU go to jail. However, I do use guns for personal protection while out and about as I spend a LOT of time alone in the woods. Quite soon, I will be out with my 2yr old son. The frequency in which I run into suspicious dogs, and on more and more occasions black bears, means I will carry for the protection of my son and my son's father on all occasions. The thought of losing such a right/priveledge because of the nutjobs of the world makes me furious.

I don't really have a conclusion to this, as I feel a bit about both sides. Do I want a fully automatic machine gun? Very much so. Should I have the right to rat-a-tat-tat the whole contry side? Probably not. The answer to the gun debate is over my head, but I do feel as in any arguement, the farther you get to the extreme 'for' or extreme 'against' side, the greater disservice you do to getting a real, feasible resolution. So let's all open our minds and try to be civil....or I'll shoot your ass ;)

Disclaimer: The 'shooting you 'comment was meant in an entirely humorous manner. I know not the literary term for demanding something and then doing the exact opposite, but that's the effect I was going for. HUMOR. I don't shoot people, I feel sad enough shooting problem woodchucks. =P

The Kellerman study which studied 430 homocides in detail showed a greater risk (2.7 times) of murder when guns were in the house. They asked the study participants whether there was a gun in the house and was able to correlate the higher risk.

Quote: Kellerman

"Of all the methods of murder, guns were responsible for 49.8 percent of the victims killed at home. In homes that kept a gun, the overall murder risk was 2.7 times greater, but for gun homicides it was 4.8, while for non-gun homicides it was 1.2. Notice that 1.2 is not significantly different from 1, so there was no increased risk for non-gun homicides. In other words, people who kept a gun in the home were at higher risk for gun homicides only, not any other type of homicide. This is an important point, because it strongly suggests that gun availability tends to turn ordinary family arguments into something fatal, rather than the murder victims knew they were at risk and armed themselves with a gun.

Yes, this study has been attacked by the NRA. Let's see what else we can find.

State data: Gun ownership vs Gun death rate (2006):



Wiebe, Douglas J. PhD. “Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated With Firearms in the Home: A National Case-Control Study.” Annals of Emergency Medicine 41 (2003): 771-82.

Quote: Abstract

Study objective: I test the hypothesis that having a gun in the home is a risk factor for adults to be killed (homicide) or to commit suicide.

Methods: Two case-control analyses were based on national samples of subjects 18 years of age or older. Homicide and suicide case subjects were drawn from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey. Living control subjects were drawn from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey. Ten control subjects matched by sex, race, and age group were sought for each case subject.

Results: The homicide sample consisted of 1,720 case subjects and 8,084 control subjects. Compared with adults in homes with no guns, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for homicide was 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20 to 1.65) for adults with a gun at home and was particularly high among women (adjusted OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.89 to 3.90) compared with men (adjusted OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.49) and among nonwhite subjects (adjusted OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.21) compared with white subjects (adjusted OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56). Further analyses revealed that a gun in the home was a risk factor for homicide by firearm means (adjusted OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.40 to 2.12) but not by nonfirearm means (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11).

The suicide sample consisted of 1,959 case subjects and 13,535 control subjects. The adjusted OR for suicide was 3.44 (95% CI 3.06 to 3.86) for persons with a gun at home. However, further analysis revealed that having a firearm in the home was a risk factor for suicide by firearm (adjusted OR 16.89; 95% CI 13.26 to 21.52) but was inversely associated with suicide by other means (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.84).

Conclusion: Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally (gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm. Physicians should continue to discuss with patients the implications of keeping guns at home. Additional studies are warranted to address study limitations and to better understand the implications of firearm ownership. [Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41:771-782.]

Yep. Stats are silly. Next thing you'll be telling me is that insurance rates should be equal for all drivers, and that life insurance rates should be the same for smokers vs non-smokers. After all, statistics don't mean anything. Ignorance is bliss.

Please note that I don't have a position on firearms ownership. America's in no position to go backwards on gun possession and ownership. Indeed, the homicide rate for firearms in the worst state is 20/100,000 per year, while the injury + death rate for firearms is on the order of 32/100,000. If you own a gun, indeed, it is highly unlikely that you will die or injure yourself from it. Mind you, if you live with a gun for 60 years, the odds of injuring/killing rise to about 32 x 60 / 100,000 = about 2 percent, which is not that insignificant, yet is still unlikely.

Quote: matilda

It is no wonder she is married--who would pass on such a woman!

Quote: boymimbo

Yep. Stats are silly. Next thing you'll be telling me is that insurance rates should be equal for all drivers, and that life insurance rates should be the same for smokers vs non-smokers. After all, statistics don't mean anything. Ignorance is bliss.

Aye, I definately made a vague statement here. I didn't mean, nor state, that stats are USELESS. What I meant (and should have said had I had the time) was that stats can't (shouldn't) be held as the be all, end all, ultimate answer. Many stats/polls/whatever, can be skewed by bias, the sample pool selected, area evaluated, etc. I already stated my thoughts, which I believe are somewhat of an agreement to the stats, that by owning and carrying a gun, I am more likely to die or be injured by a gun. I just don't believe it correct, appropriate or fair to vehemently decry the use of them or become rabid anti-gun proponents because of said risk, no more than I as a gun owner and being quite determined to protect my right to carry should rage on and on about CONSTITUTION! or SECOND AMENDMENT IS A RIGHT, MF'er! That is what is silly. Using stats in such a DEFINITIVE way is counter-productive, because unless we're talking sports where every single move is recorded and scrutinized to the highest detail, there's bound to be unforseen and unknown errors in statistics. I think the stats should be used as a piece of information, whether somewhat skewed or not, to better decide how we handle ourselves and what we can do to improve ourselves and our conditions, rather than as ammo to 'win' some nonsensical fight against some self-imagined opponent.

I can't tell where Mrs. Palin is in the above pic as not enough of the background is visible, however I CAN tell her weapon is not shouldered correctly, her stance is not proper, and she's neither looking down-range nor into the scope, yer her finger is most definately wrapped around the trigger. Would it be proper OR correct if I were to call her a perfect example for the need of a gun ban, since gun folks like her are obviously ignorant of any and every safety procedure and are only concerned with looking and acting tough? I haven't watched her Alaska show but have seen the commercials, and doubt as a mother she would practice gunmanship in such a fashion around her family. Would a heavy example of the opposite statement be any more appropriate, lauding her for her willingness to sling such a piece of ass kicking machinery, rough and tough taking out any foe in her path? Equally ignorant, incorrect and assumptive. My point of this, as well as my previous point, is jumping far to one side or the other, whether assisted there by stats, pushed there by peers or steered there for personal reasons, doesn't seem the best thing to do in most situations. You may think you're right, you may feel you're right, hell, you may even BE right, but we live in an incredibly diverse civilized society, and for better or worse, have to take every persons right, priveledges and yes, feelings, right or wrong, into the equation.

I am a gun owner. I carry concealed. If my right were ACTUALLY in danger, were ACTUALLY taken away, I would be obviously upset and partially destroyed. However, I can fully communicate, have dialog, love and yes, learn much from my anti-gun friends, family and neighbors. Rather than be the freak-show gun nut repeatedly spewing the 'you can take it when you pry it from my cold dead hands' that too many dummies spout (that I myself used to in my younger, I'm-always-right days), I found that tolerance and acceptance have been more valuable to me in the forms of relationships and incredible knowledge than I had ever gained by being a my-way-or-the-highway personality. By accepting differences in opinions, by not being offended or threatened by views in direct conflict of mine, and by not simply tuning out what doesn't coincide with my own views, I've taken things from this very post, and most of them from the anti-gunners. Are all those stats the be-all, end-all? No. But I have a wife and child I love, and I sure did pay attention to them, and am/will be a safer carrier because of them, and because of you. For this, I am glad.

Quote: boymimbo

Please note that I don't have a position on firearms ownership. America's in no position to go backwards on gun possession and ownership. Indeed, the homicide rate for firearms in the worst state is 20/100,000 per year, while the injury + death rate for firearms is on the order of 32/100,000. If you own a gun, indeed, it is highly unlikely that you will die or injure yourself from it. Mind you, if you live with a gun for 60 years, the odds of injuring/killing rise to about 32 x 60 / 100,000 = about 2 percent, which is not that insignificant, yet is still unlikely.

I really shoulnd't post in this thread, as the mire is beginning to look, feel and smell like, well, a swamp (brilliant metaphor, eh?), but that's the kind fo statement I can't let pass.

The stats about gun accidents takes everyone into acount. People who are careless, people who are ignorant of how guns work and how to handle them safely, people who disregard gun safety, people who play with guns as if with toys, etc etc etc.

While it's not impossible for someone mindful of safety to have an accident, it is far less likely. So if you remove from the average all the idiots who mishandle guns, the chances of having an accident, of whatever sort, should be a lot lower.

It's the same as driving. Careful drivers don't have as many accidents as careless ones, and certainly nowhere near as many as drunk drivers. Or like some medical stats. A patient undergoing emergency coronary bypass surgery after a heart attack is at much greater risk of death than one who has scheduled surgery prior to any serious cardiac events. But the stats include them all.

Quote: Nareed

So if you remove from the average all the idiots who mishandle guns, the chances of having an accident, of whatever sort, should be a lot lower.

What idiots? There are 52 million households that own 260 million guns. 'Idiots' make up such a small portion of this number that its not even worth discussing.

Quote: EvenBob

What idiots? There are 52 million households that own 260 million guns. 'Idiots' make up such a small portion of this number that its not even worth discussing.

I've been in traffic and see idiots everywhere.

Quote: rxwine

I've been in traffic and see idiots everywhere.

That's a good question: what is the percentage of poorly-trained drivers, and how does that compare to the percentage of poorly-trained gun owners? Also, how do you judge training? I have years of practice and experience behind the wheel of a car in non-emergency conditions, but I have maybe two minutes of experience in life-threatening conditions. For gun owners, what is the ratio of experience in non-emergency conditions (shooting range, etc.) vs. in life-threatening conditions? Other than law-enforcement or military training, does anyone ever get such life-threatening training with firearms? I'm not a gun owner; I simply don't know.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's a good question: what is the percentage of poorly-trained drivers, and how does that compare to the percentage of poorly-trained gun owners? Also, how do you judge training? I have years of practice and experience behind the wheel of a car in non-emergency conditions, but I have maybe two minutes of experience in life-threatening conditions. For gun owners, what is the ratio of experience in non-emergency conditions (shooting range, etc.) vs. in life-threatening conditions? Other than law-enforcement or military training, does anyone ever get such life-threatening training with firearms? I'm not a gun owner; I simply don't know.

I think the gun owner's fantasy of hearing the burglar downstairs, whipping the gun from the bedside drawer, stealthily descending the stairs, gittin' the drop on the varmint, and fillin' im full a' lead is just that--a fantasy. He's more likely to accidentally shoot himself, or the cat.

I think it would be irresponsible to own a gun, and keep it loaded, and in the house, WITHOUT extensive training in the situations where its use might be necessary. I'm not a gun nut, and I have never fired a gun, nor do I want to, but I know enough about the subject to know that it takes a LOT of practice to acquire any kind of accuracy with a handgun. Most beginning shooters fire high and wide; they can't adjust for the recoil. So take your urban cowboy who is creeping downstairs with his substitute manhood, er, gun--he's in all likelihood not well practiced in firing the gun, and more importantly, he's not trained in this kind of crisis/combat situation--not at ALL. So he confronts and tries to ventilate the varmint. Isn't the most likely result that this changes from a robbery to a FATAL robbery?

Quote: mkl654321

Isn't the most likely result that this changes from a robbery to a FATAL robbery?

I think the single most frequent outcome is that the would-be robber flees upon realizing that someone is awake and coming downstairs. That's true with or without the gun being in the scenario. The second most frequent outcome would be that the would-be robber flees upon seeing the gun. Third would be that the robber kills/injures the fool who is "protecting himself" with his handgun. Lagging VERY far behind is the situation where our urban cowboy successfully vanquishes his foe without injuring himself in the process.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's a good question: what is the percentage of poorly-trained drivers, and how does that compare to the percentage of poorly-trained gun owners? Also, how do you judge training? I have years of practice and experience behind the wheel of a car in non-emergency conditions, but I have maybe two minutes of experience in life-threatening conditions. For gun owners, what is the ratio of experience in non-emergency conditions (shooting range, etc.) vs. in life-threatening conditions? Other than law-enforcement or military training, does anyone ever get such life-threatening training with firearms? I'm not a gun owner; I simply don't know.

Aside from training in emergency conditions, and outside hunting and the shooting range any use of a gun is an emergency, there are carelss and reckless gun owners just as there are careless and reckless drivers. Such groups ought to be taken into account.

If you speed, drive drunk or drowsy, do not observe basic safety rules, neglect your side mirrors, etc, you're at a much higher risk of an accident. Likewise people who do not maintaing their guns (guns need to be kept clean), don't put the safety on, leave their guns lying around, point them at people or pets for no reason, shoot them for the hell of it wherever they feel like, etc have a higher risk of accidentally shooting someone, or themselves.

Quote: Nareed

Aside from training in emergency conditions, and outside hunting and the shooting range any use of a gun is an emergency,

I love all the gun 'experts' in this thread who say they've never owned a gun and never will. Yet they know all about guns and the people who own them. Amazing! I've never been to Greece, but I read an article about it once and consider myself an expert. Get real..

Quote: rdw4potus

I think the single most frequent outcome is that the would-be robber flees upon realizing that someone is awake and coming downstairs. That's true with or without the gun being in the scenario. The second most frequent outcome would be that the would-be robber flees upon seeing the gun. Third would be that the robber kills/injures the fool who is "protecting himself" with his handgun. Lagging VERY far behind is the situation where our urban cowboy successfully vanquishes his foe without injuring himself in the process.

So protecting yourself with a gun makes you a "fool?" Spoken like a true white-bread person who has never been outside the "nice" suburbs in their life. It is trus, most robbers will see a gun and run. Most theives are beginners and look for easy targets. But so what? That is the idea. As to the robber killing or injuring the so-called "fool" is fairly unlikley. Robbers are not killers and they don't want to be put away for life for doing so. So they see the gun and they are likely to leave fast.

I will state it again-what cities have the most crime and murders? The ones with the most restrictive gun laws!

Quote: mkl654321

I wouldn't know. I'm not left-handed. However, she is a shallow-thinking moron, and that ad is rich proof of that. If she and her handlers couldn't envision a possible backlash from it, than she and they are as thick as bricks. "Clever"? It was about the stupidest thing they could have done.

Just curious if given that we now know this guy didn't even watch news or listen to talk radio or have a political ideology if you were going to man up and admit you were 100% WRONG about Govenor Palin's ad and conservtives in general causing this?

Quote: AZDuffman

So protecting yourself with a gun makes you a "fool?" Spoken like a true white-bread person who has never been outside the "nice" suburbs in their life. It is true, most robbers will see a gun and run. Most theives are beginners and look for easy targets. But so what? That is the idea. As to the robber killing or injuring the so-called "fool" is fairly unlikley. Robbers are not killers and they don't want to be put away for life for doing so. So they see the gun and they are likely to leave fast.

I will state it again-what cities have the most crime and murders? The ones with the most restrictive gun laws!

Please cite a study. Please cite a study were most robbers will see a gun and run. Please show me a study that shows that a person's use of a gun deters crime. Or is it just "common sense?".

This is from a 2007 USDOJ Study

3,713,000 million households burglarized each year, on average from 2003 to 2007. This includes 629,250 attempts.
1.025 million households (27.6 percent) had someone present in the home.
266,560 million (26 percent) became victims of violent crime.
0.074 million (27.5 percent) of the victims were victimized by strangers.

Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when burglarizing a home while residents were present and violence occurred (table 18). Household members faced an offender with a firearm in about 12% of all households burglarized while someone was home and violence occurred.

On average, 430 victim homicides occur each year as a result of burglary.

He won't. MKL's an expert on everything.

The kid was deranged, politics aside. That said, why would he be able to acquire a gun that could shoot 31! rounds before a reload. Is there a need for that?

Quote: rdw4potus

I think the single most frequent outcome is that the would-be robber flees upon realizing that someone is awake and coming downstairs. That's true with or without the gun being in the scenario. The second most frequent outcome would be that the would-be robber flees upon seeing the gun. Third would be that the robber kills/injures the fool who is "protecting himself" with his handgun. Lagging VERY far behind is the situation where our urban cowboy successfully vanquishes his foe without injuring himself in the process.

I did say that this was the most likely result after he "confronts and tries to ventilate the varmint". The robber might very well feel that his only option is to draw his own gun and shoot back. In other words, the presence of the cowboy's gun may escalate the situation. Guns provoke violence as well as deter it.

Quote: boymimbo

The kid was deranged, politics aside. That said, why would he be able to acquire a gun that could shoot 31! rounds before a reload. Is there a need for that?

I thought he used a Glock handgun. A Glock magazine holds only 10 bullets. He could have had lots of magazines, but it would take a few seconds to remove the empty one and put in a full one. It was during such a reloading that I thought he was tackled.

Quote: Wizard

I thought he used a Glock handgun. A Glock magazine holds only 10 bullets. He could have had lots of magazines, but it would take a few seconds to remove the empty one and put in a full one. It was during such a reloading that I thought he was tackled.

The shooter used a high-capacity magazine that held up to 33 rounds. At the scene, 31 spent rounds were found. He was indeed stopped while changing magazines.

Quote: Wizard

I thought he used a Glock handgun. A Glock magazine holds only 10 bullets. He could have had lots of magazines, but it would take a few seconds to remove the empty one and put in a full one. It was during such a reloading that I thought he was tackled.

This is a common misconception that developed popularity for a number of reasons. His Glock model 19 was purchased in Arizona and was almost certainly sold with two 15 round magazines in the box new. He then purchased at least one (probably more) Glock factory extended magazines that can hold up to 33 rounds. These magazines are designed for the fully automatic machine pistol Glock model 18, which is not available to American civilians. However, the 33 round magazine fits in any 9mm glock due all of them sharing the same magazine well design, and thus Glock sells it for that purpose and it is relatively popular. Back to the 10 round misconception:

From 1994-2004 federal law limited new magazines to 10 rounds, and thus all guns (including Glocks) were supplied with 10 round magazines. These were neutered and less functional versions of the full capacity magazines, which in 9mm were supplied in a 10 round version (model 26), 15 round version (model 19), and 17 round version (model 17). These magazines were still legal to own and possess, having been "grandfathered"- they just could not be made new.

Currently Glock makes 4 different sizes of 9mm magazines- 10 round, 15 round, 17 round, and 33 round (actually 31 with a +2 extension). The model 19 used in the shooting could use the 15, 17 or 33 mags (as well as the neutered 10 round mags that are still around). There are also aftermarket magazines available of varying qualities and sizes, but they are not very common and they are unlikely to have been used. Some highly restrictive states like California, New York, and New Jersey prohibit the possession of magazines larger than 10. This leads to some confusion as to what exactly is legal and available.

This is my first post but I am a firearms instructor and experienced Glock shooter and armorer. Now my opinion: the hysteria over magazine capacity has virtually no bearing on the actual lethality of guns- the magazines will still be available and can be fabricated with little effort. The people who support the bans are simply seeking incremental bans with the ultimate goal of complete eradication a la England and Australia. Restrictions on guns have little to no effect on violent crime rates. Also, I am a libertarian- so you fill in the blanks on what I think about the government's lack legitimate authority to tell people they cannot possess guns and other inanimate objects.

Quote: boymimbo

Please cite a study. Please cite a study were most robbers will see a gun and run. Please show me a study that shows that a person's use of a gun deters crime. Or is it just "common sense?". .

I will only put out my personal experience. My job requires that I am in bad sections of town at various times. Often, I am the only person on the job site. For this reason, I carry concealed and legal. I have for over 30 years. I have only had to pull it out one time and it did not "excite" me as some on this forum have put forward. Quite frankly, I was scared to death that I would have to use it, but I was still ready to do what I needed to do to protect myself. I never even had to point it at the two thugs accosting me. They saw my Glock 21 in my hand and quickly decided to move on. I never reported this to the police. Why waste their time?
Yes, it is "common sense".

Guns are a very dangerous tool, but still a tool to be available and used by law abiding citizens. Should I have just let these two lowlifes do what ever they wanted to do?

Quote: AZDuffman

I will state it again-what cities have the most crime and murders? The ones with the most restrictive gun laws!

True, but the crime came first...

Quote: AZDuffman

So protecting yourself with a gun makes you a "fool?" Spoken like a true white-bread person who has never been outside the "nice" suburbs in their life. It is trus, most robbers will see a gun and run. Most theives are beginners and look for easy targets. But so what? That is the idea. As to the robber killing or injuring the so-called "fool" is fairly unlikley. Robbers are not killers and they don't want to be put away for life for doing so. So they see the gun and they are likely to leave fast.

Should have just left your post intact and responded to all of it at once...

Protecting yourself with a gun that you have utterly no idea how to use makes you a fool. FWIW, I've never lived *in* the "nice" suburbs in my life. Grew up in a rural area, live in Saint Paul, MN now.

Assume that both the robber and the homeowner are armed. Which one do you think is more likely to win a gun fight? The armed criminal, or the civilian?

I own guns, and I spend a fair amount of time at the range - maybe even close to the amount of time I spend in casinos. the people I see there who are taking those "self-defense classes" for new gun owners scare the shit out of me. They almost all either 1.) fall on their asses, 2.) point a loaded handgun cross-range, or 3.) point a (theoretically unloaded) gun at themselves in the process of checking and clearing the chamber. I would say those people are the "fools" that we're talking about, except that most people who own guns for protection never even bother to take a class...

Quote: rdw4potus

Should have just left your post intact and responded to all of it at once...

Protecting yourself with a gun that you have utterly no idea how to use makes you a fool. FWIW, I've never lived *in* the "nice" suburbs in my life. Grew up in a rural area, live in Saint Paul, MN now.

Assume that both the robber and the homeowner are armed. Which one do you think is more likely to win a gun fight? The armed criminal, or the civilian?

I own guns, and I spend a fair amount of time at the range - maybe even close to the amount of time I spend in casinos. the people I see there who are taking those "self-defense classes" for new gun owners scare the shit out of me. They almost all either 1.) fall on their asses, 2.) point a loaded handgun cross-range, or 3.) point a (theoretically unloaded) gun at themselves in the process of checking and clearing the chamber. I would say those people are the "fools" that we're talking about, except that most people who own guns for protection never even bother to take a class...

Will the armed robber or the civillian win? That depends on a number of factrors. You assume armed robbers are smart. At a grocery store that used to be here, two thugs pulled an armed robbery with air pistols bored out to look like guns. An off duty or former cop (I forget which) sent his wife into the store and realized something was wrong. He saw the guys running off and shot one between the eyeballs. His wife was also armed and was going to stop the robbery in progress but a store employee stopped her. In this case, guns saved the day. I only wish he had time to nail the other robber right in the heart.

There are some people who own guns and don't bother to learn how to use them. There are people who can't count to 21 and sit at a BJ table. But I would say both are the minority. I've known many gun owners and all knew the basic safety of handling them. They all knew you buy the right size gun for you to handle. (I have a .380 for example.) They all know the BS that is guns on cop shows on TV vs reality. The ones who do not know it? The anti-gun-nuts. They think what you see at the movies is real.

Quote: rdw4potus

True, but the crime came first...

And the crime rate went up even after the ban. Banning guns just takes guns away from law-abiding citizens.