I'm neither for nor against gun ownership, but I am against blatant misrepresentation of the facts. The facts are:
- 1 : home invasion is incredibly rare
- 2 : injury and death by firearm, intentional or otherwise is incredibly high in the USA.
Professor Harold Pollack, who (among other things) co-directs the University of Chicago's Crime Lab: [1]
"...the everyday risks of injury, accident, domestic altercations, and suicide. The relative risks matter. And the fact is: lethal home invasions and burglaries are incredibly rare. You might not think so, since dramatic cases stick in your mind and tend to receive disproportionate press coverage. These cases are rare nonetheless."
"I had the Chicago police run the number on homicides. In 2011, precisely one homicide listed "burglary" as the motive. Nationwide, there are about 100 burglary-homicides every year. When you compare that to more than 18,000 gun suicides, the conclusions seem pretty obvious."
Enjoy your guns all you like, but be honest, they are a dangerous hobby and the statistical likelihood of you or a family member being harmed or killed by a gun the family owns is far higher than the chance that
- you will ever be the victim of a home invasion
- you will get the chance for a high noon shoot out with a "bad guy"
You made a very specific claim ("research shows that gun owners and their families are far, far more likely to be injured or killed by said firearm"), then when called on it, you threw out a number of quotes (from specifically anti-RKBA sources) unrelated to your claim.
That false claim is often quoted from the Kellerman study, but an examination of his data (it took years for him to release it) revealed that in almost all such homicides, it was a gun that the intruder brought with him (predominantly male) and not one the victim owned. (Kates, 2001) The residents' gun could have been locked up in the basement, and Kellerman counted it anyway.
Or, do you have different research in mind that supports that claim?
"gun owners and their families are far, far more likely to be injured or killed by said firearm (accidentally, or intentionally) than they are to ever actually have the opportunity to use the gun for defence"
There's really no need to muddy the waters with politics. The raw data speaks for itself :
- violent home invasions leading to murder are exceedingly rare
- accidental gun injury or death is sadly commonplace
I've already supplied many sources, so i won't repeat the stats that plainly lay out this reality
This discussion has veered away from the thread topic, but, regardless, thank you for presenting data. My major reservation here is that it seems a bit disingenuous to highlight suicide, while at the same time not including injury, rape, or loss of property that result from home invasions.
> seems a bit disingenuous to highlight suicide, while at the same time not including injury, rape, or loss of property that result from home invasions.
Nothing disingenuous about it.
In fact, statistically speaking, the situation is even worse. Introducing a gun into an already violent encounter significantly increases the risk of injury and death.
There is tonnes of evidence to support this. Here is one, very specific study that indirectly confirms exactly this.
It's a long read, but well worth it if you are really interested in what the literature has to say about the often surprising ways in which guns affect the outcomes of violent crime.
Here is one, very specific study that indirectly confirms exactly this.
Interviews of 100 incarcerated felons (with a specific incentive to discourage gun ownership), without any actual data (even anecdotal), confirms nothing. Did you bother to read any of your quoted research before cutting-and-pasting?
so you didn't like that source, did you bother to read any of the other many sources I supplied? Guess not since they don't support your world view.
Like i said I'm not anti gun. But saying I own a gun for protection is kind of like saying "I BASE jump to stay fit". No you don't. You do it because it's dangerous and fun. Guns are the same.
I wish more gun owners were intellectually honest and just admitted that they like their dangerous hobby in spite of the fact that
- Their chance of being a victim of violent crime such as home invasion or car jacking is unbelievably tiny
- The chance that they or a family member will be killed or injured by a family owned gun utterly dwarfs the chance that said gun will actually prevent violent crime
These are facts borne out 100% by data.
from [1], which gets most of it's data from government collected statistics. These are stats just for accidental injury!:
- "In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.18"
- "From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.19"
- "Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.20"
- "People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.21"
- "A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.22"
Again, from [2], "Nationwide, there are about 100 burglary-homicides every year.". 100 homicides for the ENTIRE USA related to burglary!! And i'd speculate that a significant number of these deaths were due to victims escalating the situation by drawing a gun!
That means you are 6 times as likely to accidentally kill yourself than be the victim of a murder during a burglary.
Yet again, you dodge the question, and yet again, you refer to media articles that quote no actual data.
I read each of the "studies" you refer to in the years they were released, and many, many more. I've been studying criminology for 23 years.
Repeating the "I'm not anti-gun" mantra whilst referring only to anti-RKBA sources (and misquoting those) reinforces intellectual dishonesty.
And as for "Their chance of being a victim of violent crime such as home invasion or car jacking is unbelievably tiny", you really haven't examined the data. There are dozens of carjackings and home invasions (aka "hot burglary" - entering when residents are present) each month in the Bay Area alone. If you rely only on media reports, they are typically reported only as "burglaries".
What is actually "unbelievably tiny" is one's odds of being killed by an "assault weapon", yet phony claims to the contrary drive the media narrative. Drownings excluding those in swimming pools exceed homicide by "assault weapon" in the U.S.
> There are dozens of carjackings and home invasions (aka "hot burglary" - entering when residents are present) each month in the Bay Area alone
and how many of those result in murder? Or do you believe that using lethal force to protect property is ok? If this is the case then we have no common ground.
My position is that being scared and losing your TV isn't grounds for ending a burglar's life.
do you believe that using lethal force to protect property is ok?
When an armed party has broken into a home, knowing residents are present, only a fool would assume that only personal property is at risk. There's a fundamental difference in home invasion from, say, breaking into an unoccupied vehicle.
> only a fool would assume that only personal property is at risk
this is a classic example of emotion clouding better judgement. A more rational approach would be to look at the data:
- In 2010, there were an estimated 2,159,878 burglaries [1]
- In 2013 there were 94 murders associated with burglary
This is a 0.00435% chance that you will be killed in the course of a burglary. I'm sure this number will go down dramatically as long as you don't grab a gun ;)
I take it that you've never read such research yourself; that's a gross misinterpretation (the "said firearm" qualifier is outright false).