So, if violence with guns has fallen so much and we should all be so proud about it...

[boston bean]

Why do the gun nutters need guns for protection.

Isn't there an argument to be made they aren't needed for protection based on the facts they like to spout about gun crime being down?

[JustAnotherGen]

1. There you go again Boston Bean

You and the overwhelming burning desire to make sense!

[Lee-Lee]

2. Many problems with your theory

The most blatant and obvious one is that all crime is not gun crime. Most sexual assaults don't involve the use of a gun, knives are used quite often, etc.

The one time I needed my gun it was as assailant with a knife, not a gun, and the mere fact that he suddenly learned he was facing a armed woman instead of the easy victim he expected ended his plans.


It has been shown that when states and municipalities pass harsher penalties for use of a gun in a crime and actually enforce them a lot of criminals switch to knives- not a 1:1 ratio but close in many cases.

So saying because gun crime is doe people don't need guns ignores all the other forms in which violent crime manifests itself, with other weapons or even just fists.

[boston bean]

3. Is it my theory?

[hlthe2b]

4. There appears to be no reasoning with these extremists--like suggesting (to Linus) we take his

security blanket--essentially the same response. That they argue against any measure that would diminish children from shooting themselves or others--including pediatricians reminding parents to lock up guns, or encouraging the development/shifting to "smart guns", says it all to me.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

13. Which extremists? The gun toters or the gun grabbers?

Either way, you're right.

[hlthe2b]

17. Given the "gun grabbing" meme is such a myth, I think you can figure it out... unless

"

"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Then why all the constant praise for "Australian style" gun control?

[Humanist_Activist]

23. Honestly, I'd be satisfied with U.K. style gun control, seems reasonable. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. But I've been assured no one wants to take guns away.

[Humanist_Activist]

25. Well, that's just not true, I'll agree with you there, but I certainly don't view my view as...

extreme, while it is a minority view in this country, even among the pro-gun control movement.

Honestly, I'm mystified by the gun culture in this country, its scary, overly paranoid, and prone to flights of fancy and hyperbole.

You know, its easy to look at countries around the world where civil rights are violated, and you know what generally isn't mentioned? The right to possess or purchase firearms. Makes no sense to compare to any other civil right. Violating free speech, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, there are no nations with the lack of those freedoms I want to live in, but the UK, Australia, Canada, etc. why not? They don't seem to be dystopian hellholes nor autocratic, oppressive governments, yet they have much stricter gun control(up to gun bans) on many types of firearms. Are they perfect? No of course not, but they are democratic.

So as soon as I hear someone drone on and on about their "sacred" 2A rights, I have a really difficult time taking them seriously, for while the United States does have a Second Amendment, its seems anachronistic at this point and counterproductive, at least in my opinion.

[Katashi_itto]

5. 85 people (give or take) will die today from gun related incidents.

It's a beautiful day outside. Enjoy it. One of us could be one of the 85.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. The gun culture

Where I was born not many people don't own guns. When I moved ihere it ways unnerving that guns were sold in places like Walmart and it seemed that people kept a gun in their purses or on the kitchen table.

[jonno99]

26. In the house where I grew up, we seldom locked our doors. In fact we

didn't even have keys for the doors till after I left home.

That same neighborhood is now not a place where I would leave anything unlocked, and the number of neighbors who are now armed has gone way up.

It is not my armed neighbors that is unnerving, it is the prevalence of those intent on doing harm that is unnerving. If you are unnerved by the mere presence of a weapon, it seems to me that you are lucky to live a pretty sheltered life...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

29. We did I guess

we didn't come across guns much in the UK. Only probably pheasant shooters or in the TA. I wouldn't call it sheltered. There are still assault and murders there. Where I live now in the US there are around 3-4 people shot per day.

[ileus]

7. Why take the risk?

It only takes once...


safety first, putting your life in stats hands never.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. According to the stats, you are more likely to be a victim of gun violence by possessing a gun...

than not.

So why take the risk?

[TeddyR]

27. That statistic

Includes felons/drug dealers/criminals who possess guns. So yeah, if you are a drug dealer who owns a gun you are more likely to get shot than a law abiding citizen who owns a gun, or who doesn't own a gun.

[jonno99]

30. Yep - that is an interesting stat. It's right up there with the stat that those who own swimming

pools are more likely to drown than those who do not...

Ditto for cars, motorcycles, rock-climbers, & sky-divers.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. Actually, you bring up a pertinent point, I wonder how many studies controlled for that...

most of the ones I was talking about usually have separate stats for accidental versus intentional firearm use.

[TeddyR]

36. I'd like to see more info here

But it may not be available. Would be interested to know the stats on gun related deaths for felons/drug dealers who own guns and gun related deaths for law abiding citizens who own guns (with a break out for suicides and accidental deaths). I suspect that the stats will show that a criminal who owns a gun has a much greater chance of dying violently than a non-criminal who owns a gun.

[Lee-Lee]

39. It's worse than just not being controlled for

Many of the often cited studies actually drew their data from a sample population that way over represents those with criminal pasts and engaged in criminal activity.

The peop claiming a gun in the home is more likely to kill you almost often cite the Kellerman study. It had a whole bunch of flaws in methodology, but the most glaring is that it only took data from 3 counties.


Those counties were the ones that have Memphis, Cleveland and Seattle in them. All areas that at the time of the study had significant levels of criminal, drug and gang activity well above the average county in the USA.

That alone really shows that the study isn't applicable to the US as a whole.

Then you have more problems like the study determined who had a gun by taking any murder where a gun was found and counting that as the gun harming the person because it was kept there, the. Did their control going door to door asking people if they have guns. If you lived in an urban area with high crime rates and strangers came to your door asking if there were guns in the house how likely are you to be honest about that? I don't live in a high crime area and I won't tell people I have guns or anything else that is high on a criminals shopping list.

There really hasn't been a solid study for the most part. And the biggest problem is that we seem hung up on getting doctors to study this when doctors don't understand crime or guns or criminals. It really should be criminologists doing that work who understand the subject better.

[jonno99]

28. Let me know when law enforcement officers go unarmed - then I'll take your stat to heart. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

35. Not sure how that is relevant, they are usually, or I should say hopefully well trained in how...

to handle firearms, particularly hand guns in crisis situations and able to maintain control and responsibility for said firearm. Even that isn't perfect as history has proved, and many people who wear the uniform shouldn't, nor should they be armed.

[jonno99]

37. It is relevant in that law enforcement officers are most often the 2nd or 3rd party to arrive

at the scene of a crime. IOW, the victim is at the mercy of the perpetrator, until the cops arrive to disable, disarm or otherwise subdue the perpetrator (and for many that delay is unacceptable).

So, if the cops feel the need to be armed so as to be prepared for the days work, why shouldn't we allow the individual also be "prepared"?

[pintobean]

8. I haven't had an automobile accident in 25 years

Why do I still need insurance?

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. I'd say because it hasn't fallen nearly far enough.

That's why this gun owner supports a number of additional regulations (or refinements of existing ones, in many cases), but is not remotely ready to give up her defensive* firearms. The trendline is moving in the right direction, but there are still a lot more gun deaths, homicides and suicides alike, than there should be.


*about half of my small collection are competition guns; while any firearm can be used for self defense, big, heavy rifles with long-range optics usually aren't the best choice

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. If fences keep trespassers out and trespassers stay out why do we need fences?

[X_Digger]

32. I notice a lack of responses to this salient point. ;) n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

33. Unless you put signs up saying you are armed and dangerous in your front yard...

similar to home security signs, not sure of the point here.

[etherealtruth]

11. Guns give the illusion of protection (a myth brought to "us" by the NRA)

This result is not particularly unexpected. Prof David Hemenway of Harvard school of public health has published numerous academic investigations in this area and found that such claims are rooted far more in myth than fact. While defensive gun use may occasionally occur successfully, it is rare and very much the exception – it doesn't change the fact that actually owning and using a firearm hugely increases the risk of being shot. This is a finding supported by numerous other studies in health policy, including several articles in the New England Journal of Medicine. Arguments to the contrary are not rooted in reality; the Branas study also found that for individuals who had time to resist and counter in a gun assault, the odds of actually being shot actually increased to 5.45 fold relative to an individual not carrying.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

[aikoaiko]

12. Even if its true that we currently don't need guns for protection at all

it doesn't mean that won't change. Historically, we've seen crime rates go up and down. Gun laws that restrict or reduce accessibility to guns aren't easy to change because they are wrapped in culture wars.

Further more, a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Which means, the people are allowed to keep and bear arms so that a militia can be drawn from the people if needed.

You asked, "Isn't there an argument to be made they aren't needed for protection based on the facts they like to spout about gun crime being down?

My answer is yes, but its not a very good one.

[TeddyR]

14. I'm not familiar

With the part of the Second Amendment that states the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed unless gun violence falls below a certain level." And despite the fact that murder rates are falling, I'm still seeing a low of news about murders every day, so if someone wants a gun for self-protection they don't have to justify themselves. Here in DC a guy was beaten and stabbed to death on the metro several months ago in front of numerous witnesses who were too scared to intervene. If one of those witnesses had a firearm - largely prohibited to citizens of DC outside the home (though of course that doesn't prevent the criminals from carrying them) -- then maybe that young man would still be alive.

[NickB79]

15. You can own guns and just leave them locked up when not in use as well

That's what I've done. As a teenager, I had to use a hunting gun that I'd just loaded when the screaming started to threaten my abusive father who had just choked my mom in the kitchen, and had cornered my brother, sister and myself in the bedroom. It worked, no shots were fired, but I kept a loaded gun around for years after that simply because of the deep-set fear it created.

Fast-forward 20 years, and I'm now I've gotten counseling for my childhood, a college degree, make a middle-class income, have a loving wife and 5-yr old daughter, and live in an area with very low rates of crime. I've read the stats and know the risk of me needing one of my guns is very low, too low for me to worry about on a daily basis. I've had friends and coworkers ask if I'd like to go to a conceal-carry licensing class with them, and I've turned them down.

All the guns I own, either for hunting, target practice or self-defense, are now stored locked up (trigger locks on each gun, stored inside a gun safe, with the ammo stored separately in heavy-duty ammo cans) unless I'm actually going to use them.

[hack89]

16. I don't own guns for self defense - I live in a safe town

Many gun owners I shoot with think the same.

[Igel]

18. Increased sensitivity.

Call it "hypervigilance," if you'd like.

That's for those who want guns for self-defense. That's not all of them.


Some want guns for self defense.

Some want guns for sport of one kind or another. Hunting, target shooting, etc.

Some want guns out of principle. It's a right and one defends rights.

Some want guns for the reverse of the reason others want more regulations. The hyper-regulators trust a few strangers over the multitudes of their fellow citizens; the gun defenders trust themselves and many neighbors over a few strangers far away.

Some want them because they're "cool" or in their social network confers prestige. Sort of like a teen I know who has light-up rechargeable shoes. Complete waste of time and money, a distraction in school, but "cool" for the show-and-tell that some students think high school is intended to be.

Etc.

[Rex]

19. How do you deal with folks that feel insecure all the time?

If you take away their pacifier, they will feel even more insecure and run out to by whatever drug makes them feel better about themselves - in this case massive amounts of firearms and ammo.

IOW, there is no law against gun addiction.

[TeddyR]

31. Fascinating insight

You've convinced me. Repeal the Second Amendment!!!

[Rex]

38. LOL.

Like anyone cares. Awww did I rub you the wrong way? To bad nobody cares right?

[Recursion]

22. So, yeah, that's the other side of that quadrilateral

Violent crime is at this point about 1/3 of what it was 10 years ago.

I mean, literally, 1/3rd.

So, on the one hand, people don't need guns nearly as much as they did.

On the other hand, people having guns isn't nearly as frightening as it was.

This is one of those rare data points that actually speaks against two disagreeing sides.

[Lee-Lee]

40. And maybe the cause of the drop in violence is more of the right people with guns

Because concealed carry laws have been liberalizing across the country now for two decades right as the crimes committed with guns drops.

So maybe the fact that more of the right people have guns is deterring criminal misuse?

Of course the very fact that gun crime is decreasing while an ever increasing number of people are carrying guns lawfully blows away all the arguement a against concealed carry that pop up saying it will cause more problems...

[krispos42]

41. So when crime is low, we don't need guns for protection

And when crime is high, we can't have guns because it will feed the crime activity.

Ergo, regardless of crime rate, the answer is "less guns".


I think that's called "arguing out of both sides of your mouth". The opposite goes like this:

When crime is low, all the guns we have for protection are working.

When crime is high, we need more guns to combat the crime activity.

Ergo, regardless of crime rate, the answer is "more guns".




How about we make gun ownership independent of real or perceived need instead, hmmm?