Some facts about guns in the US

[iceaura]

Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home

David Hemenway, Ph.D. hemenway@hsph.harvard.edu
Director, Harvard Injury Control Resarch Center

The author's perspective tends to mislead in its selection of facts. Three points:

a discussion of suicide as abetted by gun ownership, like a discussion of suicide as abetted by windows and balconies, motorcycles (a really significant and often overlooked means), etc, has few implications for most people assessing their own purchases and possessions. And should have no influence whatsoever on governmental policy or law.

self-defense by gun as a health benefit is not restricted to, or even largely comprised of, violent incidents of the type reported to police and officials. The threat to perpetrators created by private gun ownership itself is at least as significant in protecting people - that the author fails to recognize this is visible in his treatment of home burglary stats, where he presents the comparative rarity of burglary of occupied dwellings as an argument for the lack of benefit from guns: in my childhood neighborhood the rate of burglary of occupied dwellings was zero, and the common presence of firearms in the home was no small reason for that. In this way people who keep a firearm handy provide benefits to those who do not, notice.

the risks of gun ownership are not evenly distributed among various classes of people, or even individuals within a class, and using comprehensive populations for one's statistical base does not necessarily inform the individual's decision.

 

[billvon]

a discussion of suicide as abetted by gun ownership, like a discussion of suicide as abetted by windows and balconies, motorcycles (a really significant and often overlooked means), etc, has few implications for most people assessing their own purchases and possessions. And should have no influence whatsoever on governmental policy or law.

Yes, many things can be used to commit suicide. The "running car in a garage" used to be one method. Nowadays cars are clean enough that that doesn't work any more. Thus cars have gotten safer.

(BTW I'm not talking about gun laws, I was specifically answering the question "Do having these things harm you in some way?")

self-defense by gun as a health benefit is not restricted to, or even largely comprised of, violent incidents of the type reported to police and officials. The threat to perpetrators created by private gun ownership itself is at least as significant in protecting people

That may be true, and was not covered by the study. The study's field was narrower - will a gun in your house more likely harm you than help you?

(In my childhood neighborhood the rate of burglary was zero as well - and people had nothing more than pellet guns to chase away the occasional raccoon.)

the risks of gun ownership are not evenly distributed among various classes of people, or even individuals within a class, and using comprehensive populations for one's statistical base does not necessarily inform the individual's decision.

Agreed. The above is only true in general; it may not apply to specific groups (like, say, soldiers living in barracks.)

 

[iceaura]

Yes, many things can be used to commit suicide.

That was not the point. The point was that (just as with motorcycles) suicide risk is largely irrelevant to a cost benefit calculation of gun acquisition, for most people. (For some, the extra lethality (read:dependability) in suicide might be a benefit, but we are avoiding that kind of consideration).

(BTW I'm not talking about gun laws, I was specifically answering the question "Do having these things harm you in some way?"

But you chose a reference that came to a conclusion not about harms - the existence of which I concur with, as seen in the post prior to your reference - but about net or overall health benefit to some vaguely defined public/individual entity. And did so based on evidence and reasoning I found inadequate and flawed, as noted.

That may be true, and was not covered by the study. The study's field was narrower - will a gun in your house more likely harm you than help you?

And it did not adequately support the author's conclusion in the matter, as noted.

(In my childhood neighborhood the rate of burglary was zero as well - and people had nothing more than pellet guns to chase away the occasional raccoon.)

The key matter was not the burglary rate, but the comparative rate of occupied vs unoccupied house burglary - the situation in which guns provide benefit. My point was that the author overlooked a key factor in drawing his inference, one which tended to undermined his overall conclusion and in particular contradicted his assertion that "no credible study" supports the existence of a net benefit from private gun ownership.

The above is only true in general; it may not apply to specific groups (like, say, soldiers living in barracks.)

More significantly, it may not apply to particular individuals within any given group.

 

[billvon]

That was not the point. The point was that (just as with motorcycles) suicide risk is largely irrelevant to a cost benefit calculation of gun acquisition, for most people.

Many people might indeed perceive that as irrelevant, because they cannot foresee themselves committing suicide, and therefore disregard that risk entirely.

Nevertheless, suicide (specifically suicide enabled by easier access to a nearly ideal tool for that purpose) is harm. And overall a gun in your home is more likely to harm you than help you.

But you chose a reference that came to a conclusion not about harms - the existence of which I concur with, as seen in the post prior to your reference - but about net or overall health benefit to some vaguely defined public/individual entity. And did so based on evidence and reasoning I found inadequate and flawed, as noted.

Fair enough. To be clear I was not speaking to the larger point of "what is better for society?" (One could argue, for example, that enabling mentally unstable people to kill themselves improves overall societal mental health.) I was speaking just to the overall odds of harm.

More significantly, it may not apply to particular individuals within any given group.

Agreed.

 

[LoRaan]

Yes, they do - hence the issue. They create risk - of accident, theft, greater consequences of common error or insanity, etc. And they require not only initial diversion of resources and inevitable opportunity cost (money spent on weaponry is money not spent on, say, solar electrical generation capability, or water purification gear, or better fireproofing of one's house, or simply a spare pair of good boots - let alone the ordinary life investments like a musical instrument for one's children) but maintenance, with its price in time as well as money.

Whether the costs outweigh the benefits would be a highly personal decision, in most cases (I know a retired farmer who has no fire insurance at all - his house is almost impossible to burn, due to stone and cement and metal construction, non-flammable insulation, etc.) But some of the risks and other costs are socialized, and so we all have a some say in the particulars.

If you own a TV, Radio, Books for entertainment, food that is more than just sustenance providing, condiments, clothing that is fashionable over functional, or a vehicle that exceeds your minimum needs in any way then you have no room to claim that owning weaponry in some way has detracted from your resources. You obviously have money for frivolities as opposed to a tool of resource gathering and self-defense.

 

[billvon]

If you own a TV, Radio, Books for entertainment, food that is more than just sustenance providing, condiments, clothing that is fashionable over functional, or a vehicle that exceeds your minimum needs in any way then you have no room to claim that owning weaponry in some way has detracted from your resources.

Of course it has. No one (well, very few people at least) have an unlimited supply of money, and thus every decision you make on spending is a decision that you would prefer X over Y.

You obviously have money for frivolities as opposed to a tool of resource gathering and self-defense.

For most people a gun is a frivolity. Indeed, as described above, it is more likely to harm you than to help you defend your house. However, if you prefer to spend money on a gun rather than on a fast car or whatever, go for it.

 

[R1D2]

For most people a gun is a frivolity. Indeed, as described above, it is more likely to harm you than to help you defend your house. However, if you prefer to spend money on a gun rather than on a fast car or whatever, go for it.

I don't need a fast car. Thank you for the permission to "go for it".

 

[Promo]

I enjoy buying an AK-47 every time I go to my local gun show, just for the sheer joy it brings me knowing someone somewhere hates me for it. Also, AK's only cost about 225 bucks who can't afford that.

 

[billvon]

I don't need a fast car. Thank you for the permission to "go for it".

You don't need a gun either - but if you want to get one, go for it.

 

[Promo]

You don't need a gun either - but if you want to get one, go for it.

Some people do need guns.

 

[billvon]

Some people do need guns.

And some people "need" fast cars. However, 99.999% of the time the word "want" would be far more accurate.

 

[Promo]

And some people "need" fast cars. However, 99.999% of the time the word "want" would be far more accurate.

I'm just going by what you said. And you said NEED, not want.

 

[Bowser]

I enjoy buying an AK-47 every time I go to my local gun show, just for the sheer joy it brings me knowing someone somewhere hates me for it. Also, AK's only cost about 225 bucks who can't afford that.

We practiced with the AK when I was in the Army. It's a respectable weapon. I'm shocked that it so inexpensive.

 

[iceaura]

I enjoy buying an AK-47 every time I go to my local gun show, just for the sheer joy it brings me knowing someone somewhere hates me for it.

Frivolity is maybe the kindest description of that. Toys, obviously.

My father once said that you could tell when a kid was mature enough to be trusted with a lawn mower, by the fact that they no longer wanted to mow the lawn. Something like that would be a reasonable criterion for purchase of those kinds of weapons - unrealistic, of course, but a person can dream.

 

[Bowser]

They were playing with gun control in my state, but gave up when they realized that there's not enough support.

 

[KitemanSA]

13. More guns tend to mean more homicide, according to the Harvard Injury Control Research Centre. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states.

Then why is it that the areas with the highest murder rates all have strict gun control laws while those with the lowest all support private ownership, and in the case of the lowest, supports concealed carry?

 

[Mazulu]

I just bought a 1250 watt laser. I plan to use it for home defense. It's practically a light saber.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myA7AsLrcRo

Actually, I bought it for recreation, and for starting campfires.

 

[spidergoat]

I enjoy buying an AK-47 every time I go to my local gun show, just for the sheer joy it brings me knowing someone somewhere hates me for it. Also, AK's only cost about 225 bucks who can't afford that.

There's one born every minute!

 

[pjdude1219]

Then why is it that the areas with the highest murder rates all have strict gun control laws while those with the lowest all support private ownership, and in the case of the lowest, supports concealed carry?

Because they aren't controlled for other factors

 

[Stoniphi]

Then why is it that the areas with the highest murder rates all have strict gun control laws while those with the lowest all support private ownership, and in the case of the lowest, supports concealed carry?

AH! Like here in Detroit where we are no longer the murder capital of the world.......(hint: we have an obscene murder rate AND concealed carry, I have a license and a pistol or 2), not that I would need those as it is so quiet and peaceful here.