Guns and Watertown

[Zorba]

Anti-gun arguments are at least as bad.

For example...



IME, this is a claim frequently made but never supported. It's pure supposition, sometimes based on flawed statistics.

If this guy came into my house and viewed me and my family as an obstacle to what he wanted, my likelihood of being shot and killed is 100% if I am unarmed, and less than 100% if I have a gun. It's really that simple.



Irrelevant, because if I am unarmed I am dead anyway. If I have a gun, I have a chance to see him or hear him.



Again, these are not relevant arguments, because the alternative in dealing with someone who has "no issue shooting and killing someone" is you are dead. There is no upside to being unarmed.



You just said he had "no issue shooting and killing someone" ... but now you're sure I would "just" become a hostage? How do you know that? Am I supposed to risk my family's lives on your assumptions?



Again, another bogus comparison. A car is not a house. And by the way, that guy was lucky as hell that he wasn't killed.



I'm talking about this specific case too. And given the scenario portrayed, again, I see zero upside to being unarmed.

This is exactly why I hate getting into gun debates, people decide to throw logic out of the window. Your likelihood of being shot is not 100% if you do not have a gun. And in this specific case that was proven because they did not shoot the guy in the SUV without a gun.

I agree a car isn't a house, if you shoot the guy in the car, you can get away from the scene. If you shot someone in a house, when 1,000+ police are looking for you on that block, you just gave away your location and you're dead. It would make much more sense to take hostages, than randomly kill everyone in the house.

Anyways, this the reason why we can't have an intelligent gun debate in this country. My comments were not "Anti-gun arguments" they were merely "Having a gun doesn't make you invisible or Rambo, and in some situations may increase your likelihood of getting shot." This is pure logic, someone is more likely to shoot you if you are shooting at them. Yes, if someone is 100% bent on killing you either way, a gun will improve your odds, which is also logic.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

My comments were not "Anti-gun arguments" they were merely "Having a gun doesn't make you invisible or Rambo, and in some situations may increase your likelihood of getting shot."

That may have been your intention, but what you actually said was:

I hate to break it to you, but in reality you probably would've had a higher likelihood of being shot and killed if you tried to engage in a gun fight with this guy. 1) He knows he is about to break into your house, you don't 2) he has no issue shooting and killing someone, you likely never have been in this situation before 3) Most people in duress probably aren't as good of shot as they think they are, case in point all of the times police fire on suspects and miss.

If you sat there with no gun, chances are you would become a hostage, but I don't think the guy would've just shot you for the fun of it and given away his position.

That's pretty clearly an anti-gun argument -- especially overplaying the chances of a violent result if the homeowner has a gun, and underplaying it if not -- and that's why I responded.

 

[fskimospy]

And where do you get that notion? You're saying all areas have equal crime? You're saying a home invasion, drive-by or burglary-gone-wrong is as likely in the ghetto as it is in Silicon Valley?

You should really actually read the study, specifically the "discussion" section where they discuss potential flaws.



So basically they were able to ascertain that:
1. Suicide victims were more likely to own guns.
2. Homicide victims were more likely to own guns.

Well no shit. Good thing my odds of both suicide and homicide are near zero to start with.

I have read the study, you should re-read my post. I was saying that gun ownership did not change the likelihood of a break-in. As for the discussion section, thats what a decent paper does, it always describes potential confounds.

Also if you look at the GSS you see that people in urban areas, which presumably contain the highest crime areas, have the lowest rate of gun ownership. Ie: it is highly unlikely that such a crime-gun relationship exists to an extent large enough to alter those findings.

I don't even know why these studies raise a dispute. The odds of using your gun to prevent a homicide are extremely low. The odds of a family fight or a suicidal individual using a gun for a bad purpose is much more likely. If you want to own a gun because you don't think those apply to you, have at it.

The idea that a gun in a home makes that home overall more safe? Hiiiiighly dubious.

 

[irishScott]

I have read the study, you should re-read my post. I was saying that gun ownership did not change the likelihood of a break-in. As for the discussion section, thats what a decent paper does, it always describes potential confounds.

Also if you look at the GSS you see that people in urban areas, which presumably contain the highest crime areas, have the lowest rate of gun ownership. Ie: it is highly unlikely that such a crime-gun relationship exists to an extent large enough to alter those findings.

I don't even know why these studies raise a dispute. The odds of using your gun to prevent a homicide are extremely low. The odds of a family fight or a suicidal individual using a gun for a bad purpose is much more likely. If you want to own a gun because you don't think those apply to you, have at it.

The idea that a gun in a home makes that home overall more safe? Hiiiiighly dubious.

Well if that's all, then yeah. A gun is only as safe as those who have access to it. If it's available to unstable people then yeah, obviously it's not going to help.

Urban areas also have the most restrictive gun laws, yet usually the densest concentrations of shootings. I remember when the Chicago handgun ban was struck down there were more than a few "well now I finally have a chance." anecdotes.

As to whether it would make a home overall more safe or not, the study itself says it didn't and couldn't determine that. It simply determined that homicide and suicide victims are more likely to be gun owners. For my part, I'd like to think the average person has the wherewithal to safely and responsibly handle guns, and if nothing else, the recreational aspect outweighs normal risk. Shooting guns is no more or less dangerous than any number of hobbies.

 

[Blackjack200]

How do you know?

The same way you do? If you want to post trite, obnoxious comments about gun ownership I will do the same.

Interesting that in what seems like the ultimate NRA fantasy situation playing out in Boston, it was not the militia (the "well regulated" militia, lol) but the regulars that took care of business.

Which is completely irrelevant.

A known bomber who blew up 3 people, injured dozens, and just had a shootout with the cops is trapped potentially running around in your backyard (literally).

You have the choice to arm yourself, or remain unarmed. What choice would you make blackjack?

I've already made my choice.

My address is five thirty seven crown street in morrisville pa.

I do not own a gun, and I do not live in fear.

 

[Zorba]

That may have been your intention, but what you actually said was:



That's pretty clearly an anti-gun argument -- especially overplaying the chances of a violent result if the homeowner has a gun, and underplaying it if not -- and that's why I responded.

Tell me if a guy is car jacking you, with a gun, are you more likely to me shot if you reach for your gun, or just get out of the car? I am sorry if you feel a logical, non-emotional argument comes off as anti-gun. There are situations in life that having and using a gun will make you more likely to be shot and there are situations in life where having a gun may save your life or prevent a violent crime from happening. Saying that is not anti-gun. If you do not believe there are ever situations that entering into a gun fight is more dangerous than not resisting or attempting to escape then you are blinded by your bias and can't have a logical debate on this subject.

Your entire argument centers around the assumption this guy would kill everyone in the house, no matter what and you have yet to respond to any counterpoint. Instead you are completely mischaracterizing my posts and falsely accusing others of logical fallacies.

So answer this one question, do you believe the driver of the SUV would have had a better out come if he had tried to defend himself with a gun, yes or no?

 

[irishScott]

I've already made my choice.

My address is five thirty seven crown street in morrisville pa.

I do not own a gun, and I do not live in fear.

Good for you, I own multiple guns, and I don't live in fear either.

 

[Blackjack200]

I really don't give a fuck. I didn't ask you.

 

[irishScott]

I really don't give a fuck. I didn't ask you.

No, you just seem determined to spout irrelevant passive-aggressive bullshit.

 

[randomrogue]

Did someone seriously suggest that this whole thing could have been ended by an armed civilian joining a police shootout?!

That's an interesting thing to think about but really kind of absurd. I can't imagine that ending well. Lets assume you killed the subjects with 2 shots. At that point how do you stop the cops from coming after you? Nobody in their right mind would do such a thing unless you personally had a death wish. This isn't the movies.

These analogies that people have are really interesting to think about but I just don't agree that having a seat belt and a smoke detector is in the same league as having a gun. I don't need to train and be a professional smoke detector user to be effective. I've said it before and I've said it again - if you're going to get fully trained and be prepared for a combat situation then yes, a gun can be effective. Too many people make it sound like the average Joe, sitting home in Boston with their AR-15 resting in their lap, were going to be fully prepared to defend themselves from these guys. I don't buy it. Can you pull the trigger the second you see them? How do you avoid shooting the wrong person? Can you keep your weapon safe? Can you avoid hitting your loved ones? Can you hit a moving target under pressure? Can you engage a suspect in the dark? Can you honestly say that you are not living in fear by arming yourself and waiting for a gun battle?

Get an alarm, flood lights, and a dog. Stop being so scared. If guns were honestly so amazing the USA would not have such terrible crime statistics and be regarded as a dangerous place. Now the last part is a little bit tongue in cheek. If you haven't read this guy's book (it was last published about 10 years ago) it's a really good read if you travel. The USA used to be listed as a dangerous place but he has since removed it from the website. It was his lowest level of dangerous but was because of gun violence. Definitely pick up the book, even if it's old, since it's got great reading and even an entire section on how to deal with guns in a constructive way.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The same way you do? If you want to post trite, obnoxious comments about gun ownership I will do the same.

Two problems here:

1. I was responding to your (apparently self-declared) "trite, obnoxious comments", not the other way around.

2. My comments weren't "trite" or "obnoxious" -- they are at the heart of part of my argument, which is that these studies and discussions never take into account defensives uses of firearms.

You just assume that nobody's life was saved on Friday because it didn't show up in the news. And you're probably right. But not necessarily.

Of course this case is high profile, and if anything did happen, someone would come forward and we'd all know about it. But that's not how it works in more mundane defensive uses. And without taking those into account, an analysis of whether or not guns make homeowners safer is actively worse than useless.

Interesting that in what seems like the ultimate NRA fantasy situation playing out in Boston, it was not the militia (the "well regulated" militia, lol) but the regulars that took care of business.

"NRA fantasy"? Seems kind of silly. The point of militias (and no, I am not a member of one and never have been) is not to interfere when LEOs have a situation well under control.

I've already made my choice.

Good, others will make theirs.

I really don't give a fuck. I didn't ask you.

Yeah, we don't need this stuff here. If you can't discuss this without losing your temper, go walk around the block or something.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Tell me if a guy is car jacking you, with a gun, are you more likely to me shot if you reach for your gun, or just get out of the car?

I didn't raise that to get into the debate again, just to point out that your argument was a lot more than just saying gun owners shouldn't exaggerate what guns let them do.

There are situations in life that having and using a gun will make you more likely to be shot and there are situations in life where having a gun may save your life or prevent a violent crime from happening.

I can certainly agree with that.

I can't agree with bad analogies that conflate a prepared homeowner with a surprised car driver, though.

Saying that is not anti-gun.

Agreed, saying that is not anti-gun. But that's not what you said earlier.

Your entire argument centers around the assumption this guy would kill everyone in the house, no matter what and you have yet to respond to any counterpoint. Instead you are completely mischaracterizing my posts and falsely accusing others of logical fallacies.

And your argument centers around the assumption that the guy's going to break into my house and just take me hostage.

Well, let's see. The police tell everyone that a terrorist who blew up a bunch of people, murdered a policeman, and ran over his own brother is running around, heavily armed.

Yeah, I'm going to assume that if I don't defend myself, he's probably going to kill me. Because that's the prudent thing to do. If you prefer to take your chances on the kindness of strangers when the stranger is okay with killing 8-year-old boys, be my guest, but I assure you that I consider your position at least as illogical as you find mine.

And that doesn't even take into account the minimizing of the danger of becoming a hostage. They don't always walk away unscathed. And they sometimes suffer serious psychological effects.

So answer this one question, do you believe the driver of the SUV would have had a better out come if he had tried to defend himself with a gun, yes or no?

No. But I never brought up the guy in the SUV. I was talking about homeowners sitting around anxiously not knowing if a terrorist was in their backyard.

 

[fskimospy]

Well if that's all, then yeah. A gun is only as safe as those who have access to it. If it's available to unstable people then yeah, obviously it's not going to help.

Urban areas also have the most restrictive gun laws, yet usually the densest concentrations of shootings. I remember when the Chicago handgun ban was struck down there were more than a few "well now I finally have a chance." anecdotes.

As to whether it would make a home overall more safe or not, the study itself says it didn't and couldn't determine that. It simply determined that homicide and suicide victims are more likely to be gun owners. For my part, I'd like to think the average person has the wherewithal to safely and responsibly handle guns, and if nothing else, the recreational aspect outweighs normal risk. Shooting guns is no more or less dangerous than any number of hobbies.

Again though, back to my point that your choice to own a gun or not does not change the likelihood that someone will break into your house and require you to use it. About 70% of murders involve a gun of some sort. With all that in mind, those extra homicides are almost certainly coming from the guns inside the house. You may in fact be more careful than the average bear, but I think other evidence indicates that if your goal is to keep your family alive the average American may want to consider purchasing a dog.

 

[Pulsar]

The sentiment is valid, but overall is pretty irrelevant to the gun debate. For every person who might successfully protect themselves from this nut with the gun held in their home (to my knowledge that number right now is zero), there are how many people hurt, maimed, or killed by accidental gunfire every year?

The issue here is that big flashy incidents stick in people's minds much more than the daily grind of gun violence.

If it's irrelevant to the gun debate, then take your thinly veiled anti-gun agenda to another thread.

I think it's very pertinent to the gun debate. I'm very pro-gun, but I'm glad this didn't end in a way that ended up with a private citizen killing the terrorist. The gun debate in general shouldn't touch this issue, and it's very inappropriate that anyone would tie the two together.

 

[fskimospy]

If it's irrelevant to the gun debate, then take your thinly veiled anti-gun agenda to another thread.

I think it's very pertinent to the gun debate. I'm very pro-gun, but I'm glad this didn't end in a way that ended up with a private citizen killing the terrorist. The gun debate in general shouldn't touch this issue, and it's very inappropriate that anyone would tie the two together.

Uhmm, the whole point of the thread was if people were safer with guns or not.

Did you even read the OP?

It is reasonably likely that owning a gun makes the average household less safe. Do with that what you will.

 

[irishScott]

Again though, back to my point that your choice to own a gun or not does not change the likelihood that someone will break into your house and require you to use it. About 70% of murders involve a gun of some sort. With all that in mind, those extra homicides are almost certainly coming from the guns inside the house. You may in fact be more careful than the average bear, but I think other evidence indicates that if your goal is to keep your family alive the average American may want to consider purchasing a dog.

Actually the study says:

Second, the gun in the home may not have been the gun used in the death. This possibility seems less likely with suicide, but, with homicide, it is certainly plausible that someone brought a gun into the home.

So no, it didn't determine that. And it would stand to reason that criminals would own guns, and simultaneously have a greater likelihood of being shot.


Also, for all of that study's data, doesn't change the fact that there are about 9000 homicides with guns per year, and falling; Meanwhile ~40% of US households report they have a gun.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

~40% of households = 114,761,359 * .4 = 45,904,544 (rounded up)

9000 people out of 45,904,544 households, with 2.6 people per household, means 3461/45,904,554 armed households are affected by a gun homicide. Which is 0.0075% of armed households.

It would would appear the average, and then some, are doing just fine with a gun in the house. It's not "reasonably likely" at all, unless the increase is negligible.

Edit: And that's heavily biasing statistics in favor of your point. (assuming that all gun homicide victims died in their homes and were gun owners)

 

[fskimospy]

Actually the study says:

So no, it didn't determine that. And it would stand to reason that criminals would own guns, and simultaneously have a greater likelihood of being shot.

You are once again reading far too much into standard methodological statements. While it cannot be ruled out that the gun used in the homicide was the one in the home, unless you can provide a plausible causal mechanism for an outside gun being brought into homes with guns more often than homes without guns that is unrelated to the household's gun ownership, you don't really have any point whatsoever.

Also, for all of that study's data, doesn't change the fact that there are about 9000 homicides with guns per year, and falling; Meanwhile ~40% of US households report they have a gun.

You realize that by the most commonly used measure gun ownership has also been falling, right? Gun homicide and hun ownership falling together helps my point, not yours.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

~40% of households = 114,761,359 * .4 = 45,904,544 (rounded up)

9000 people out of 45,904,544 households, with 2.6 people per household, means 3461/45,904,554 armed households are affected by a gun homicide. Which is 0.0075% of armed households.

It would would appear the average, and then some, are doing just fine with a gun in the house. It's not "reasonably likely" at all, unless the increase is negligible.

Edit: And that's heavily biasing statistics in favor of your point. (assuming that all gun homicide victims died in their homes and were gun owners)

Nothing you put there in any way affects my point. I said it was reasonably likely that you are less safe with a gun than without. Saying those deaths are infrequent in no way changes my point. (although it does further undermine the argument of owning a gun for self protection.)

So yeah.

 

[irishScott]

You are once again reading far too much into standard methodological statements. While it cannot be ruled out that the gun used in the homicide was the one in the home, unless you can provide a plausible causal mechanism for an outside gun being brought into homes with guns more often than homes without guns that is unrelated to the household's gun ownership, you don't really have any point whatsoever.

My point is that your point is based on invalid suppositions. I pointed them out.

You realize that by the most commonly used measure gun ownership has also been falling, right? Gun homicide and hun ownership falling together helps my point, not yours.

Actually It's been holding roughly steady for the last 10 years. Unless you dispute Gallup's poll numbers for the last 53 years. I imagine you're referring to the General Social Survey for your numbers, which does show a decrease in gun ownership, but you have no justification for that being the "most commonly used measure".

As far as the realm of circumstantial evidence, gun sales have skyrocketed into historical all-time highs, concealed carry is becoming more and more common in the states that allow it, and yet gun crime is continuing to go down. So despite an unprecedented and massive proliferation of firearms per capita, gun crime is going down.

That and if gun ownership is down by 15% from 1973 (as per the GSS), you'd think that would translate into a shrinking gun industry, when in fact said industry has seen significant growth. Including among companies that have few or no LEO/military contracts.

In any case, you prefer one set of numbers, I prefer another, so we can call this point a draw.

I also expect to see a small spike in gun ownership this year from the last few months, in both polls. A lot of new shooters bought guns during the panic.

Nothing you put there in any way affects my point. I said it was reasonably likely that you are less safe with a gun than without. Saying those deaths are infrequent in no way changes my point. (although it does further undermine the argument of owning a gun for self protection.)

So yeah.

Technically it doesn't affect your point, it just renders it generally meaningless. If only 0.0075% of armed households (which, remember, is heavily inflated in your argument's favor) suffer a homicide, then then that means 99.9925% of armed households don't. I'm sure the figure for suicide would be several times larger, but that's still tiny.

Point being unless you consider less than 1% of armed households to be the "average", it appears that for the vast majority of households, the increase in danger is negligible in any practical effect.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, the GSS is more commonly used than Gallup, btw.

Regardless, if you consider my point meaningless because your odds of dying in a firearm homicide are already so low, that should point out the absurdity of people trying to use this incident as a case for gun ownership as a means of protection.

 

[irishScott]

Yes, the GSS is more commonly used than Gallup, btw.

Regardless, if you consider my point meaningless because your odds of dying in a firearm homicide are already so low, that should point out the absurdity of people trying to use this incident as a case for gun ownership as a means of protection.

Got a source for that? I see Gallup figures quoted a lot more than I see GSS, for things other than gun ownership too. The most I've found is that GSS is used more for sociological data, but that doesn't render Gallup's numbers invalid or even questionable. In fact, without any analysis of the discrepancy it calls them both equally into question. I understand that GSS favors your view, so you like it better, and Gallup favors my view, so I like it better, but neither are a valid support for the validity of the numbers. Which is why we both just used circumstantial evidence to justify our perspectives.


As I've previously pointed out, the odds of my being in a car wreck are exceedingly low, yet I still wear a seat belt. Homicides may be exceedingly rare for most, situations like Watertown even more so, but I'd still like a gun. The average joe drives cars and wears seat belts. No problem I can see with the average joe owning guns.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure, when I'm home ill show that the GSS is most commonly used for sociological research like this, no problem.

Your seatbelt analogy again just further helps my point. Seat belts make your car ride overall safer. If they didn't, you wouldn't wear one. It appears that guns likely do not make you safer, so perhaps people shouldn't buy them for defense.

I'm very familiar with a pretty huge variety of guns and I know from all the research I've read I would not own one. The benefits are too small and the costs too large. Like i said before nobody is trying to stop you from buying a gun because of this study, but don't try to explain it away just because it tells you something you don't want to hear.

 

[irishScott]

Sure, when I'm home ill show that the GSS is most commonly used for sociological research like this, no problem.

Your seatbelt analogy again just further helps my point. Seat belts make your car ride overall safer. If they didn't, you wouldn't wear one. It appears that guns likely do not make you safer, so perhaps people shouldn't buy them for defense.

I'm very familiar with a pretty huge variety of guns and I know from all the research I've read I would not own one. The benefits are too small and the costs too large. Like i said before nobody is trying to stop you from buying a gun because of this study, but don't try to explain it away just because it tells you something you don't want to hear.

But you can't say that guns likely do not make you safer based on this study. As the study states, it conducted no analysis of the benefits and can't compare the two. As I originally stated, it's a fraction of an argument.

You can use this study, at best, to say that the innate increase in danger of homicide or suicide due to gun ownership is negligible for 99.xxxx% of Americans. A statistic I'd very much agree with.

To make the analogy proper, if wearing a seat belt increased my odds of getting into a car wreck by 0.0075%, but also greatly increased my odds of surviving said wreck, I'd still wear one.

I'm not explaining anything away, I'm pointing out what the study actually proves in terms of practical effect, which is very little. I fail to see why this study should impact anyone's consideration of a buying a firearm, other than pointing out the obvious that if you have homicidal or suicidal members in your household, including yourself, you might want to reconsider.

You've made the decision that the myriad costs associated with buying a gun are too high for you, for whatever reason(s). And that's fine, but don't pretend that this study says anything of significance to most would-be gun owners.

 

[fskimospy]

Your description of what the study says is simply false. It absolutely says something of significance to firearm owners or would be owners, and it says something to ALL owners.

Period.

Edit: also, your new analogy made things worse, not better. It went from supporting my point to just not having any relationship to the data presented.

 

[Agent11]

Depends on the situation.

If I was living in a 2nd or 3rd story apt. with a clear view from my window at the suspect back, they were actively exchanging fire with the cops and I knew that they were a terrorist suspect because it was all over the news... I would take the shot.

I wouldn't stick my rifle out the window though, I would probably drag a chair or table over to set up a recessed line of sight. After shooting I would set down my rifle and exit the apt and wait on the street.

If I wasn't sure I could hit them I wouldn't even try though.

 

[irishScott]

Your description of what the study says is simply false. It absolutely says something of significance to firearm owners or would be owners, and it says something to ALL owners.

Period.

And yet you fail to specify exactly what that is. And please don't just quote the abstract. I just re-read the Results section word-for-word and I fail to see how my interpretation is wrong.

It says the odds of Homicide and Suicide are increased if you own a gun. If the odds of both of those are already extremely low to start with, as they are for most Americans, even a massive relative increase (from 0.0075 to 0.06%) would be negligible.