Think you are safer with a gun in your home?

[Xavier434]

The only thing that has ever confused me about many (not all) owners of guns is that they are so die hard about protection and some will even claim that they will participate in a revolution should anyone request that they turn in those weapons yet their ability to be proactive when it comes problem prevention is very weak.

Basically, what I am saying is that there are plenty of people that own guns and rely on them for safety inside of their home, but they barely have anything else to keep the criminals out. They do not have proper bars on their windows. They do not have adequate locks. They do not have a very good automated security system with motion detectors. They install things like cheap dog doors in their backyards. They leave cars parked in front of their houses that have no car alarm, but also have an garage door opener inside of them (jimmy that car door, use that garage opener, cut power to the house, and do it all in under 2 min). They keep a set of keys "hidden" outside of their house in case they get locked out. They opt to drive through shitty parts of town with a gun when they could have taken the longer route around the ghetto to get to where ever they were trying to go. The list goes on and on and on.

I kind of look at these people the same way I look at computers and viruses. Sure, you may do things like install encryption software to store your passwords so that key loggers that happen to infect your system cannot get your passwords, but what they hell is the point if you do not have a great anti-virus, anti-spyware, and firewall installed along with it? It's the difference between being proactive vs reactive.

Now, before anyone gets their panties all tied up in a knot I want you all to know that I am a supporter of using firearms as a means for protection. While I do not have one myself, I completely understand why one would choose to keep one. Still, my point remains. Why maintain such a strong position about using a firearm for protection when it really should only be used as a last resort when all of the other things you are supposed to have for protection fails? How hypocritical can one get? Again, I realize there are plenty of gun owners that practice very good security precautions in addition to their firearm, but the fact of the matter is that tons of them do not.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
ok you guys can all have your guns but in return I want the right to not be domestically spied on no matter who I call in the world, I want the telcos to be exposed to lawsuits and I want to current administration looked into for war crimes. Why should some rights be stripped in the name of the public good and others shouldn't?

You have no such right. You have NEVER had that right.

The right in the 4th has never been NO search & seizure. It's no UNREASONABLE search and seizure. IMO, that's all too often forgotten here.

Fern

And how does the 4th dictate that reasonableness is to be determined?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Bolded part dictates how reasonableness is to be determined. Granted it's a little fuzzy, but it's not possible to fully quantify these things. There will always be grey areas and, unfortunately, reasonableness is one of those areas.

ZV

You even bolded the important part but failed to notice it. The Bush administration isn't holding up the whole "supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" end of the bargain. The lazy bastards couldn't be bothered to tell anybody they were doing the wiretaps. That's the problem.

I was looking at the issue in a vacuum since the warrantless wiretaps were not explicitly mentioned and were therefore not on my mind when I replied. I agree completely that it is unconscionable that any information is being gathered about people in ways other than as specified by the 4th Amendment.

ZV

 

[dmw16]

The statistics quoted prove nothing, especially since a majority of the deaths in all these anti-gun stats are suicides, and if there hadn't been a gun, they'd have found a bridge or sleeping pills.

The reality is, it is a constitutional right. If you don't want a gun in your house don't buy one. But don't tell me I can't have mine.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski


Where did I say "accident"?

Sigh, I have already proven you wrong but I'll bite.

You said the odds where of a person getting shot and killed where "much higher" if they had a gun in their home. Besides the obvious, that I pointed out above, lets look at the numbers.

1/3 of American households have guns in them. Thats what, 24,000,000 homes (according to us census data of owner occupied homes) or 60 million individual gun owners. Now your statement is making the connection that you (family member, whatever) are shot and killed BECAUSE you have a gun in your home. Besides accidental deaths what other data would you like to use?

In 2000 there where 776 deaths from gun accidents. Assuming ALL of them where due to a gun being in the home that would be roughly 1 in 31,000. For comparisons sake:


Odds of being murdered: 18,000 to 1

Odds of getting away with murder: 2 to 1

Odds of being the victim of serious crime in your lifetime: 20 to 1

Odds of dating a supermodel: 88,000 to 1

The thread is not about "accidents". It's about Gun Deaths. Many of those deaths are "Accidents", but many are not.

And many are accidents of criminals picking the wrong target.
Oh and to prove how far anti-gun people such as the brady campaign will go, I was watching an interview with some guy from the Brady Campaign and he boldy stated, they are not about restricting, regulating or banning guns. He out right lied. It wasn't through his teeth or anything.
Paul Helmke is a piece of shit that will lie and pander to anyone in attempts to make MONEY. He's not "fighting the good fight" and not getting paid for it.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Basically, what I am saying is that there are plenty of people that own guns and rely on them for safety inside of their home, but they barely have anything else to keep the criminals out. They do not have proper bars on their windows. They do not have adequate locks. They do not have a very good automated security system with motion detectors. They install things like cheap dog doors in their backyards. They leave cars parked in front of their houses that have no car alarm, but also have an garage door opener inside of them (jimmy that car door, use that garage opener, cut power to the house, and do it all in under 2 min). They keep a set of keys "hidden" outside of their house in case they get locked out. They opt to drive through shitty parts of town with a gun when they could have taken the longer route around the ghetto to get to where ever they were trying to go. The list goes on and on and on.

While I understand your position, there has to be a balancing act.

For example, bars on windows. I don't want to live in a house that looks like a prison. It's a little excessive to put bars on one's windows when one lives in a relatively low-crime area, and, frankly, bars on windows decrease property values as they imply a high-crime area. Having a handgun in my safe or on my person in my home is invisible to the outside and does not permanently alter the appearance of my home in a negative way.

Security systems fall into a similar category. I don't want to spend $500 to install a system and $40/month ($480 thrown away every year) for monitoring. I don't waste that money on cable TV either, and my broadband and cell phone are required for business, so those aren't valid examples of me spending that money in other areas. A dog is better than any security system anyway. Less costly and a better companion, but still noisy as hell if someone comes into the house uninvited.

I agree about things like poor locks (seriously, get a decent deadbolt it's cheap and easy), leaving a car outside with a garage door opener in plain sight (though most houses, my current one included, have the power mains in the basement, not in the garage, can't cut power from the garage), or hiding keys outside the house. I just think that there is a point where the passive options become a hindrance on my own quality of life and I think it's unreasonable to expect people to turn their homes into fortresses.

ZV

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Can't forget this.
Need to ban trucks and knives.
The HORROR

Hmm, so people can't have guns, yet violent crime is on the rise in Japan, they are just using knives instead.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

While I understand your position, there has to be a balancing act.

For example, bars on windows. I don't want to live in a house that looks like a prison. It's a little excessive to put bars on one's windows when one lives in a relatively low-crime area, and, frankly, bars on windows decrease property values as they imply a high-crime area. Having a handgun in my safe or on my person in my home is invisible to the outside and does not permanently alter the appearance of my home in a negative way.

Security systems fall into a similar category. I don't want to spend $500 to install a system and $40/month ($480 thrown away every year) for monitoring. I don't waste that money on cable TV either, and my broadband and cell phone are required for business, so those aren't valid examples of me spending that money in other areas. A dog is better than any security system anyway. Less costly and a better companion, but still noisy as hell if someone comes into the house uninvited.

I agree about things like poor locks (seriously, get a decent deadbolt it's cheap and easy), leaving a car outside with a garage door opener in plain sight (though most houses, my current one included, have the power mains in the basement, not in the garage, can't cut power from the garage), or hiding keys outside the house. I just think that there is a point where the passive options become a hindrance on my own quality of life and I think it's unreasonable to expect people to turn their homes into fortresses.

ZV

I don't know. It seems like misplaced priorities to me. It's a sign that most of the protection arguments with guns are really just a mind over matter thing since there are other ways to protect one self more effectively. Some people are so die hard about being able to have a gun for protection yet something as simple as $40 per month to keep you very safe and secure without risking harm upon anyone should the unthinkable happen is a waste of money? Come on now. Priorities people. Get it straight.

When it comes to bars and home value, all you have to do is remove them when you are ready to sell your home. Removing them is simple with the right tools and repairing the holes is very easy too. Aesthetics is an issue, but again...priority issues? I feel that is only fair to note that if you really do not live in an area where crime is somewhat common near by (doesn't take much for criminals to travel to the middle class neighborhoods) then I can understand not installing bars and relying on a motion detecting security system instead if for only aesthetic reasons, but you really should have one or the other or both.

Dogs...well they work to a degree, but smart criminals know how to handle them easy enough. Many of these criminals are also dog trainers and became them for a reason.

My point is that for very little money you can protect your home very effectively in an automated fashion and the quality of that protection goes way beyond that which a gun can provide and it is much less risky. Even something as simple as installing a single push button security system with no motion detectors that automatically alerts the police to rush to your home can make a world of difference. The push button systems costs something like $20 a month in my area.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

While I understand your position, there has to be a balancing act.

For example, bars on windows. I don't want to live in a house that looks like a prison. It's a little excessive to put bars on one's windows when one lives in a relatively low-crime area, and, frankly, bars on windows decrease property values as they imply a high-crime area. Having a handgun in my safe or on my person in my home is invisible to the outside and does not permanently alter the appearance of my home in a negative way.

Security systems fall into a similar category. I don't want to spend $500 to install a system and $40/month ($480 thrown away every year) for monitoring. I don't waste that money on cable TV either, and my broadband and cell phone are required for business, so those aren't valid examples of me spending that money in other areas. A dog is better than any security system anyway. Less costly and a better companion, but still noisy as hell if someone comes into the house uninvited.

I agree about things like poor locks (seriously, get a decent deadbolt it's cheap and easy), leaving a car outside with a garage door opener in plain sight (though most houses, my current one included, have the power mains in the basement, not in the garage, can't cut power from the garage), or hiding keys outside the house. I just think that there is a point where the passive options become a hindrance on my own quality of life and I think it's unreasonable to expect people to turn their homes into fortresses.

ZV

I don't know. It seems like misplaced priorities to me. It's a sign that most of the protection arguments with guns are really just a mind over matter thing since there are other ways to protect one self more effectively. People are so die hard about being able to have a gun for protection yet something as simple as $40 per month to keep you very safe and secure without risking harm upon anyone should the unthinkable happen is a waste of money? Come on now. Priorities people. Get it straight.

When it comes to bars and home value, all you have to do is remove them when you are ready to sell your home. Removing them is simple with the right tools and repairing the holes is very easy too. Aesthetics is an issue, but again...priority issues? I feel that is only fair to note that if you really do not live in an area where crime is somewhat common near by (doesn't take much for criminals to travel to the middle class neighborhoods) then I can understand not installing bars and relying on a motion detecting security system instead if for only aesthetic reasons, but you really should have one or the other or both.

Dogs...well they work to a degree, but smart criminals know how to handle them easy enough. Many of these criminals are also dog trainers and became them for a reason.

My point is that for very little money you can protect your home very effectively in an automated fashion and the quality of that protection goes way beyond that which a gun can provide and it is much less risky. Even something as simple as installing a single push button security system with no motion detectors that automatically alert the police to rush to your home can make a world of difference.

Except that the $40/month paid to a security company does not grant any security. All that does is grant that police will be called at some point after a break-in has already occurred and that you will then have to wait for whatever the response time is. In some cases it can take hours for police to respond. This is not to mention the propensity for such systems to issue false alarms and thereby desensitize homeowners to potential threats. As much as I like computers, I'm not about to trust my safety to one. They are, at their core, stupid machines.

As for bars on the windows, I stand behind my position. It is unreasonable to expect the law-abiding to make concessions to the lawless. The criminals should not be allowed to dictate how we live our lives, but what you are suggesting is precisely that.

Your bit about some criminals being dog trainers is a red herring. Most criminals are opportunity-takers who have little or no skill and are simply in for a smash and grab. It's the same way that most car thieves are joyriders or otherwise non-professionals. It's not as though we're talking about trained teams of crack commandos planning raids on residential houses.

The police don't always "rush to your home", in fact, legal precedent states that they don't have to respond at all. There is no legal requirement for police to respond to calls for help. Even in a best case scenario, a police response will take several minutes, which is more than enough time for a criminal to gain the upper hand.

ZV

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333



You are at a much higher risk of drowning in a bathtub if you actually own a bathtub.

The statistics you claim are worthless. I bet people that own motor vehicles are statistically much more likely to get into a motor vehicle accident.

False comparison. I also doubt the accuracy of the statement.

How is it false?

How is it True?

So.... Are you saying that people that DON'T have bathtubs are more likely to drown in a bathtub?

The possibilty exists, but is that more dangerous than getting killed by a Gun one keeps in the house? The False comparison though is that a Bathtub is not designed to Kill. It has an entirely different Purpose.

That doesn't make it a false comparison in the context you used.

You said you are more likely to have a gun accident if you own a gun. I am trying to point out that its a worthless statistic. Of course your more likely to have a gun accident if you actually have a gun. Just like your more likely to get into a motor vehicle accident if you actually own a motor vehicle.

Now if you want to compare the number of homes with guns to the number of gun accidents, that would not be a worthless statistic.

Where did I say "accident"?

So? Replace accident with gun death. His argument is still legitimate.

No, it is a false comparison.

Why?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
ok you guys can all have your guns but in return I want the right to not be domestically spied on no matter who I call in the world, I want the telcos to be exposed to lawsuits and I want to current administration looked into for war crimes. Why should some rights be stripped in the name of the public good and others shouldn't?

You have no such right. You have NEVER had that right.

The right in the 4th has never been NO search & seizure. It's no UNREASONABLE search and seizure. IMO, that's all too often forgotten here.

Fern

And how does the 4th dictate that reasonableness is to be determined?

From the 4th itself:

no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

See below, I presume a court official. would be required to make that determination. Although law enforcement has an exception for probable cause.

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Fern
You have no such right. You have NEVER had that right.

The right in the 4th has never been NO search & seizure. It's no UNREASONABLE search and seizure. IMO, that's all too often forgotten here.

Fern

ok fine. Now who's in charge of figuring out whats unreasonable?

AFAIK, only a court official (judge or magistrate) can issue warrants. Anything beyond that would require checking some SCOTUS cases on it.

If a search were performed without a warrant, or you claimed the warrant were defective, a court would have to rule it was unreasonable.

Fern

 

[ElFenix]

you all really do love the nested quote fests

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Dogs...well they work to a degree, but smart criminals know how to handle them easy enough. Many of these criminals are also dog trainers and became them for a reason.

"...Many of these criminals are also dog trainers..."

I think that pretty much says it all.

 

[Ballatician]

This has gotten off topic. More crying about "i wish you would try and take my guns away" than discussing whether you are actually safer with a gun in your home. The right to bear arms is not the topic here.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Ballatician
This has gotten off topic. More crying about "i wish you would try and take my guns away" than discussing whether you are actually safer with a gun in your home. The right to bear arms is not the topic here.

I think the point is that it's irrelevant, other than from a personal decision standpoint. People have a right to have a gun if they so choose, so the only choice you can make is for yourself. Do you want one in your home? Most people who already have them aren't too keen on the "you're too dumb and accident prone so you shouldn't have a gun" argument.

 

[BurnItDwn]

My gun is locked up and unloaded. It wouldn't make me any safer or less safe if I needed it "right away."
That being said, if I wind up living on my own (with out kids in the house), I may make it a bit more accessible.

 

[dmw16]

I agree with ZV. Bars on the windows in a low-crime suburb is not a solution. I will not live in a home that looks like a prison. I also agree that dogs are an excellent means of security. Most criminals choose the easiest target. So if they start jiggling a door knob and are met with dog barks then they'll likely move on.

However, I disagree that an alarm is a waste of money. Alarms will scare of a lot of people and if they aren't scared off then at least the police have been notified. They also protect your home and pets in the event of a fire, flood, etc. Just like your gun should be paired with a cell phone, the alarm is a natural extension of that theory.

I think that smart people who use good sense are safer in their homes with a firearm. Dumb people will always find more ways to hurt themselves and those they love, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to have a gun to protect my family.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Ballatician
This has gotten off topic. More crying about "i wish you would try and take my guns away" than discussing whether you are actually safer with a gun in your home. The right to bear arms is not the topic here.

Well, considering that Kellermann's "study" was invalidated many posts ago, there's nothing else to discuss.

Also, "try to", not "try and".

ZV

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: MixMasterTang

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Am I safer?
Yes.

yes and that is because you have the freedom to choose whether to have a gun or not, and that freedom should not be infringed upon because others can not or do not handle their freedom in a safe and productive manner.

If someone decides that they cannot handle the responsibility of a firearm, I encourage them not to have one. That is a choice they can make themselves. That's the meaning of freedom. As for myself, I choose my way.

Bullshyt. I know way too many 20 plus year olds that are still mentally adolescents. These are people who should be nowhere near a gun but insist on having as many as possible.

If you buy a gun reluctantly but go through a process of weighing benefits v. potential harm, more power to you. However, if you are just a dumbass insecure male that pets his 9mm sig sauer before sleeping, then you are NOT the proper party to be making such a decision.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Except that the $40/month paid to a security company does not grant any security. All that does is grant that police will be called at some point after a break-in has already occurred and that you will then have to wait for whatever the response time is. In some cases it can take hours for police to respond. This is not to mention the propensity for such systems to issue false alarms and thereby desensitize homeowners to potential threats. As much as I like computers, I'm not about to trust my safety to one. They are, at their core, stupid machines.

As for bars on the windows, I stand behind my position. It is unreasonable to expect the law-abiding to make concessions to the lawless. The criminals should not be allowed to dictate how we live our lives, but what you are suggesting is precisely that.

Your bit about some criminals being dog trainers is a red herring. Most criminals are opportunity-takers who have little or no skill and are simply in for a smash and grab. It's the same way that most car thieves are joyriders or otherwise non-professionals. It's not as though we're talking about trained teams of crack commandos planning raids on residential houses.

The police don't always "rush to your home", in fact, legal precedent states that they don't have to respond at all. There is no legal requirement for police to respond to calls for help. Even in a best case scenario, a police response will take several minutes, which is more than enough time for a criminal to gain the upper hand.

ZV

I am not sure where you live but the cops respond much faster where I currently live and security systems cause the lowbie criminals to scatter the moment they hear the alarm which is usually before they even enter the house. That is great security and it's well worth $40 a month if you live in a place where crime is more common in your county. For the record, I live in South Florida. Down here it has been proven that security systems and bars do a great job at persuading thieves to skip your place and go after the the next guy instead. As for the bars, I do not look at them as the criminals dictating how I live my life anymore than I do when I lock my front door or my car but that is just my opinion.

 

[BoberFett]

It really doesn't matter because the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee us the right to have security systems and bars on our windows. It protects the right to own firearms.

 

[piasabird]

If you live in a high crime area it might be worth keeping a handgun. However, when I had small kids, I thought it was safer not to have a handgun in the house. I kept one for target practice mainly. I enjoyed shooting targets. It was only a .22 but it would be lethal at short range. I could put 80 rounds out of 100 inside the number 9 or number 8 rings on a target at 25 meters. That would be a circle the size of a person's head. 25 meters is a fairly long distance for a pistol. 25 meters is over 75 feet. In the military sometimes I could hit a target at 1,000 Meters on the Rifle Range with an M-16, but as you get older your eyesight is not that good.

I have shot a few different handguns, single action and double action. Some guns have such lousy trigger mechanisms that they are more dangerous to shoot and they tend to jerk around a lot. So it can be somewhat hit and miss as to the true value of a handgun in the home. They are very dangerous.

I think if it is legal to require a driving test, it should be legal to require a safety class for handgun ownership. I think people should have to prove they can hit a target at 25-50 meters. If you own a firearm, you should at least test fire it to see what it is going to be like to actually shoot it (At a gun range please). In the Army they dont just give you a loaded firearm and tell you to shoot at the target. So in the civilian world, there should be some kind of get to know your gun class or something like that. To own a firearm you need to know how to take it apart and clean it, how to store it, and how to safely shoot it.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: piasabird
If you live in a high crime area it might be worth keeping a handgun. However, when I had small kids, I thought it was safer not to have a handgun in the house. I kept one for target practice mainly. I enjoyed shooting targets. It was only a .22 but it would be lethal at short range. I could put 80 rounds out of 100 inside the number 9 or number 8 rings on a target at 25 meters. That would be a circle the size of a person's head. 25 meters is a fairly long distance for a pistol. 25 meters is over 75 feet. In the military sometimes I could hit a target at 1,000 Meters on the Rifle Range with an M-16, but as you get older your eyesight is not that good.

I have shot a few different handguns, single action and double action. Some guns have such lousy trigger mechanisms that they are more dangerous to shoot and they tend to jerk around a lot. So it can be somewhat hit and miss as to the true value of a handgun in the home. They are very dangerous.

I think if it is legal to require a driving test, it should be legal to require a safety class for handgun ownership. I think people should have to prove they can hit a target at 25-50 meters. If you own a firearm, you should at least test fire it to see what it is going to be like to actually shoot it (At a gun range please). In the Army they dont just give you a loaded firearm and tell you to shoot at the target. So in the civilian world, there should be some kind of get to know your gun class or something like that. To own a firearm you need to know how to take it apart and clean it, how to store it, and how to safely shoot it.

You're attempting to impose military conditions on a civilian right.

Nevermind the fact that most defensive shootings happen at a distance of 10 feet or less. Requiring shooting at 25-50 yards is not only difficult, but absolutely pointless. That's beyond pistol range.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: MixMasterTang

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Am I safer?
Yes.

yes and that is because you have the freedom to choose whether to have a gun or not, and that freedom should not be infringed upon because others can not or do not handle their freedom in a safe and productive manner.

If someone decides that they cannot handle the responsibility of a firearm, I encourage them not to have one. That is a choice they can make themselves. That's the meaning of freedom. As for myself, I choose my way.

Bullshyt. I know way too many 20 plus year olds that are still mentally adolescents. These are people who should be nowhere near a gun but insist on having as many as possible.

If you buy a gun reluctantly but go through a process of weighing benefits v. potential harm, more power to you. However, if you are just a dumbass insecure male that pets his 9mm sig sauer before sleeping, then you are NOT the proper party to be making such a decision.

Who are you to make that decision? If you feel so strongly, why don't you talk to these people you're concerned about? If that doesn't work, take their guns away from them, since they "should be nowhere near a gun" in your opinion.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: techs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...7/AR2008062702864.html

Guns for Safety? Dream On, Scalia.

snip

In the real world, Scalia's scenario -- an armed assailant breaks into your home, and you shoot or scare away the bad guy with your handy handgun -- happens pretty infrequently. Statistically speaking, these rare success stories are dwarfed by tragedies. The reason is simple: A gun kept loaded and readily available for protection may also be reached by a curious child, an angry spouse or a depressed teen.


More than 20 years ago, I conducted a study of firearm-related deaths in homes in Seattle and surrounding King County, Washington. Over the study's seven-year interval, more than half of all fatal shootings in the county took place in the home where the firearm involved was kept. Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides. A subsequent study conducted in three U.S. cities found that guns kept in the home were 12 times more likely to be involved in the death or injury of a member of the household than in the killing or wounding of a bad guy in self-defense.

Oh, one more thing: Scalia's ludicrous vision of a little old lady clutching a handgun in one hand while dialing 911 with the other (try it sometime) doesn't fit the facts. According to the Justice Department, far more guns are lost each year to burglary or theft than are used to defend people or property. In Atlanta, a city where approximately a third of households contain guns, a study of 197 home-invasion crimes revealed only three instances (1.5 percent) in which the inhabitants resisted with a gun. Intruders got to the homeowner's gun twice as often as the homeowner did.

The court has spoken, but citizens and lawmakers should base future gun-control decisions -- both personal and political -- on something more substantive than Scalia's glib opinion.


-- Arthur Kellermann, a professor of emergency medicine and public health at Emory University

Let's face it. You are far more likely to be killed by a gun if you have a gun in your home.

Let's look at the statistics, and the wording, and apply a little bit of rationality here. "A shocking 333 suicides" does not concern me in the least. Ignoring the massive overshadowing of number of suicide deaths by guns compared to other deaths, why does it matter to me or anyone else, how someone decides to off themselves? It has zero effect on me. Ban guns because of suicides? Might as well ban bridges, cliffs, knives, almost any OTC medicine, trains, etc. etc. etc. It has absolutely no bearing on the argument. Sure, suicide sucks, but if your family member or loved one committed suicide, it wasn't because they had access to a gun.

The Centers for Disease Control runs an accident statistic website, easily searched by anyone on the web, to include fatalities not only by guns, but cars, bee stings, swimming pools, etc. (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html)

Look at the numbers yourself, and they are pretty revealing. There were 4,248 drowning deaths in the US in 2005. Just a raw number without any further detail, but no one gets up in arms about it - no body is calling for the outright banning of swimming pools, or waterfront regulations, etc. Now do a search for "unintentional firearms deaths", and do you know what the number was in 2005? 789. Unintentional deaths by poisoning? 23,618. Unintentional deaths by suffocation? 5,900. Unintentional deaths due to home fires? 2,816. The argument for "saving the children" from shooting each other when they find daddy's gun just doesn't make much sense, when the efforts could be much better spent elsewhere.

There were also 30,694 "firearms" deaths in 2005. Gee, sounds terrible, doesn't it? Refine your search and the picture becomes a little more clear in comparison. 17,002 of those firearms related fatalities were due to suicide. I have no problem with eliminating more than 50% of the "firearms" fatalities from my consideration. They do not matter to me in the slightest. That leaves about 13,000 firearms deaths due to homicide. That's a scary number indeed. But please people, at least use the right numbers when arguing for, or against, gun control.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: Mail5398
Do you want to know why criminals do not break into homes very often where I live? It's because almost all of us have handguns. If they break in, they WILL get shot.


How does your research quantify that.

yeah, your unsubstantiated opinion obvious qualifies and rebuts the research done..

oh wait...