The Danger of Guns at Home

A gun in your home is far more likely to kill you or a loved one than protect you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/dangerous-gun-myths.html?_r=0

In the 1990s, a team headed by Arthur Kellermann of Emory University looked at all injuries involving guns kept in the home in Memphis, Seattle and Galveston, Tex. They found that these weapons were fired far more often in accidents, criminal assaults, homicides or suicide attempts than in self-defense. For every instance in which a gun in the home was shot in self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides, four accidental shootings, and 11 attempted or successful suicides.

The cost-benefit balance of having a gun in the home is especially negative for women, according to a 2011 review by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Far from making women safer, a gun in the home is “a particularly strong risk factor” for female homicides and the intimidation of women.

In domestic violence situations, the risk of homicide for women increased eightfold when the abuser had access to firearms, according to a study published in The American Journal of Public Health in 2003. Further, there was “no clear evidence” that victims’ access to a gun reduced their risk of being killed. Another 2003 study, by Douglas Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania, found that females living with a gun in the home were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun at home.

In before the "that study has been discredited" tirades.

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.

Quote from Rebound : A gun in your home is far more likely to kill you or a loved one than protect you: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03....html?_r=0 In the 1990s, a team headed by Arthur Kellermann of Emory University looked at all injuries involving guns kept in the home in Memphis, Seattle and Galveston, Tex. They found that these weapons were fired far more often in accidents, criminal assaults, homicides or suicide attempts than in self-defense. For every instance in which a gun in the home was shot in self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides, four accidental shootings, and 11 attempted or successful suicides. The cost-benefit balance of having a gun in the home is especially negative for women, according to a 2011 review by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Far from making women safer, a gun in the home is “a particularly strong risk factor” for female homicides and the intimidation of women. In domestic violence situations, the risk of homicide for women increased eightfold when the abuser had access to firearms, according to a study published in The American Journal of Public Health in 2003. Further, there was “no clear evidence” that victims’ access to a gun reduced their risk of being killed. Another 2003 study, by Douglas Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania, found that females living with a gun in the home were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun at home.

This study has been discredited many times. Posting it proves that you don't bother to read any of the links provided for you on this forum.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

You have to be getting really desperate to post something like this.

Well, at least this time you aren't taking someone else's post and replying in such as way as to distort or misrepresent their original post.



Didn't the OP complain that their were too many gun threads? Why not add this humor to one of the others?

Quote from 124nic8 : In before the "that study has been discredited" tirades.

At least you are honest enough to admit it's been discredited

I dug into one this studies really deep one time. It simply amazing me how partisan the studies are by the facts they exclude.

I'm not gonna reference exactly all the numbers I broke down before.. but essentially you have two major categories of gun violence when ones one in the home.

1. You have suicides (which absolutely dominate in terms of percentage).
2. Then you have gang violence.. (ya that one sorta struck em also).

but then when you look at the characteristics and demographics of how gun violence occurs it becomes extremely clear.

The white/educated/suburban population makes up the vast majority of the suicides. By percentage people most prone to suicide are age 65+.

When you look at the non-suicide it primarily people with no college education/minorities/urban dwellings.

Now we all know guns are banned in the UK etc. so I was curious of their suicide rate which ones once primarily guns. Now that guns have been banned for some time.. sure enough, suicide rate is pretty much unchanged. Now they're hanging themselves, stabbing themselves, jumping off buildings etc..

So the topic of the thread is actually pretty misleading. The primary danger of guns at home is that someone may kill themselves with it. But, as proven in virtually every country with a weapons ban.. they'll do it anyways. The real danger is most likely where you live, which is primarily decided upon by income.

Quote from onscreen : At least you are honest enough to admit it's been discredited

No such admission here.

I just know you guys have CLAIMED it was discredited and will post tirades about it.

guns are not the boogeyman.

Quote from 124nic8 : No such admission here. I just know you guys have CLAIMED it was discredited and will post tirades about it.

Well if you can read you can see the study presents information in a was that is deceptive.
We can lead you to water but we can't make you drink.

Quote from Rebound : A gun in your home is far more likely to kill you or a loved one than protect you:

Even anti gun sources don't agree with that ridiculous study....

But since it lacks any vestige of truth or credibility, as long as it's about guns, it's right up your alley.

Quote from Dr. J : guns are not the boogeyman.

For some, truly irrational people, they are.

Quote from onscreen : Well if you can read you can see the study presents information in a was that is deceptive. We can lead you to water but we can't make you drink.

If by "water" you mean guncite.com, it is laughable that you compare their credibility to the New England Journal of Medicine.

I don't "drink" crap.

Quote from 124nic8 : If by "water" you mean guncite.com, it is laughable that you compare their credibility to the New England Journal of Medicine. I don't "drink" crap.

This is just further proof that you aren't interested in an honest discussion of the topic
Guncite assumes they will have to deal with people like you. That's why they include external links and citations to all of their sources. It's pure intellectual dishonestly on your part to ignore cited information just because you don't like the secondary source. If you also disagree with the primary sources perhaps your dismissal would do more than reflect negatively upon you and you alone.

Again your at the water but you refuse to drink for fear it may be refreshing.

Quote from 124nic8 : I don't "drink" crap.

You just eat it with a nice chianti? :rofl:

Quote from onscreen : This is just further proof that you aren't interested in an honest discussion of the topic Guncite assumes they will have to deal with people like you. That's why they include external links and citations to all of their sources. It's pure intellectual dishonestly on your part to ignore cited information just because you don't like the secondary source. If you also disagree with the primary sources perhaps your dismissal would do more than reflect negatively upon you and you alone. Again your at the water but you refuse to drink for fear it may be refreshing.

No, I refuse to waste my time, when the source is obviously agenda driven BS which has no reputation for quality.

And your clown faces do nothing to improve that prospect.