Slickdeals Saves U! Vote for our Slickdeals scholarship finalists! Learn More
Forum Thread

The Danger of Guns at Home

18,117 1,013 February 3, 2013 at 05:27 PM
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.
Add a Comment Sorry, this thread is closed.

440 Comments

2 3 4 5 6

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Feb 2004
L10: Grand Master
6,960 Posts
968 Reputation
#46
Quote from 124nic8
:
If the most lethal method is not available, then it would stand to reason there would be fewer successes.
What's needed is data showing how often those different methods are used. A particular method could have 100% lethality, but if it's not used, banning it won't change anything in this regard. I suspect, for instance, that handguns are used for suicide much more than shotguns, even though shotguns are (slightly) more lethal.
Helpful Comment? 0 0
Marshall: Have the rest of you guys figured out by now that mmathis is the smartest guy on SlickDeals?
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Dec 2006
L10: Grand Master
10,824 Posts
1,184 Reputation
#47
Quote from 124nic8
:
If the most lethal method is not available, then it would stand to reason there would be fewer successes.
And locking up crazy people would certainly make those methods less accessible.
Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jul 2007
L10: Grand Master
18,117 Posts
1,013 Reputation
Original Poster
#48
Quote from msummers80
:
One doesn't need data on the subject. If you can't figure out that one doesn't always have to use a weapon for it to be useful in self defense, you can't be helped. You can show that you have a weapon, and an attacker might flee. If that doesn't work, you can pull the weapon out. If that doesn't work, you can point it, rack the slide, etc. to show a small escalation of force. The final act is to fire, and it may never come to that as one takes other actions with the intent of defense. Any of those actions prove the usefulness of a firearm in self defense. Are all such scenarios accounted for in the "study" you posted?
Firstly, one does need data on the subject. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up and calling it fact.

Second, what you're claiming has no data to back it up. I am certain there are anecdotal cases of people scaring away crooks by brandishing weapons. If the number is significant, then perhaps an unloaded and non-working firearm is the statistically safest thing to keep in the home.
Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2008
Permanently Banned
23,116 Posts
462 Reputation
#49
Quote from Dumpsterdiver
:
And locking up crazy people would certainly make those methods less accessible.
OK, let's institute a tax on firearms to pay for the commitment of "crazy people," so they can't kill themselves and others with the freely available guns.
Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jul 2010
... and so does Rodgers!
6,336 Posts
1,451 Reputation
#50
Quote from DJPlayer
:
Your biggest assumption is about airbags.. are we talking front airbags plus curtain airbags etc?? Car accidents obviously cause head and facial injuries.. and most cars on the road do not have curtain style airbags. 64% of autos were built w/ side/curtain airbags in 2011. Are the majority of people driving brand spanking new cars?

At this rate we could probably make another law giving a maximum weight limit to vehicles. I don't believe it's any secret that when two auto meet.. The lighter of the two takes the brunt of the punishment. But then we'd have to determine how to deal w/ tractor trailers etc..
Just as an FYI (although the '59 has 50 years of rust/degradation on it).
1959 Bel Air - 3622 lbs.
2009 Malibu - 3415 lbs.
See IIHS crash test here [autoblog.com]
Helpful Comment? 0 0
Quote :
Never trust a dead Warlock.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Mar 2006
L7: Teacher
2,100 Posts
81 Reputation
#51
Quote from Rebound
:
Firstly, one does need data on the subject. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up and calling it fact.

Second, what you're claiming has no data to back it up. I am certain there are anecdotal cases of people scaring away crooks by brandishing weapons. If the number is significant, then perhaps an unloaded and non-working firearm is the statistically safest thing to keep in the home.
I'm just pointing out why the premise of the study is false. Why, in essence, this study was just making stuff up and calling it fact. I have no intention of replacing it with something else at the moment.

I'd be sorry that no one is collecting stats on non-crimes that I could use for a study to back up my point, but I'm too happy that there is that much less data the government is collecting. Wink

One needs a working firearm in case he gets to the final step in defense of self. But, if you believe you can pull of the bluff of brandishing a non-working firearm to ward off a criminal and feel safer doing that, I would never oppose your right to defend yourself in that manner. Good luck!
Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Dec 2006
L10: Grand Master
10,824 Posts
1,184 Reputation
#52
Quote from 124nic8
:
OK, let's institute a tax on firearms to pay for the commitment of "crazy people," so they can't kill themselves and others with the freely available guns.
I was thinking cars, because of the bridges they tend to jump off of. Or is it better to have them polluting the waterways?
Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Dec 2006
L10: Grand Master
10,824 Posts
1,184 Reputation
#53
Quote from msummers80
:
I'm just pointing out why the premise of the study is false. Why, in essence, this study was just making stuff up and calling it fact. I have no intention of replacing it with something else at the moment.

I'd be sorry that no one is collecting stats on non-crimes that I could use for a study to back up my point, but I'm too happy that there is that much less data the government is collecting. Wink

One needs a working firearm in case he gets to the final step in defense of self. But, if you believe you can pull of the bluff of brandishing a non-working firearm to ward off a criminal and feel safer doing that, I would never oppose your right to defend yourself in that manner. Good luck!
Guy called into a radio show I was listening to. He said he was drunk and went up to someone looking for a fight. When that guy took out a gun, he realized he brought fists to a gun fight and scurried away.

I'm sure that's the only occurrence...
Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Oct 2007
2 tickets to the gun show
15,923 Posts
1,166 Reputation
#54
Quote from Rebound
:
Firstly, one does need data on the subject. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up and calling it fact.

Second, what you're claiming has no data to back it up.
If you wanted to get in a fight with someone, would you be less inclined to do so if they have a firearm on their person?
Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Oct 2004
Funk this....
25,564 Posts
#55
Quote from TheWoman
:
Show that suicides decrease significantly when guns are banned, and you will have a point. My understanding is that suicide rates remain constant, just the method changes.
Actually, suicide rates are higher in many countries that impose strict gun control. Dramtically higher in some cases, such as with Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...icide_rate

A gun is a tool. If that tool isn't available, others are used.
Helpful Comment? 0 0
Quote :
the GOP, which will lose the Presidency, the Senate, and maybe even the House of Representatives. And then, Hillary Clinton will appoint the most liberal, lesbian, man-hating bitch of a Supreme Court Justice that you've ever seen, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. And why? Because the American Voter is smart, and Donald Trump is stupid........

Signed,
Rebound
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Oct 2004
Funk this....
25,564 Posts
#56
Quote from Rebound
:
Firstly, one does need data on the subject. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up and calling it fact.

Second, what you're claiming has no data to back it up. I am certain there are anecdotal cases of people scaring away crooks by brandishing weapons.
What's hilarious, is you're attacking the results of a peer reviewed study, in a thread you started on a biased and discredited survey.

Quote from Rebound
:
If the number is significant, then perhaps an unloaded and non-working firearm is the statistically safest thing to keep in the home.
The vast amount of fire extinguishers will never be used to put out a fire. Perhaps we should allow businesses to install empty ones.
Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2006
Deep Thoughts
13,197 Posts
269 Reputation
#57
When you need a firearm, it does tend to be a thing of urgency. How many intelligent people wait for a need to present itself before buying something, or do they tend to buy things in anticipated need based on what they believe may become required? I know that I bought cookware/plates/flatware prior to deciding I was going to cook something... Because I did not desire to need something that was not immediately available.
Helpful Comment? 0 0
Personally, I'm interested in keeping other people from building Utopia, because the more you believe you can create heaven on earth the more likely you are to set up guillotines in the public square to hasten the process. -- James Lileks
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2008
Permanently Banned
23,116 Posts
462 Reputation
#58
Quote from JackHandey
:
When you need a firearm, it does tend to be a thing of urgency. How many intelligent people wait for a need to present itself before buying something, or do they tend to buy things in anticipated need based on what they believe may become required? I know that I bought cookware/plates/flatware prior to deciding I was going to cook something... Because I did not desire to need something that was not immediately available.
It depends on the probability of the need, the price of the solution, and the availability of alternative solutions.

For instance, you knew you would need to eat regularly. You also knew the price of eating out would be much higher.

OTOH, in the many years of my life, I have never needed a gun, so I judge the probability of that need to be very low. And an alternate solution of calling the cops to be reasonable.
Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2006
L10: Grand Master
22,689 Posts
4,149 Reputation
#59
Quote from 124nic8
:
It depends on the probability of the need, the price of the solution, and the availability of alternative solutions.

For instance, you knew you would need to eat regularly. You also knew the price of eating out would be much higher.

OTOH, in the many years of my life, I have never needed a gun, so I judge the probability of that need to be very low. And an alternate solution of calling the cops to be reasonable.
Should the reasoning that many people have never needed an abortion over the many years of their lives be suffficient cause to allow them to ban/highly restrict access to abortion for others?
Helpful Comment? 0 0
"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." -- John Morley

"I just helped your mother kill someone. That 'old lady' enough for you?" -- Tara Knowles

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2006
Deep Thoughts
13,197 Posts
269 Reputation
#60
Quote from 124nic8
:
OTOH, in the many years of my life, I have never needed a gun, so I judge the probability of that need to be very low. And an alternate solution of calling the cops to be reasonable.
The previous need or lack thereof is not a good indicator of future need. There is always a first time for everything. Next time you have a need for law enforcement, order a pizza right after you get off the phone with the dispatcher. Bet the pizza gets there first.
Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 4 of 30
2 3 4 5 6
Sorry, this thread is closed.
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2018. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard