Statistics don't kill people. But statistics show you are less safe with a handgun in your home.

[Brihaha]

A person determined to end their life will do so. Whether they own a gun or not. The studies are devised to reach a specific conclusion as are think tanks. What they don’t reveal is the proliferation of guns in wealthy homes. They aren’t turning them in and they have security.

Keep your guns. Ignore the propaganda and scare tactics.

And your biases are designed to fool yourself to reach your own desired conclusion. America is in denial. We HAVE ignored the data and subsequent conclusions for quite long enough. Guns kept in homes apparently increase your risk of death regardless of your own beliefs.
And I am keeping my guns. I live in the country with wildlife I occasionally need to motivate to depart my premises hahaha.

 

[Brihaha]

True. But for the people who have a fleeting suicidal thought and a gun it’s over very quickly.

For the same person without access to a suicide machine the time it takes to stock pile meds or to drive to a bridge may let that fleeting thought pass and the person to seek help.

In my profession working with clinically depressed patients the biggest red flag for suicide after past behaviour is impulsivity. Any that speeds up the suicidal activity increases the likelihood and impulsive person who had a bad day will kill themselves.

It’s the same for angry people. Unarmed they are a nuisance: armed they are a bomb waiting go off.

That is a valid point. The article did address the suicide issue. It seems those who attempt suicide with pills are much more likely to live than those who reach for an easily accessible firearm.

 

[dogs4thewin]

That is a valid point. The article did address the suicide issue. It seems those who attempt suicide with pills are much more likely to live than those who reach for an easily accessible firearm.

Part of that is with some exceptions is that pills take time. Unless you take basically a suicide pill then you can generally have a pretty good chance of being found ( especially if you do it during the day.

 

[trophy33]

The first study was all done with gun owners and why they felt the need to have guns at home. 58% said the biggest reason was for protection. The second biggest reason was 24% said they don't trust police to keep them safe. Your point made was exactly why they brought the two studies together.

For protection and because of a distrust towards police...

It seems to me that its therefore about some high risk/high danger areas, maybe even some criminal environments (conflicts with police), so it can be expected that these people will have more homicides or suicides than people living in better/safer areas and therefore guns are not the cause of the higher rate, but the cause are their bad living conditions.

Therefore the conclusion "you are less safe with a gun in your home" is not correct. The correct conclusion from the stats would be "you are less safe when you live in a less safe area".

 

[Sophrosyne]

One has to balance the losses people take that a gun could reduce, even elminate into the equation that likely only considers the extremes. A gun is a tool, if used properly it can produce results if abused.... harm. One could consider a circular saw a useful tool, but used improperly you can seriously harm yourself. A car is also a tool essentially and not meant to kill people but people are killed because of their use. Most people statistically would be safer if they didn't own a car at all, the risk of being in a car accident or killing someone with a car drops if you don't own one but people consider the risk and the rewards and many own them.

If one doesn't consider financial loss from theft, kidnapping, and harm (rape even) by home intruders into the equation of owning a handgun and only considers death from misuse by laser focused statistics that doesn't balance the advantages and risks without a gun then using this to ban guns..... is irresponsible. Rich people some of whom are leaders trying to ban guns...... have armed guards protecting their million dollar homes even live in gated neighborhoods with armed guards protecting the entrance. Until these people swear off others protecting their houses with guns.... then banning guns won't hurt them as likely they will make special provisions to allow people that they want to own/use them like armed guards as they can afford to pay for them. The president likewise should be more neutral because he is protected for life by the armed secret service agents.

I know people who are divorce with abusive ex spouses that have been proven to be violent that have guns to protect them and it helps them a lot with fear of being attacked in their homes to own one. Living in fear can be hell on you vs the fear of misuse of a gun to them is a no brainer.

 

[Brihaha]

For protection and because of a distrust towards police...

It seems to me that its therefore about some high risk/high danger areas, maybe even some criminal environments (conflicts with police), so it can be expected that these people will have more homicides or suicides than people living in better/safer areas and therefore guns are not the cause of the higher rate, but the cause are their bad living conditions.

Therefore the conclusion "you are less safe with a gun in your home" is not correct. The correct conclusion from the stats would be "you are less safe when you live in a less safe area".

Your own expectations can be included in your study. The study I posted drew their data based conclusions that you are intent on ignoring or obscuring with your own opinions. I'm sure a study has been done concluding one is less safe living in a less safe environment. I think the trees are obscuring your ability to see the forest haha.

 

[Brihaha]

One has to balance the losses people take that a gun could reduce, even elminate into the equation that likely only considers the extremes. A gun is a tool, if used properly it can produce results if abused.... harm. One could consider a circular saw a useful tool, but used improperly you can seriously harm yourself. A car is also a tool essentially and not meant to kill people but people are killed because of their use. Most people statistically would be safer if they didn't own a car at all, the risk of being in a car accident or killing someone with a car drops if you don't own one but people consider the risk and the rewards and many own them.

If one doesn't consider financial loss from theft, kidnapping, and harm (rape even) by home intruders into the equation of owning a handgun and only considers death from misuse by laser focused statistics that doesn't balance the advantages and risks without a gun then using this to ban guns..... is irresponsible. Rich people some of whom are leaders trying to ban guns...... have armed guards protecting their million dollar homes even live in gated neighborhoods with armed guards protecting the entrance. Until these people swear off others protecting their houses with guns.... then banning guns won't hurt them as likely they will make special provisions to allow people that they want to own/use them like armed guards as they can afford to pay for them. The president likewise should be more neutral because he is protected for life by the armed secret service agents.

I know people who are divorce with abusive ex spouses that have been proven to be violent that have guns to protect them and it helps them a lot with fear of being attacked in their homes to own one. Living in fear can be hell on you vs the fear of misuse of a gun to them is a no brainer.

You present some valid points. I for one do not advocate for a ban on guns in America. We could do more to find solutions to effectively reduce the gun violence tho. Our culture feels a strong desire to possess guns regardless of statistics that show they are probably less safe because everyone else feels a need to own weapons too. Fear seems to be the driving force of ownership and corresponding violence. Why are we so terrified? Because we know others have guns and perhaps mental disorders that increase the risk of gun violence.

If statistics are true, then arming our teachers will likely exacerbate gun violence in America. Sure there may be an instance where a teacher foils a would be mass killer. But I think the stats illustrate more unnecessary gun deaths would result from having more guns in schools.

 

[trophy33]

Your own expectations can be included in your study. The study I posted drew their data based conclusions that you are intent on ignoring or obscuring with your own opinions. I'm sure a study has been done concluding one is less safe living in a less safe environment. I think the trees are obscuring your ability to see the forest haha.

No, I am just pointing out that the study cannot be used to connect guns and higher rates of homicides in the sense of causality.

For a study to do that, all other factors would have to be considered and balanced. For example gun owners from good areas and good families vs people without guns in the same area, with similarly good families, similar income, education etc. The only difference would be just having a gun.

 

[RDKirk]

Statistically, every US state has hundreds of square miles of Arctic tundra, a couple of hundred miles of seacoast, grows pineapple, has hundreds of square miles of desert, and has a population of 56,000,000 people.

That's not true of any single state, however.

 

[RDKirk]

You present some valid points. I for one do not advocate for a ban on guns in America. We could do more to find solutions to effectively reduce the gun violence tho. Our culture feels a strong desire to possess guns regardless of statistics that show they are probably less safe because everyone else feels a need to own weapons too. Fear seems to be the driving force of ownership and corresponding violence. Why are we so terrified? Because we know others have guns and perhaps mental disorders that increase the risk of gun violence.

If statistics are true, then arming our teachers will likely exacerbate gun violence in America. Sure there may be an instance where a teacher foils a would be mass killer. But I think the stats illustrate more unnecessary gun deaths would result from having more guns in schools.

The considerations of arming teachers are not the same considerations of being armed in the home. You can't apply the same arguments or the same statistics to both situations.

 

[Brihaha]

No, I am just pointing out that the study cannot be used to causally connect guns and higher rates of homicides.

For a study to do that, all other factors would have to be considered and balanced. For example gun owners from good areas vs people without guns in the same area.

Yes, most of the credible studies DO connect guns with higher rates of homicides. That is the point, which people have an uncanny ability to complicate and ignore.

 

[trophy33]

Yes, most of the credible studies DO connect guns with higher rates of homicides. That is the point, which people have an uncanny ability to complicate and ignore.

Studies are not credible just because some yahoo article says so.

Studies are credible when they meet the right requirements and write the right conclusion.

 

[Brihaha]

The considerations of arming teachers are not the same considerations of being armed in the home. You can't apply the same arguments or the same statistics to both situations.

I understand your point. It is why I used the term likely instead of certainly or definitely.

 

[Brihaha]

Studies are not credible just because some yahoo article says so.

The studies are credible when they meet the right requirements and write the right conclusion.

You have a good day my friend. I have to return some videotapes.....Hahaha. Peace

 

[cow451]

Studies are not credible just because some yahoo article says so.

Studies are credible when they meet the right requirements and write the right conclusion.

The study was done by Stanford University and published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

 

[Brihaha]

Statistically, every US state has hundreds of square miles of Arctic tundra, a couple of hundred miles of seacoast, grows pineapple, has hundreds of square miles of desert, and has a population of 56,000,000 people.

That's not true of any single state, however.

I love pineapples. I love oranges too. I'm actually growing an orange tree here in Virginia. Two years old now and starting to branch. They say things aren't possible but I know with God and an open mind anything is possible. Have a good day.

 

[Brihaha]

The study was done by Stanford University and published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

I recall a line from the movie Cool Hand Luke. "Some folks you just can't reach."

 

[dogs4thewin]

Yes, most of the credible studies DO connect guns with higher rates of homicides. That is the point, which people have an uncanny ability to complicate and ignore.

and how many of those homicides are justified?

 

[RDKirk]

I recall a line from the movie Cool Hand Luke. "Some folks you just can't reach."

That full quote is:

“What we’ve got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don’t like it any more than you men”.

It's a bad example for your argument, because in that case, the guy who made the statement was morally wrong and the guy who couldn't be "reached" was right.

 

[Brihaha]

and how many of those homicides are justified?

That seems like a question for another study to address. Look at it this way, fewer guns around would likely prevent many justifiable homicides to begin with. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! It is true in gardening as well as life in general.