Your favorite statistics and bits of trivia

[NotWise]

You said this in your original post:

If you have a gun in your home, it's significantly more likely to be used against you or your family than to be used for your defense.


That ISN'T what the NIH study said.

Which was:

Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.


These are very different things.

First off, those aren't different things. Use of a gun in an accidental shooting, suicide attempt, or criminal assault are all cases of a gun in your home being used against your interest.

Second, there quite a few studies that support the idea, and they go back decades. There are enough that I chose not to site more of them. Here is Gemini's response to the question: "if you have a gun in your home is it more likely to be used against you than in your defense?"

Multiple studies show that a gun in the home is statistically more likely to be used against a household member than in self-defense against an intruder. The vast majority of gun violence in homes is not related to self-defense against criminals but rather involves suicide, domestic disputes, and unintentional shootings.

 

[NotWise]

The value of the findings is questionable, even if you accept the findings.

First of all, that study is based on actual shootings, rather than all "uses" of a gun in self defense. There may be cases where a gun is brandished in self-defense and gets the "job done" but isn't counted for purposes of this study. We can't tell, from this study.

It would be hard to show that a gun was brandished in self-defense to get the job done.

Second, it is based on "shootings in or around a residence." That doesn't mean "shootings by the person who bought the gun and kept it at his home." It could also mean shootings by the intruder. If so, that undermines the conclusion that people draw from these studies, which is "if you buy a gun and keep it at home, it increases the chance you'll get injured." It may simply mean that if an intruder with a gun breaks into your home, he's more likely to shoot you than you are to shoot him, but it doesn't necessarily mean that having a gun doesn't improve your chances.

For that study, I don't think it makes a difference whether the gun used in the shooting belonged to the homeowner. Possession of the gun increased the risk of shooting. For instance, if the homeowner confronted someone on his property with his gun and was shot, then that would count. Chances are that if the homeowner had not confronted the someone with his gun, then no-one would have been shot.

Third, it incorporates, and is substantially based on, suicides. So, while it MIGHT be true that there will be more deaths in the aggregate if we let everybody buy guns and take them home, because of the high incidence of suicide, that's not going to be very persuasive to the person who thinks to himself, "I'm not suicidal and I know how to be a responsible gun owner." It raises the question whether and to what degree the freedom and choices of responsible people should be limited by the fact that some are not responsible when making the same kinds of choices.

Suicides count. Accidental shootings by children count.

Firearms are the largest cause of fatality for people from 1-19 in the US (CDC statistic). For kids from 1-9, accidental deaths, including accidental death by firearm, are the most common cause, but for people aged 10-19, it's specifically firearms that are the leading cause of death in the US.

I"m not proposing any restrictions on gun ownership. That would be a matter for the politics forum. I suggest that people should consider whether it's worthwhile having a gun in their house--especially if they have children--and that if they do, then they should store their guns securely.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

First off, those aren't different things. Use of a gun in an accidental shooting, suicide attempt, or criminal assault are all cases of a gun in your home being used against your interest.

Second, there quite a few studies that support the idea, and they go back decades. There are enough that I chose not to site more of them. Here is Gemini's response to the question: "if you have a gun in your home is it more likely to be used against you than in your defense?"

They are not the same thing, and getting an AI answer doesn't bolster your claim like you think it does.

You said the gun was more likely to be used against you than used for self defense.

That isn't what the study shows.
In addition to that obvious difference, the study you referenced used the narrowest possible definition of defensive gun usage by only counting cases where another person was shot.
So, if someone broke into your house, saw you with a gun and ran away. That wouldn't count.
If you fired a shot, missed, and the criminal ran away... you guessed it... that wouldn't count.

Like many gun control studies it gets a desired result by using a wide or narrow definition as needed.
Similar to the way they include 19 year olds as "children" to pad the stats.

 

[NotWise]

They are not the same thing, and getting an AI answer doesn't bolster your claim like you think it does.

You said the gun was more likely to be used against you than used for self defense.

That isn't what the study shows.
In addition to that obvious difference, the study you referenced used the narrowest possible definition of defensive gun usage by only counting cases where another person was shot.
So, if someone broke into your house, saw you with a gun and ran away. That wouldn't count.
If you fired a shot, missed, and the criminal ran away... you guessed it... that wouldn't count.

Like many gun control studies it gets a desired result by using a wide or narrow definition as needed.
Similar to the way they include 19 year olds as "children" to pad the stats.

You have produced no evidence or even rational argument to show that I'm wrong. Therefore, I win.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

You have produced no evidence or even rational argument to show that I'm wrong. Therefore, I win.

If you say so.

 

[alohadave]

Thanks so much! What do the letters UTC stand for?

Coordinated Universal Time. The modern replacement for Greenwich Mean Time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time

 

[AG31]

Coordinated Universal Time. The modern replacement for Greenwich Mean Time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time

Oh! I didn't know Greenwich mean was passe. I guess it's like "BC" - before the common era. What was the reason for changing, do you know?

 

[big_cane_sugar]

Yeah, suicide is a huge part of the gun violence statistics. Perhaps gun advocates would like to say that people ought to have a right to take their own lives in that manner though. Regardless, there are common sense gun regulations that are pretty popular and we could pass them but we don't because things like school shootings don't bother us that much.

 

[MelissaBaby]

90% of pissing contests end with everyone's feet wet and no resolution.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

90% of pissing contests end with everyone's feet wet and no resolution.

Hmmmm... sounds like a story idea....

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Yeah, suicide is a huge part of the gun violence statistics. Perhaps gun advocates would like to say that people ought to have a right to take their own lives in that manner though. Regardless, there are common sense gun regulations that are pretty popular and we could pass them but we don't because things like school shootings don't bother us that much.

The issue is that people who want to commit suicide will find a way. Japan has extremely strict gun control and a higher suicide rate than the US.

Those "common sense" "popular" things are usually neither.
Minnesota has pretty strict gun control laws. Didn't stop the shooter in Minneapolis.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

The issue is that people who want to commit suicide will find a way. Japan has extremely strict gun control and a higher suicide rate than the US.

Those "common sense" "popular" things are usually neither.
Minnesota has pretty strict gun control laws. Didn't stop the shooter in Minneapolis.

That's a good point. Strict gun control laws don't stop school shooters in Japan either.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

That's a good point. Strict gun control laws don't stop school shooters in Japan either.

They just have mass stabbings instead.
Check out the Osaka school massacre sometime.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

They just have mass stabbings instead.
Check out the Osaka school massacre sometime.

Twenty-four years ago and still as bad as all the mass shootings in the states.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Twenty-four years ago and still as bad as all the mass shootings in the states.

There have been other acts of mass violence in Japan.
What are these "reasonable" and "popular" things we could do in the US that would prevent mass shootings?
I've got some ideas, but I'd love to hear yours.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

There have been other acts of mass violence in Japan.
What are these "reasonable" and "popular" things we could do in the US that would prevent mass shootings?
I've got some ideas, but I'd love to hear yours.

I'm sure your ideas would be much more interesting than mine! We might find ourselves in agreement on them. But it wouldn't matter.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I'm sure your ideas would be much more interesting than mine! We might find ourselves in agreement on them. But it wouldn't matter.

You said these reasonable and popular options existed, why not share them with us?

 

[big_cane_sugar]

You said these reasonable and popular options existed, why not share them with us?

Because it wouldn't matter. Besides, since you're obviously a defender of mass gun ownership, anything you'd concede on the matter would be more interesting than anything I could copy and paste from some site with that information.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Because it wouldn't matter. Besides, since you're obviously a defender of mass gun ownership, anything you'd concede on the matter would be more interesting than anything I could copy and paste from some site with that information.

How do you know it wouldn't matter? I'm genuinely interested in a reasonable and popular way to reduce violence.
I always find it useful to gather a variety of perspectives. I think it would be tragic if anyone's beliefs were so set in stone that reasonable ideas couldn't change them.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

How do you know it wouldn't matter? I'm genuinely interested in a reasonable and popular way to reduce violence.
I always find it useful to gather a variety of perspectives. I think it would be tragic if anyone's beliefs were so set in stone that reasonable ideas couldn't change them.

It wouldn't matter because it hasn't ever mattered. The information is widely available and has been for a long time but Americans don't care enough about other people's children to do anything about it.

 

[RetroFan]

The Australian city of Melbourne was originally going to be called Batmania, named after its founder John Batman.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It wouldn't matter because it hasn't ever mattered. The information is widely available and has been for a long time but Americans don't care enough about other people's children to do anything about it.

How can you say we don't care, but then refuse to share these reasonable and popular alternatives?
If they are so popular what's stopping them?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

In the 1960s the CIA had a program to try and implant microphones and transmitters in cats to spy on the Russians.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

How can you say we don't care, but then refuse to share these reasonable and popular alternatives?
If they are so popular what's stopping them?

Indifference. I don't care either. School shootings don't bother me any more than they bother you or most other people. It's not like I'm some activist or donating to a cause or anything. I mean I know we'd be sad when someone we care about suffers but as long as it's only other people's kids, not that big of a deal.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

In the 1960s the CIA had a program to try and implant microphones and transmitters in cats to spy on the Russians.

Not their worst idea lol.