“People who live with a gun present face twice the risk of death by homicide”

Discussion in 'Firearms and Hunting' started by archives, Apr 6, 2022.

  1. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Increased/easier lethality for both.

    It's easier to kill yourself with a gun than anything else, so a strong impulse can cause irreversible death much quicker and more reliably than going to find a bridge, attempting to poison yourself, or attempting to hang yourself. Those options are all slower, scarier, and take more time in which you can change your mind or be rescued.

    Domestic violence. If somebody sees red and beats up their wife, there's more chances for the wife to leave him or for this to serve as a wake-up call for them both than if a gun is available. With no gun available, even if he would shoot her, he can't. A knife or strangulation are much more raw, and less reliable ways to kill, and again with the slower, scarier, and takes more time usually. The hill to climb to achieve death is higher, and in the meantime something is much more likely to happen to avoid death than if a gun is used. Drunk roommates get into a fight - without a gun somebody gets beat up, with a gun somebody is more likely to die.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2022
  2. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    27,529
    Likes Received:
    18,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That doesn't answer my question. There has never been a doubt as to how lethal firearms can be. Guns do not make people miserable, drunk, or violent.
     
    Polydectes and Collateral Damage like this.
  3. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People bent on harming someone, will find any tool available. Someone in a rage isn't going to ignore a tool at hand, no matter what it is. Bat, lamp, kitchen knife, frying pan.

    As for suicide, 'irreversible death'? That got a grin. But in seriousness, once again, if someone is bent on committing suicide, they will use a tool at hand. I will guess that you believe that if they have to think about it with a slower method, they may think twice. If that is what you believe, then you've not really had to deal with someone who was actually seeking to commit suicide.
     
  4. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It does answer your question. It causes more deaths because it's more lethal than other available tools. Hell, even the caliber is associated with lethality, let alone gun vs no gun. You could sort of "get me" on a technicality on the domestic violence statement. It's not that it causes domestic violence, but rather it makes domestic violence more lethal. Suicide though is all about lethality.
     
  5. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the thing. In many cases, people are not "bent" on anything. It's a rage that they will later regret. That rage is more likely to result in successfully killing somebody if a gun is at hand. In fact, more likely to kill if it's a big gun. The Association of Firearm Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury in Criminal Assaults | Emergency Medicine | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network

     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2022
  6. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    27,529
    Likes Received:
    18,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "It" has never caused a single death. I am not trying to get you; I am discussing the topic, which falsely blames inanimate objects for the actions of humans. Such fallacies are used to deny the rights of those of us that do not fight with our roommates, have suicidal thoughts, or beat our wives. (My wife does like a spanking!)

    I realize many people know very little about firearms and are eager to consume this type of information as fact.

    Non-violent people are no threat to anyone, gun or no gun. If guns emitted magic rays causing violent or suicidal thoughts, I wouldn't be here having this discussion. (I have an extensive collection)
     
  7. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm actually not for gun control any more than I am for drugs or alcohol being illegal. In both cases, education is what is needed. But I'm not going to pretend they're not dangerous tools. And I'm not going to ignore that guns and bigger guns are more likely to cause death regardless of intent to kill vs assault. It's just what the data shows. Everybody thinks they're an exception - that they would never do that. And maybe it's true for them, but in policy we need to look at DATA not whether doofenshmirtz says he'll never kill anybody or himself. I wouldn't say I'm an expert in gun use, but I've done some shooting and find it enjoyable. I have some expertise in public health and it is that kind of issue.

    The data shows things like my post #130.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2022
  8. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anyone who gets 'angry' enough to react with violence, isn't likely to regret anything.

    Criminal assaults. Not quite the same as domestic assault.
     
  9. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Private gun ownership by a law abiding citizen is not a public health issue. People who claim that are side stepping the true issues of mental health, the use of psychotropic drugs, the over prescribing of narcotics, the possibility of legalization of currently controlled substances, emotional issues with people who have socialization issues, and a whole slew of economic issues that drive crime.

    No, guns are not the problem. People are the problem.
     
  10. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    27,529
    Likes Received:
    18,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one is pretending guns are not lethal. Where did you get the "bigger gun" info? That is simply not true. A .22 is just as lethal.

    You make a good point about not allowing random people on the internet to interfere, but the same goes for the topic we are discussing. There is zero value or truth in the misleading data being presented in the OP.

    Speaking of public health, have you noticed the record consumption of pharma products that list "Suicidal thoughts or actions" as side effects?
     
    Collateral Damage likes this.
  11. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure they will, if only for their own sake rather than the other person given it's better to avoid going to prison, the length of which will be longer if you murder them as opposed to assault and battery.

    Not different in a meaningful way for the point of the JAMA study. People shot with bigger guns were more likely to die. This was robust after adjusting for other factors.

    The study cited in post 130, for example. A 22 is not just as lethal as a big gun in normal circumstances. I suppose in a point-blank execution a 22 is just as lethal, but only about 1/6 of shootings are fatal.

    Haven't done a deep dive into the methods, but it sounds legit and the criticism I saw wasn't valid.

    Both drugs and guns are public health issues, but that doesn't mean either should be illegal. Public health is about policy that drives better health outcomes. Making drugs illegal does not drive better health outcomes, from what I've seen. Neither would banning guns. But educating people that owning a gun at home does not make your family safer if that's the case would be warranted, much like we educate people that alcohol isn't healthy, especially in excess. But outlawing alcohol only makes things worse and gives Al Capone wannabes a blood-soaked paycheck. Policy must be outcome driven. Banning drugs and guns doesn't help, even if they're "bad."
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2022
  12. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    52,678
    Likes Received:
    17,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    again if you have a problem with murder you have a problem with law enforcement. Not all of the people that own guns that aren't murderers.

    You're trying to blame murder on people that you don't like that's not rational.
    you have to say this over and over again because you're not pointing out in the idiocy of guns you're pointing out your irrational view point and your profound ignorance.

    You have to keep repeating it because it's wrong every time you say it. Stop saying wrong things then you won't have to repeat them anymore.

    Whether you find owning guns idiotic or not is not relevant to anything that is an opinion and obviously many people don't agree with you. If you're mad that people don't agree with you it's your fault that you aren't persuasive maybe you have a stupid position have you thought about that? Maybe your position is irrational and based on emotion.
     
  13. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    52,678
    Likes Received:
    17,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    yes. This is your ignorance bleeding through again.

    A semi-automatic fires the exact same way as a bolt action or a pump action or a single shot firearm.

    The only thing that you don't have to do is manipulate the firearm to load in another round.

    The skill isn't in manipulating the action it's in making sure the round hits where you need it to.



    That would say whoever would make such a claim is ignorant about what semi-automatic means. And there are a lot of people who are very ignorant of the subject in the country. Take you for example you do not understand that the skill in hunting is putting the projectile in the proper spot and do you think how the action is configured on a gun has anything to do with that.

    So if they would agree with you it's probably because they don't know what they're talking about.
     
  14. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    52,678
    Likes Received:
    17,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Gun ownership does not make that danger criminal behavior makes it a danger.

    You are wanting to blame gun owners for murder. This is called the demonizing and it's not rational.
     
  15. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    52,678
    Likes Received:
    17,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    that doesn't make you more likely to commit domestic violence. What property does the gun have to affect your psyche and to cause dispute between partners?
    this is only relevant if you're suicidal. If you're not then your risk of this is absolute zero even if you have a thousand guns.
    so you shouldn't own guns because there are emotional problems which you do not suffer from?
    This sounds like a law enforcement issue to me not a gun ownership issue.
    The existence of criminal behavior among criminals should never interfere with the rights of non criminals.

    If stupid people take themselves out or take each other out that's their problem if you want to save them start an outreach program
     
  16. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You missed the point. I didn't say gun ownership should be restricted. I said people should know that owning a gun in the home increases, rather than decreases, their risk of death. Everybody seems to think they're immune to being suicidal or violent towards others, but in aggregate that's not true enough to offset the rarity of murderous home invasions, and most people who will somebody be suicidal or violent lack the insight to see it coming, if it can even be anticipated. Further it might not even be you that pulls the trigger. It could be your kid, a grandson that visits and finds it, or a wife that catches you sleeping with her friend... The data shows it's riskier to own than not own, but if somebody still wants to own that should be their right. Just like drug use.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2022
  17. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    52,678
    Likes Received:
    17,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    it doesn't though. I have to this day never voted Republican there were more guns in the country in 2017 then there was in the history of our country yet the murder rate had plummeted over 50% since 1990.

    If they caused death there's no way that could be possible.
    That sounds like a law enforcement issue.
     
  18. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    52,678
    Likes Received:
    17,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    your point wasn't how guns make you unsafe your point was how be in a relationship with a domestic abuser makes you unsafe. Or suffering from mental illness makes you unsafe or being stupid and drunk makes you unsafe.
    but it doesn't though. Again being in a relationship where there's domestic abuse makes you unsafe, being mentally ill to the point where you become suicidal makes you unsafe, and two roommates getting drunk and beating each other up is just another form of domestic violence.

    A gun doesn't increase or decrease anything attitudes and behavior does. That was what you pointed out because you had to go to those examples where there's attitudes and behaviors present.
    this is false. The aggregate is 300 million to 500 million guns, or 50 million gun owners. The number of total people being killed either by themselves or by others with firearms makes up 1/10 of 1%.

    So in the aggregate you are 99.9% safe.
    less than 1/10 of 1% of the time.
    again, no. Statistics most certainly does not say that. The number of suicide homicides and accidental shootings all combined makes up less than 1/10 of 1% of gun owners.

    If we're just going by statistics I'd face much more risk driving to work everyday.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2022
  19. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It does. That's what the data shows. These things are, of course, multifactorial though.

    lol... Context and multiple factors matter. I mean, back in medieval times a belligerent king can start a war and cause the deaths of thousands. Now, there are nuclear weapons and the same sort of behavior can result in the deaths of billions. Context matters. Tools available matter.

    The comparison is to being killed in a violent home invasion, which is even more rare. That is, after all, why you keep your gun for home protection. I fixed the sentence to communicate it more clearly in the post after you quoted it.

    Very true, but not relevant. The idea of the OP is to dispel the notion that owning a gun in the home makes people safer on average. I suppose if somebody is certain that they will never have violence, gun accidents or suicidal impulses in their household, the results may not apply to them, but I'd suggest most people would lack this kind of insight. I hope my son won't have suicidal impulses when he's 16, and I don't think he will, but many parents don't see it coming. At my high school, decades ago, a star athlete, amazing runner expected to go to the olympics one day shockingly shot himself. Nobody saw it coming. Some speculated it was because he was gay and his family was religious (he never dated anybody), but it was all well hidden from everybody including his parents. They sure didn't think having a gun around was going to make their son's suicide easier. Would he have died anyway? Hard to say. Maybe he would have failed to kill himself using a less reliable method and got the help he needed.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2022
  20. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    52,678
    Likes Received:
    17,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    flat out false. Again there are approximately 50 million gun owners in the US.

    How many gun related deaths a year are there between 25 and 40,000.

    That's a risk of less than 0.1%. The statistics are absolutely against you here.
    and very insignificant.


    they don't really matter if the motivations to use them for nefarious or self-harming purposes is extraordinarily insignificant when compared to the capability.


    it's strange that you pick such a specific point to harp on. It's almost like it's trying to mask a dishonesty.

    Stopping a home invasion does not have to result in someone dying.

    You can shoot an injure an invader, you can make an invader think twice about continuing The invasion with the shotgun jammed in his eye socket. You can deter the desire to invade homes by the ever-present thought that an angry gunning homeowner lives there.

    When you compare all of these things then you've got a bigger aggregate to work with rather than your very dishonest very specific scenario.
    no not really. That is one reason. Another reason is you hunt or your sports shooter or you're a collector or maybe you just think they look cool. Maybe they are mementos there's all sorts of reasons people keep guns in the house I have an antique guns I don't keep those because I think I'm going to defend myself with them.



    well this is again broad and dishonest.

    It does give you a method at which to defend yourself against the potential invader and are you safer if you're alive or if you're dead are you safer if you're injured or uninjured can you stop someone from injuring You by putting lead in their face?

    It really is very simple
    if you have children in your home you should probably store your guns responsibly. This again is attitudes and behaviors that make you less safe.

    They may not be able to get it done from you but there are hundreds of millions of them they can get one if they really want it.
    Someone with that intent could get a gun easily it doesn't matter if you have them in your home or not.

    And again this is attitudes and behaviors that make you less safe not firearms.
     
  21. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL... that is the entire point of the whole thread. It's a risk benefit for the hazards of having a gun in the house, vs the hazards of being unarmed if somebody comes to kill you in your home. That is what the thread is about - dispelling the notion that having a gun in your home makes you safer.

    Sure, that's why you compare deaths from a gun in the home, vs deaths from home invasion. Best case scenario - you prevent all deaths from home invasions with your gun. But if this number is still smaller than the deaths by suicide, accident, or homicide in the house using the gun, the gun did not make the people safer from death.

    It's not dishonest. It's a response to the assertion that owning a gun makes your home safer.

    No disagreement there. But the OP suggests that keeping it to prevent death is not a valid reason according to the data.

    The study very simply suggests this does not outweigh the risks of having it in the house.

    In which case it would be insufficiently available for defense.

    Often, violence and suicide are impulsive acts that may or may not recur again. There's also a spectrum between people who are doggedly determined and have a flash impulse. The higher the hill to climb to achieve death, the less likely it is to occur. If the tool available is highly lethal, the same intent will lead to more damage/death.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2022
  22. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    52,678
    Likes Received:
    17,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    it seems the threat is about dishonesty and inflating statistics.

    The risk of having a gun in your home is extraordinarily minimal. As I pointed out it's less than 1/10 of 1% and you haven't argued that statistic at all.

    I'm willing to bet the risk of owning a ladder is greater.


    Is it though your take on this seems quite presumptuous.

    Tell me the risk of home invasion if potential invader knew that there wasn't a gun in the home?

    well you are attacking a straw man which is dishonest.

    Having a gun at home does absolutely make you safer with regard to home invasion.

    It doesn't make you safer from your own behaviors and attitudes but that's not what it's for and nobody that says that it makes you safer ever means it makes you safer from your own attitudes and behaviors.

    So yes it is dishonest and you know it is.


    this is the problem with scienceism it omits data that is not conducive to the narrative this is why I don't participate in that particular ideology.

    Statistics can be negated by attitudes and behaviors.

    but the data can't really show that. It merely suggests that to rather myopic people.

    The risk is extraordinarily minimal. And depending on behaviors and attitudes it can be non-existent.

    The statistics don't dictate people's thoughts and that's the problem with just appealing to statistics.


    Why?


    Once again you are talking about attitudes and behaviors that make people unsafe and not firearms.

    Further statistics again do not dictate attitudes and behaviors with proper attitudes and behaviors you can reduce the risk to zero.
     
  23. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    27,529
    Likes Received:
    18,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The point is that the person behind the trigger is what matters. People can't figure out how to control criminals, so they take the path of least resistance and go after those of us who would never harm another.
     
  24. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think we have common ground in the sense that the gun is unlikely to be used in self-defense OR in hurting somebody. Having the gun for home defense may be based upon a myth (unless perhaps they have a specific threat against them), but that doesn't mean the threat of having one is large either on average. The fact that having a gun in your home doesn't make the average person safer says nothing about the right to own guns. Effective measures in reducing crime are going to be unrelated to this issue.
     
  25. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    52,678
    Likes Received:
    17,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Extraordinarily rare, a statistical zero.
    This I absolutely disagree with. No common ground here at all.
    There is no threat at all in having it.
    safety is an attitude but an object
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2022

Share This Page