Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense

[Thor]

An excellent article.

This morning, a press release dropped that seemed designed to create controversy, given its title: "Guns in the home provide greater health risk than benefit." The fact that it came from a relatively obscure journal—the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine is not indexed by the PubMed system, and has no impact factor—suggests it might be an attempt at getting some publicity. Studies on this topic are also extremely challenging, as it's difficult to control for cultural and economic differences between nations and US states.

The author of the review, David Hemenway, however, specializes in this area, and works at the Harvard School of Public Health. Hemenway has been termed an "anti-gun researcher" by the NRA, and writes with a clear perspective. Nevertheless, within the limited scope of the review, his conclusions make sense: people do stupid things when angry or depressed, and the presence of a gun helps make that stupidity fatal. In contrast, successful use of a gun in self-defense is far more rare, and challenging to get right, so the public health perspective will always be skewed.
Hemenway takes a very narrow focus on public health issues related to the presence of guns in the home. "The article does not examine some of the possible benefits (e.g., the fun of target practice) or costs (e.g., loss of hearing) of gun use." It also generally avoids dealing with the consequences of what happens once the gun leaves the home. Instead, it focuses on death, injury and intimidation, and balances that against the protective value provided by guns.

When it comes to violence, nearly every figure suggests that increased presence of guns correlates with higher levels of injury and death. Homicide rates among the US population between 15 and 24 years of age are 14 times higher than those in most other industrialized nations. Children from 5 to 14 years old are 11 times more likely to be killed in an accidental shooting. Within the US, areas with high gun ownership have higher rates of these problems. And, for every accidental death, Hemenway cites research that indicates 10 more incidents are sufficient to send someone to the emergency room. Suicides are more likely to be successful when guns are involved, even though most people who survive such an attempt don't generally try a second time.

Rest of article here:


http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...ambiguity.ars?

[Cowperson]

"I don't want to die for a lack of shooting back." - a character in the movie Unforgiven while loading four guns.

Cowperson

[Mr.Coffee]

this should be a good one.

[Calgaryborn]

Just more junk research that suggests that the government needs to save us from ourselves. At least the States has a constitution that protects its right to bare arms.

[TurnedTheCorner]

It's my god given right to accidentally shoot my mothers face off while defending myself from the King of England's militia. Read the old testament.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

It's my god given right to accidentally shoot my mothers face off while defending myself from the King of England's militia. Read the old testament.

My "God" has a capital "G" and I don't think anybody wants to turn this into a religious study. But if you want to I'm game.

[tussery]

How do they know this? Not all crimes prevented from just brandishing a firearm go reported, but almost all accidental discharges, murders and suicides with a firearm do get reported. I dont think they can go out saying that this is 100% the truth.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

My "God" has a capital "G" and I don't think anybody wants to turn this into a religious study. But if you want to I'm game.

It's "bear" arms. And thanks, but I'm done.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Meh ....typical Harvard educated gun grabber....

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

^This is a staggering collection of gun use statistics..






According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year


Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.) In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Just more junk research that suggests that the government needs to save us from ourselves. At least the States has a constitution that protects its right to bare arms.

From the article...

Overall, the author concludes the same thing applies to homicides and suicides: people regularly get involved in violence, and the presence of a gun is likely to elevate that to fatal levels.

So you think this conclusion is wrong?

Anyway, I thought this was pretty clever thing to do in that article...

If you have read this far, please mention Bananas in your comment below. We're pretty sure 90% of the respondants to this story won't even read it first.

I read the first few responses. Nobody mentioned bananas.

[Azure]

Obviously, if someone is violent, the presence of a gun will likely result in gun violence.

I think the key here is why are people getting violent in the first place? If a gun isn't there, what else can happen? Beat their kids, beat their wives, etc, etc?

The article to me just suggests the obvious.

What else is obvious is that gun law, gun restrictions or gun registries still don't solve the underlying problem behind 'guns.' Which is that the majority of gun crime is committed using weapons that are impossible to regulate, restrict or prohibit. The article comes from the US, so going from an American perspective, you have a largely unmanned border between the US and Mexico where thousands of firearms are transported across on a daily basis.

After that you have a increasing amount of people who would be considered 'low income' earners, and many of them are being forced to turn to crime to try and make ends meet. Which means an increasing number of people who are likely to use a gun to commit violence or a criminal act.

I could go on and on about numerous issues that this that are a lot more serious, and create a LOT more gun crime than having a gun in a home.

Fact STILL is, and always WILL be, responsible gun owners are not the problem. Responsible gun owners are smart about the storage of weapons, the storage of ammo, have the presence of mind to teach their children how to safely use a firearm, and educate themselves on the basics, or perhaps even advanced techniques involving firearms.

If all of that is lacking, accidents, or perhaps even gun violence is likely to happen.

Still doesn't change the fact that no amount of legislation will stop criminals from obtaining firearms and using them in a violent act.

The 'war on guns' is very similar to the 'war on drugs.' Pointless, because the underlying problem still exists and isn't even attempted to be solved.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

From the article...



So you think this conclusion is wrong?

Anyway, I thought this was pretty clever thing to do in that article...



I read the first few responses. Nobody mentioned bananas.

The researcher is a anti-gun researcher according to the NRA.

He hand picked three urban counties for the purpose of his research.

He doesn't have any means of knowing how many violent encounters were prevented simply because they knew the person was a gun owner.

He doesn't even know how many people have firearms. Many folks would lie because it is nobodies business but, their own.

He can't know how many people own weapons and never have a problem.

[Thor]

Don't ruin bananas just yet.

[Azure]

Plus, it is very hard to find statistics as to how many gun owners have used their guns in legal self defence.

The whole issue is usually skewed stats wise.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

My "God" has a capital "G" and I don't think anybody wants to turn this into a religious Rant. But if you want to I'm game.

For the sake of accuracy I thought this needed to be changed.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

in order to protect the members of CP against foreign bodies - i'll be throwing myself on sofia varga from modern family...........

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The researcher is a anti-gun researcher according to the NRA.

He hand picked three urban counties for the purpose of his research.

He doesn't have any means of knowing how many violent encounters were prevented simply because they knew the person was a gun owner.

He doesn't even know how many people have firearms. Many folks would lie because it is nobodies business but, their own.

He can't know how many people own weapons and never have a problem.

Yeah yeah yeah, but you didn't answer the question...

Overall, the author concludes the same thing applies to homicides and suicides: people regularly get involved in violence, and the presence of a gun is likely to elevate that to fatal levels.

Is this conclusion wrong?

[afc wimbledon]

If guns are a good tool for self defence then obviously a country with the largest amount of guns in private hands will also be the safest with the lowest rate of murder or violent crime, no?

[MacGruber]

Oh good a gun debate!

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

If guns are a good tool for self defence then obviously a country with the largest amount of guns in private hands will also be the safest with the lowest rate of murder or violent crime, no?

That ignores a tonne of cultural elements. Some cultures are just more violent and aggressive than others.