Serious question about gun ownership?

phipsi32

The short answer, no. The variables are too complex to come up with a meaningful answer to the question.

This is a classic cause/effect paradox. For example, your state passes a new law to crack down on DUI. A year after the law is in effect, DUI arrests are down 10%. Did the new law reduce DUIs or are the police doing less enforcement? How do we know?

So, as a gun owner myself, I'm sorry to say that even if everyone was armed AND crime/murders went down it would be tough to prove why murders decreased.

In terms of gun accidents, we live in a society where guns are taboo. They have a mystique about them exaggerated by TV and movies. Kids are curious about guns but adults typically reinforce the taboo. If firearms were a larger part of our culture, then things might be different. People might seek out more training and learn to be more responsible with firearms.

As for statistics, no. As I mentioned, the complex variable involved make statistical analysis challenging. I wouldn't trust any statistical model that wasn't peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal.

Citicop

I'm pro gun, but even *I* don't think that EVERYONE should have a gun. There are plenty of people who aren't responsible enough to own a dull knife. I certainly don't want every blithering idiot at the DMV packing heat.

chilebreath

Go to the NRA web site and do a search on gun accident statistics; I think you would be surprised at how many people die from other causes. As for preventing gun accidents, why not support a national campaign to educate every man, woman and child about firearms safety? Hey, we do it for smoking and seat belts, right?

Old adage: an armed society is a polite society.

jaseboyhyde

"Accidental discharges are very rareâ€”particularly because modern firearms feature multiple safety features and because a handgunâ€™s trigger is typically not exposed when it is concealedâ€”and only a small fraction of accidental discharges result in injury."

Only about 2% of all firearm-related deaths in the U.S. are accidental, and most of those are hunting accidents and accidents involving firearms being openly handled in an unsafe manner. A person is five times more likely to accidentally drown, five times more likely to accidentally die in a fire, 29 times more likely to die in an accidental fall, and 32 times more likely to die from accidental poisoning than to die from an accidental gunshot wound.

The site source listed below answers some common questions posed by gun-control advocates. The site is run by a pro-2nd amendment group which advocates allowing CHL (concealed handgun license) holders to legally carry on campus if they happen to be college students as well.

While I don't have tons of statistics at hand, there are lots of statistics/arguments/debates available on this homesite.

Hope this helps.

(EDIT: States who have banned weapons, England for example, have failed to see a decrease in violent crimes, but have in effect nullified the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. States in the US who allow CHL's have seen a decrease in violent crimes, and a negligible change in accidental discharges. While I don't believe that everyone should be eligible to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise, I equally do not believe that we should all be denied the right to carry because of the actions of criminals (who will have weapons regardless of law), or the risk of accidents accompanying weapons ownership. It is important that those who own/carry weapons are properly educated on weapons safety and proper use.)

Labtec600

For one, you can look at the statistics of Washington DC ( a place where handguns are banned) and see the murder rate is higher than cities like Dallas that allow guns.

I also believe Dallas is bigger than DC.

demos_jones

There are always accidents, so trying to deny them is futile. But everyone is not going to be armed, even if there are no restrictions to being armed. Firearms are only the latest method, relatively speaking in human history, to being armed. Even before firearms, many people had the option to be armed with weapons but chose not to. Me, I own guns and hold a CHL, but still go around unarmed. Just isn't really any need, all the scare stories about crime in the streets be damned. And yes, I've walked through DC neighborhoods many times.

For toddlers, many parents somehow think the kid is going to be permanently damaged if you interfere with his wishes in any way. So, they put breakbles up out of reach, hoping that the kid won't notice them. And watch in horror as the kid tries climbing after the object of his attention. And staring dumbfounded, wondering helplessly what to do next. I never had that problem. It only took a few times for my kids to learn that I meant NO and there was no option for appeal.

So I wouldn't worry about having guns in the house. They were out of reach and the kids knew better than to try circumventing the restriction. So, I have to wonder, 1) just what was the kid doing in grandma's purse in the first place, ESPECIALLY since grandma knew there was a loaded gun in there, and 2) how was grandma SO oblivious that the kid had the gun out and was playing with it?

Grandma should be pistol whipped, repeatedly, daily. Not for having a gun, but for not doing what an adult should be doing, keeping an eye on the kid. Those are the type of numbskulls that you see trying to put make-up on in the rearview mirror instead of watching the road when driving or rooting around the backseat for something while hurtling 70 mph down a highway. Cellphones. Want to start on them? When cell phones are outlawed, only outlaws will have cell phones.

huckleberryjarod

Scott trying to get objective answers from gun nuts about this issue is a waste of your time. They can't see the forest for the trees, too emotionally connected.

John de Witt

There are no absolute, God's truth, numbers, but there are some that are pretty compelling. For one, accidents such as that one make the news but precisely because they're rare. The rate of accidental injury from firearms has been on a steady decline for decades. More hunters, for instance, are killed by falling out of trees.
The NRA likes to point to Gary Kleck's studies. He went into his research with an anti-gun bias but came out quite the opposite. His methodology has been questioned, but to date nothing better has come along.
State statistics can be used in a limited way. For instance, a couple of decades ago, in the midst of rising violent crime rates, Florida liberalized its concealed-carry law. The anti-gunners predicted mayhem, but citizens actually had a much lower accidental wounding rate than that of the police, and violent crime dropped quickly, and well ahead of a national trend. Since then many other states have used the Florida model with less dramatic but similar results.
The argument about school shootings is largely a matter of belief. For one, schools are much safer now than in the "good old days," despite the news-show misperception. Again, what you see in the news does not reflect statistics. For another, they've all been in "gun-free zones," so there's no comparison group. Is this because the crazies know others won't be armed? I for one find no point in trying to think like a crazy person.
I don't see much reason to worry over much about increased accidents. Almost all police carry firearms, and many retire without ever having shot anybody. The number of guns in the US is unknown, but may be as great as the number of people, and yet shooting accidents really are rare, with the shooting sports being among the safest of all the popular sporting activities.

Jagermann

Gun accidents are actually extremely rare. The media makes a big deal about the few incidents over and over again. There are only 600 accidental firearm deaths a year compared to over 43,000 fatal vehicle accidents. Only 20 of these firearm accidents involved children 4 years old or younger. It wouldn't matter if everyone in the country owned a gun. Smoking, obesity, drugs, alcohol and automobile wrecks will still lead in the cause of deaths.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

Studies show that firearms are 80 times more likely to save a life than to harm an innocent person. Check out these firearm facts. Very informative.

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Pyar

If you can legally own a gun and feel that you need or want one , then buy a gun .
The real problem is that we don't enforce the laws we have .. If we did , we would have a lot less firepower on the streets.
And criminals would be much less likely to own guns ...

americanfreeman

moot question The Constitution guarantees our rights to gum ownership.

I do not know the story of the grandma and the gun w/ the 4 yo. But anyone who let that happened should be shot themselves.

Unless I am carrying my gun in my control, my guns are locked up.

Tripling the jail time for gun crimes would help.

Jeff

I think gun control is more about holding people responsible for being in control of their gun, than it is about keeping them from having one. What idiot would ever leave the window of opportunity to allow a four year old to be anywhere near a loaded weapon. I think the norm for accidents are kids finding loaded weapons unsecured in the home. I never understood how someone would fork out six or seven hundred dollars for a gun, but couldn't be bothered to spend 50 or 60 bucks for a safe and security key.

Jimbo

It's very difficult to come by accurate statistics on this issue. Like often said, "there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics". It all depends on who is funding the research. You can get convincing numbers in both directions.

My personal opinion is #2. The US has a much higher rate of gun ownership, gun accidents, and murders than any other comparable country. By comparable I mean similar economic status and demographics.

Mike S

There would be more accidental deaths, but ideally most everyone would be through a firearms safety course, and the rise would not be too great.

The case you describe is caused by unsupervison, and the child not being familiar with firearms. The grandmother should have stopped the child from going into the purse. If the child never pulled the gun from the purse, and didn't even realize it was in there, the gun should not have had a round in the chamber as something as simple as rifling through the purse could cause it to go off. If she did pull it out then the grandmother should have stopped and reprimanded the child. And if the child's parents have guns, she should have been taught to leave them alone.

I am not blaming the child because at 4, she had no idea it was deadly. I do know that kids can be taught gun safety ( at the least, "don't touch it unless you're told you can by an adult") at that age because I have memories of being 5 and my grandfather teaching me with a scoped .22.

Ideally, in an armed society, children would be taught to respect (and not touch unless given permission) firearms. Many accidents with children happen because their parents feel the need to completely protect them from firearms, so they have no idea how deadly they are.

You hear about all of the accidents among teens and pre-teens happening today. Two generations ago, many people that age would go out and hunt with much less accidents happening (at least in porportion to those that handled them). The reason? Because they grew up with them and were probably taught to shoot and respect them at an early age.

So, I would imagine initially that there would be somewhat of a spike in accidents happening in the home, but they should still be well under the number of murders prevented. Take a look at Kennesaw, GA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

John M

It's not just mass murderers, it's muggings, robberies, burglaries, rapes, etc. The problem anyone will run into, statistically, is that the culture would change if everyone carried concealed weapons, so you couldn't estimate how people would behave. Looking back at heavier armed societies, say, the U.S. in 1880, there was far more death. So maybe a heavily armed society is more dangerous.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: