Ultimate Gun Defense

[Panther]

Panther,

A couple of questions for clarification:
Those three sub-totals fall 220 short of the total, is there another category?

No. No other category. Those numbers come directly for the U.S. National Center for Health Studies.

Where are justifiable firearms deaths (police, self-defense, etc) included in this, as "homicides"?

Homocides include everything from gang-bangers & drive-bys to LEO/private self-defense & other justifiable homicides.

Are there any stats on how many of these deaths were ruled as justified?

That information is not broken out in a separate category.

...the odds increase for those who have unsecured guns around kids.
It's a balancing act between accessibly and peace of mind.

Fundamentally, that is true... but only because those kids haven't been properly taught about firearms and are usually living in circumstances where the firearms are not legal. (I'm trying to stay as "PC" as possible here...)

In MY home, everyone knows about firearms. My daughters were taught how to take-down and reassemble different firearms when they were in their early teens... (they're grown and out of the house now...) my (now) 3-1/2 yo knows the entire Eddie Eagle program already... and firearms aren't any big deal because they aren't made to be some prohibited thing. The same lesson my Daddy taught me (IE: see that over there... this is what a gun can do... BLAM! There's no putting it back together... it's gone. A gun can do the same thing to YOU), works quite well. In fact, it works for a number of things that need to be learned to be respected... including (but not limited to) a lawn-mower, a chain-saw, power-tools, electricity, etc, etc, etc... All of those things (from electricity to firearms to sharp items) are TOOLS and can be used for good or bad. Care must be taken to prevent "accidents" and "misuse". Kids actually learn really well if given the chance (and not given the hype and drugged up like they do these days)... just MNSHO.

...how many homicides were part of a home invasion? That's the real number you need to look at when weighing whether you want a gun to defend yourself in case of home invasion.

Generally speaking, when it comes to homicide, there are a few very high risk groups with very high murder rates, and everyone else has a very low risk. Those 13,000ish homicides aren't evenly distributed across the country.

Yeah... sure... Your other questions have been answered above... On this one, I know where you're heading. Kellerman has been thoroughly and exhaustively debunked. He's a fraud, as is the "study" that the anti-gunners still insist on quoting, so I won't bother going over it all again (for probably a dozen times in these forums). However, I will agree with your statement that those homocides aren't evenly distributed. BUT, let me point out that the premise that is being pushed isn't entirely accurate as was shown by Glasheen-Sensei's post and by other's personal experiences (who are members of these forums, including yours truly).

If you're going to routinely carry it, then that's another question, and another set of statistics.

The only time we don't carry (including one of my now grown and moved away kids) is when we're in the shower, in the hot tub or in bed... Don't worry, it's still close even in those instances. And we have never woken up disoriented enough to simply start shooting. Then again, I have been very careful to setup our residence(s) in a manner that there is plenty of warning if someone wishes to encroach... (One example is my "love" for lab-chow dogs... very protective... and territorial too!)

Finally, to Bert... again, sorry for your lose. It isn't laziness that causes things to be left around in our house, it's intent. In the PRoMA, there are storage laws that require preventing access to those who are underaged or non-licensed. That isn't true in other places we go. Our kids are used to seeing ammo, "eyes & ears", targets, supplies and firearms around. It's no big deal to them. In fact, they all know how to clean firearms and it's always been a "family event". Even with a BB gun, my 3-1/2 yo can outshoot my wife's brother... the "trained, expert marksman" cop. (FYI & BTW: My wife and daughters are better shots than the 3-1/2 yo...)

If something is prohibited, it becomes "desired" among other things. I learned this the hard way with one of my other daughters... I strictly prohibited any use of cell-phone or texting while driving... (I don't even have "text" capability on my old phone, but I do make calls on the road sometimes... not a very good example... ) Anyway, she decided that it couldn't be "that" bad. Didn't get into an accident, but wasn't driving very well and it just so happened that I was running an errand when she blew past me on the highway while texting and didn't even realize it. I called her...

"Hi"
"What're you doing?"
"Nothin'" (That's a big clue right there in case non-parents don't realize it...)
"How fast are you going?"
"Dad, I only answered because I saw it was you and thought it might be important!"
"It IS important... How fast are you going and who are you texting with?"
"ummmmm..."
"Look {name of daughter}, you just blew by me and I'm doing 5 over with traffic right now... Slow down and stop texting that boy until you get out of the car!"
"How did you know?!?"
"It's a 'Daddy' thing... You can CALL in the car, but NO MORE TEXTING. Agree? Or I can have your phone restricted to emergency use... your choice."
"Sorry Daddy..." (It always works when the girls go from "Dad" to "Daddy" and they know it...)

She was in her 20s by the time the law was passed that said no teen operator cell-phone use, but she had a friend who was seriously injured while texting and driving. I could be completely wrong, but from the bills and for other reasons, I don't think she "texted" while driving after that...

Van-Sensei, I knew the same old anti-gun debate would get started if I joined in... that's why I avoided it for as long as I could. Then again, you probably knew that already...

[Glenn]

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.112

How much confidence do you have in this estimate Van? That would be 1.0% of the U.S. population aged 15 and above (the ages most likely to use a gun). More importantly, using 2007 numbers there were around 11,000,000 crimes commited in the U.S. so that would put gun defense at almost 23% of crimes. Those seem high. I have to wonder if this estimate includes LEO use, which will be a lot higher than public use (not to mention LEO use is not really an issue in the gun rights/control debates). Surely it does not also include military personnel in combat oversees. I would be interested in hearing from the current/former LEOs on here, from your experience what percentage of crimes resulted in non-LEO gun defense of some nature?

another benefit that doesn't make it into the statistics - the value of deterrence.

There tends to be two problems with the stats on this subject:
1. most tend to be produced by people with biases one way or another, and
2. while Panther's stats from the CDC are good they lack a lot of useful detail, such as the questions Bill, Justin, Mike, and I raise. What is needed is some major unbiased research to try to fill in those gaps. Unfortunately anyone unbiased who has the credentials seems unwilling to take on this hot potoato.

I knew the same old anti-gun debate would get started if I joined in

Except there has been no anti-gun debate since you have joined in on this thread Panther (unless you are considering when you introduced the Kellerman reference just so that you could disclaim it, but such strawman debating with yourself hardly counts). There has only been agreement, asking questions, and pointing out that neither side has all the answers. So relax!

[Van Canna]

http://tinyurl.com/67gsaqv

Not a problem Panther...now and then we need to discuss these things...as you can see the 'sound of guns' always brings Justin out of the woods.

[Glenn]

Except what Justin points out is actually one of the critiques of Kellerman's study, that he focused on high-risk groups in a high-risk area. What Justin stated is in line with the pro-gun side in this case. Kellerman's study was too limited and is only accurate for the population he studied (although it is in line with his general focus on emergency medicine in large cities), but that is a common occurance in early research on many topics. What is needed is more extensive research to give a broader picture.

[Valkenar]

On this one, I know where you're heading.

I'm not sure you do. I'm not saying "don't get a gun, there's no point" or "guns are more dangerous than helpful" All I'm saying is that if you're going to bring stats into it you have to be careful what stats you use. Most of us aren't gang-bangers or drug dealers, and those stats seriously skew the metrics.

BUT, let me point out that the premise that is being pushed isn't entirely accurate as was shown by Glasheen-Sensei's post and by other's personal experiences (who are members of these forums, including yours truly).

Well that's the thing. Salient personal experiences affect people's judgment a great deal, but that doesn't change the reality. People always think that if something happens to them then it must be more likely than they thought. Unfortunately that's not true. Unlikely things happen all the time. The chance of something happening doesn't increase with how memorable an event it is, but the way the human mind works, people think that if something VERY bad happens, especially if it happens to someone they know, then that means it's a common event. And that' sjust not true.

Honestly, when bad things happen to people you know, it's better to try and think of those things as being less common, since your instinct will be to think of them as more common, even though there's no connection.

[Panther]

I shouldn't do this, I shouldn't do this, I shouldn't do this... I have work to do, but I'm on my lunch-time (sigh), so...

What is needed is some major unbiased research to try to fill in those gaps. Unfortunately anyone unbiased who has the credentials seems unwilling to take on this hot potoato.

Au contraire, mon ami... Even tho he is now considered a "biased" researcher, when John Lott started out, he was anything BUT... In fact, he was tired of the rebuttals to Kellerman and decided to stop the debate in it's tracks by conducting THE most comprehensive scientific study on gun violence/crime/etc ever. What resulted was an epiphany to say the least. He was ostracized by the University of Chicago where he taught and did research because his results didn't match their anti-gun politics/agenda! He was forced to shut up and quit granting interviews or be summarily fired because he had the nerve to write the book "More Guns, Less Crime". The University of Chicago had major anti-gun contributors that wanted him shut up! The anti-gun groups were in a panic (and still are) using every means necessary (upto and including outright lies and trying to discredit John personally as well as professionally and questioning his methods which have been proven correct time and again) to provide a "rebuttal" of this work. It was (probably still is) published by University of Chicago Press, but they weren't expecting it to get the attention that it did. John Lott went through detailed information for every county in the entire U.S. and went so far as to search out MORE details from newspapers (on microfiche mainly... and naturally he had some research assistants) to dig deeper. When John left the University of Chicago, the vengeful anti-gun groups tried to stop him from getting other employment, discredit him and question his methods and integrity. I don't just "think" that's the history, I know it. I was fortunate to spend time with John when he was in MA years ago and we discussed this at length. (full disclosure: I treasure my signed copy of his book...) He never thought that he would be "one of us", but doing truly unbiased research without an agenda made him "see the truth"... a truth which contradicted his personal original belief. He gets kudos for that... Ummm... I bet you wonder why I brought all of that up... Most of the stats that Van-Sensei posted, which you question, are fully documented in John's books and research. Although, he says in his book that the defensive uses can't be completely and accurately documented because so many gun owners refuse to disclose the information... He says that at a minimum of 1.6 million times per year and extrapolates out to show that it is more than likely closer to 2.5 million times. In that regard, your numbers are flawed. The states of crime rates are ONLY crimes which have been commited AND reported. Many (probably most) definsive gun uses are not reported. Case in point, if you even show a gun in Massachusetts, you can be charged with "brandishing". There have been cases where a "bad guy" went to rob someone, the person presented their firearm in response and... the politically-motivated DA charged the lawful gun-owner based on the testimony of the would-be mugger! NOT an isolated incident! I've never reported stopping someone from harming me or my loved ones by merely showing a firearm. Ain't gonna happen, but my family is safe and everyone went home unharmed (much to the chagrin of the would-be perps)...

As far as mentioning the Kellerman study... That's the only "study" that has ever said that someone is more likely to be killed in their home by their own gun than by an intruder's gun. It's been debunked and disproven and is still one of the "darling" stats of the anti-gun crowd all these years later (along with the "15 kids per day" lie which the stats I posted earlier disprove). Forgive me if I read too much into certain statements, but when I read:

"... how many homicides were part of a home invasion? That's the real number you need to look at when weighing whether you want a gun to defend yourself in case of home invasion."

I immediately think of the only "study" that's ever put forth a statistic for weighing one's "need" for a home defense firearm.

The anti-gun debate hasn't started in earnest... yet. But the sentiments, no matter how veiled, are certainly there/here. I disagree that I created a strawman... Pre-emptively stopping the re-hashing of a flawed "study" isn't a strawman. Simply because the Kellerman study wasn't referenced directly prior does not mean I intentionally created a strawman. If no reference to Kellerman was meant then no harm was done... if the prior statement was made because of the Kellerman "study", then we can drop it and move on... No disrespect meant to Justin...

Also...

There has only been agreement, asking questions, and pointing out that neither side has all the answers. So relax!

You want the answer? Somehow I don't think you'll like it or agree with it, but...

Here's the answer... crap happens, tragedies happen... you do your best to prevent them in your own life and the lives of those you love... NO ONE has the right to be a nanny over anyone else (even claiming that you "love" everyone has been used as a reason on this... I just threw up in my mouth a little bit)... If someone doesn't take precautions and take care, then we can offer condolences and hopefully all learn lessons... That doesn't mean that we can stop Darwinism or "Acts of God" or just schit from happening. Schit happens... it might be from a "bad guy" or a Tsunami... Bad schit happens to good people, that's just the way it is. Some people turn to their faith/God, others get "involved"... but getting involved usually means making someone else take the care and precautions that the "involved" person desires to make themselves feel good. If I chose to spend my money on ammo, silver & MREs, for my preparations, it's really no one's business but mine. (As long as I have no intentions of initiating violence on someone else or violating their inalienable rights.) If I chose to teach my young child how to drive the car up and down the driveway, then it's no one's business. If I force that kid to drive into a tree recklessly at a high rate of speed, then that's abuse and I should be beaten to within an inch of my life for it! (Get in line behind my wife... ) But if I happen to get hurt or sick someday and that kid knows how to get me to the hospital in time so that I live... then maybe teaching a kid how to drive wasn't such a bad idea after all... MY decision. (And I was taught how to drive the same way when I was a kid...)

I've found that there are basically two types of people in the gun debate... hell, in the WORLD... and i feel that one side DOES have the answers.

These are the types:

There are the types that believe that people should be controlled... for whatever reason, they think that other people can't make the "right" decision, so the "right" decision must be forced on them (ironically, it seems at the force of a gun weilded by a government agent "authorized" by those who think they are "doing what's right".) Often these arguments end up following the "for the chiiiiiildren" vein.)

Then there is the other side (which I'm a part of) that just wants to be left the hell alone, but we have no choice but to stand up because the busy-bodied do-gooders refuse to leave us alone! So... our only option is to speak up, speak out and stand up for ourselves and our families.

Well, it doesn't take a village to raise my children it takes two loving parents! And I don't need someone else to "think" for me and impose their own rules, regulations and beliefs on me either.

I freely admit that this is, has been, and always will be an emotional topic for me... my life experiences indicate that it will always be that way. Not because it has to be that way, but because I chose to know the truth and won't let it be rewritten.

That's the answer... plain and simple. Leave people alone to make their own decisions. By all means give your advice, your opinion... your consolation if something bad happens... help people learn from the past and discuss the options, but let them make their own decisons and lead their own lives.

And before anyone goes off on any tangents, I do not believe in BS laws "for the chiiiildren", BUT if someone is neglecting, abusing, assaulting, hurting, or otherwise doing something nefarious to an innocent person especially a child... They should be tortured for eternity... bring them back from the dead and torture them some more... And I don't need to authorize someone to do it for me, given the opportunity, the line forms behind me! See... Contrary to popular belief, I do care about children. I just don't use it as a BS excuse...

And that, in a rather large nut-shell, is why I didn't join this thread until directly mentioned. I've said it all along... I feel bad about Bert's loss. I know what it's like to lose someone you love tragically... Nothing can be said by anyone to offer true comfort. The best thing that was ever said to me by anyone was, "I know..." Nothing else, just that. It's tough and I knew this would turn into the whole "gun debate". I didn't think this thread should be about the whole "gun debate", I thought (and still do) that this should be about Kentuck's loss... And there's nothing that anyone can really say to make it any better. I lost someone in the 70s and again in the 90s and even tho people have said many things and even said that it "gets better with time", here's what I've learned. That's BS... It doesn't get better with time, you just learn to live with it. I deal with that loss every G D day, but I've learned to live with it and not let it run my life. That's the truth. I'm really truly sorry Bert, but... I know...

Relax... sure, I'm relaxed... it's the best way to control one's breathing to make certain you don't jerk your gun when you pull the trigger...

I probably should apologize for the rant, but I'm really not "feeling" it... so in the immoral words of Cartman... "I'm taking my ball and going home." (which I should have done to begin with... and now I have to go freshen up before someone comes into my office and asks what's wrong...)

[MikeK]

Forgive me for being obtuse, but what does that have to do with a discussion over securing weapons when not carrying them versus keeping them accessible? How does choosing one over the other turn the person to the anti-gun side? Is one side letting themselves be emotionally hijacked?

[Glenn]

Thanks for the info on Lott, I'll have to check that out. My percentages were quick calculations based on figures given. Of course crime stats are underestimates based only on what is reported, but those are known incidents. If, as you say, the figure of 2.5 million gun defenses is an extrapolation that attempts to include unknown incidents in addition to known, then that changes things. To make the percentages more realistic we would either need to try to extrapolate the crime data in the same way or only use known incidents of gun defenses. None of these are going to be overly reliable though.

He never thought that he would be "one of us", but doing truly unbiased research without an agenda made him "see the truth"... a truth which contradicted his personal original belief. He gets kudos for that

The same could be said for Kellermann, an avid shooter and more pro-gun than anti-gun. What led to his studies was:

Kellermann states that as an emergency room doctor, he noted that the number of gunowners injured by their own gun or that of a family member seemed to greatly outnumber the number of intruders shot by the gun of a homeowner, and therefore he determined to study whether or not this was in fact true.

And the 2006 stats you provided support that it is true, given that most of the suicides and accidental deaths (and some of the homicides) would have used victims or family members' guns. So in that limited context Kellermann seems to be correct.

As usual in heated debates, the problem is that anti-gun activists who did not understand the limited scope of the research latched onto it as meaning more than it did. Kellermann was then caught in the pro-gun backlash, with claims that his research was fraudulent and a Republican-led House trying to axe the CDC division that funded his research (the same division you got your stats from). Basically Kellermann, and it sounds like Lott, fell prey to social forces engaged in larger agendas.

You want the answer? Somehow I don't think you'll like it or agree with it

None of what followed addressed my questions but clearly shows that this is an emotional issue for you, and I am sorry you feel the need to rant and leave. Answers are answers, I neither like nor dislike them. For the record I am a gun owner, use to be an avid shooter (back when I lived in a rural area and had both the time and setting to do a lot of shooting...I would still be avidly doing it if I had the time, setting, and money), and voted for the concealed carry law enacted in my current state a few years ago, so don't mis-interpret my leanings or intentions. However that does not mean I automatically buy into all the pro-gun agenda. Nor I buy into the anti-gun agenda. I prefer to remain as unbiased as possible.

I've found that there are basically two types of people in the gun debate... hell, in the WORLD... and i feel that one side DOES have the answers

The extremes are the most vocal and thus the ones you hear, in reality the world is never that black and white. And obviously there are others just as passionate that the other side has the answers.

[Van Canna]

150Fact: Forty states, comprising the majority of the American population, are "right-to-carry" states.

Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-to-carry law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states deny or restrict the right to carry.

Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.151

Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).152

Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.

155Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws:

Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.156
% Higher in
Type of Crime Restrictive States

Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995
Robbery
105%
Murder
86%
Assault
82%

157, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.

Violent Crime
81%
Auto theft
60%
Rape
25%
158
153
150At

[Van Canna]

Myth: Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal

Fact: Of the 43 deaths reported in this flawed study, 37 (86%) were suicides. Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members (drug deals gone bad).199

Fact: Of the remaining deaths, the deceased family members include felons, drug dealers, violent spouses committing assault, and other criminals.200

Fact: Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator.201 This means you are much more likely to prevent a crime without bloodshed than hurt a family member.

[Valkenar]

More Guns, Less Crime

Argh. Guys. Years and years ago you recommended this to me, I read it, and was basically convinced that guns are helpful in reducing crime. I am not making some anti-gun case.

I would apply the exact same logic to knives, or even car alarms... Where does the owner live? Where is the car being parked? If the owner is of buying a $5,000 car alarm, but is living on a farm in rural Wyoming and only driving to the country store, I might question whether the risk of having the car messed with is really worth the expense and hassle.

If you like owning guns because you like owning guns, great! Buy guns, train with them, figure out different strategies for keeping them available yet secure. Have a ball. Sounds like an entertaining hobby for those so inclined. However, that doesn't mean that the stats support it from a pure risk/reward perspective on an individual basis.

Let me repeat: I'm not saying "don't get a gun." What I'm saying is "don't feel you have to get a gun because you/your family are going to get murdered otherwise."

[Van Canna]

Myth:

Accidental gun fatalities are a serious problem
202Fact: Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S.

For example, compared to accidental death from firearms, you are:

• Four times more likely to burn to death or drown,
• 17 times more likely to be poisoned,
• 19 times more likely to fall, and
• 53 times more likely to die in an automobile accident.

[Van Canna]

Fact: In 2001, there were only 65 accidental gun deaths for children under age 13. About 11 times as many children die from drowning.203

Fact: In 1993, there were 1,334 drownings and 528 firearm-related accidental deaths from ages 0-19. Firearms outnumber pools by a factor of over 30:1.

Thus, the risk of drowning in a pool is nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm-related accident for everyone, and nearly 500 times for ages 0-5.204

[Van Canna]

Fact: Medical mistakes kill 400,000 people per year – the equivalent of almost three fully loaded Boeing 747 jet crashes per day – or about 286 times the rate of all accidental firearm deaths.205

This translates into 1 in 6 doctors causing an accidental death, and 1 in 56,666 gun owners doing the same.
Fact: Only 3% of gun deaths are from accidents, and some insurance investigations indicate that many of these may not be accidents after all.206


U.S. Accidental Fiream Deaths
Fact: Around 2,000 patients each year – six per day – are accidentally killed or injured in hospitals by registered nurses.207

[Van Canna]

Myth: Handguns are unsafe and cause accidents

Fact: Most fatal firearm accidents involve long guns, which are more deadly. These are typically hunting accidents.208

Fact: Handguns have triggers that are difficult for small (child) hands to operate, and are rarely the cause of accidents.209

Myth: Innocent bystanders are often killed by guns

210Fact: Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders.

Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection

Fact: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.

The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 _ in 26,000. And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year.

Fact: Most firearm accidents are caused by people with various forms of poor self-control. These include alcoholics, people with previous criminal records, people with multiple driving accidents, and those who demonstrate other risky behaviors.212