Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 358480 times)

bryan995

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 104
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1350 on: June 23, 2016, 10:12:32 PM »
Some of you are so absolutely misinformed that I am embarrassed for you. You act as if you know everything about something you know nothing about.

And for all of you waving the "Assault Rifle 15" ban stick...
http://www.assaultweapon.info

As for firearms in the home - yes! When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2016, 10:14:55 PM by bryan995 »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1351 on: June 24, 2016, 01:15:28 AM »
General comment (yes I know I am coming from the Canadian viewpoint, which is understandable since I am Canadian) - despite all the rhetoric about long guns, I think the big difference between overall American and Canadian gun mortality rates is the presence/absence (well rarity of legal) of handguns.  Sure long guns are more useful if you are about to commit a massacre (or want to shoot someone from a distance) - but the total mortality difference is most likely due to handguns. 

You are completely, absolutely, correct. Rifles accounted for 400-ish murders according the FBI. That leaves over 12,000 murders committed by other weapons, handguns being far and away the majority.


And although I can see a military use for handguns, it is minor - are they truly covered by the amendment?

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, firearms are a 'right' of the individual, for the purpose of self-defense, if a person so chooses. Handguns are a premier form of self defense firearm, so it would seem they are covered.


A slight adjustment to that ruling.  SCOTUS ruled that a state can regulate or ban a firearm if it does not serve a use in a "militia".  That is why sawed off shotguns tend to be banned or severely restricted.  They serve not useful purpose in combat.

This.  Handguns are still carried by officers & NCO's in non-combat roles, which is why they are protected by the 2nd.  The part about their usefulness in a military context is the determining factor for protection from state level restrictions.  However, the ban on short barreled shotguns & rifles could now be challenged.  First off, it is widely recognized that the SCOTUS ruling that upheld the National Firearms Act limitations on short barreled shotguns was poorly argued, and likely would have gone the other way otherwise.  Also, these days both these types of firearms do have a military purpose.  The short barreled rifle is widely used today, because of bull-pup designs that allow the bullet to reach effective velocities in a shorter overall weapon, while proving more practical in close order combat situations, such as "house to house", allowing the user to swing the business end around faster as they turn a corner or enter a room.  The short barreled shotgun has use as a "breaching weapon", basically a special shotgun shell is used to blow the lock off of a door suddenly just before soldiers storm the building.  Swat teams use this on a regular basis for "no knock" raids domestically as well.  However, a "pen gun" has no military use that I know of, and those are restricted at the state level in almost every state, I believe.  Also, a weapon that is often called a "bang stick" (not the slang term for a long gun), it's a pole with a plunger trigger on the other end from the handle.  It is used by divers to defend themselves from large, dangerous creatures, such as sharks.  They are not restricted in coastal states, because of their obvious usefulness, but they still require a class 2 tax stamp.  They can still kill up close, obviously, so they might be banned in places such as NYC, I'm not sure.
We used shorter barrelled .12 ga riot shotguns (as well as pistols and M16s and larger firearms) when I was in the USCG as part of our everyday armament. Just about the most useful and practical firearm we had for most situations in smaller confined spaces. They are also the most damage-inflicting lethal thing out there IMHO.

ETA I have an 18 inched barrel shotgun (shortest legal barrel length in the US I believe) that holds 9 rounds (8 plus one chambered). All perfectly legal. Put pistol grips on it and now I "believe" it is illegal in Calif (not sure) and maybe in the US even though changing out the grips didn't change the function if the shotgun.


Yes, Spartana, it's quite possible you manufactured an illegal weapon by removing the stock and adding a pistol grip. Probably depends upon the OAL of the weapon.

These little cuties, however, are perfectly legal, without tax stamp or NFA paperwork, because they were originally manufactured this way. Silly, silly, contradictory gun laws...

« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 01:48:02 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1352 on: June 24, 2016, 01:33:41 AM »
For as long as I've been a libertarian, I have known that I was among a very small minority of people ideologically.  I've often found this disheartening, because I have long been aware that popular media, such as music, was a reflection of the public as well as an influence of popular opinion.  Today I learned of evidence that the worm has turned.  Perhaps I will yet see liberty in my own lifetime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq8_2bjJqbo

Bonus points for those who can identify the meanings of the hoodies they are wearing.

Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1353 on: June 24, 2016, 04:34:14 AM »
I would think that that very short shotgun would kick like a mule.

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1354 on: June 24, 2016, 08:22:28 AM »
I thought this new blog post today was really relevant to this thread, and since it's too difficult to quote portions, I will just leave this here....

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa
Here's a quote that I think gets at the heart of that post:
Quote
If Republicans think they need guns to protect against Democrats, that’s their reality. And if Democrats believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1355 on: June 24, 2016, 10:09:10 AM »
I would think that that very short shotgun would kick like a mule.

You buy a reduced load. They make some excellent rounds specifically for home defense that have far less of a chance of going through walls. I imagine they might use a blank for the breach on the one gun. Not sure about that though.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1356 on: June 24, 2016, 10:24:52 AM »
I'll stick with my standard 12 pump.  I've already paid for it.  High brass bird shot.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1357 on: June 24, 2016, 01:41:53 PM »
I would think that that very short shotgun would kick like a mule.

I would imagine. Just pointing out how absurd some U.S. gun laws can be.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1358 on: June 25, 2016, 01:31:21 PM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.


Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1359 on: June 25, 2016, 01:43:27 PM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1360 on: June 28, 2016, 11:12:26 AM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8195
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1361 on: June 28, 2016, 12:04:31 PM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1362 on: June 28, 2016, 01:14:25 PM »
There are no accidental shootings.  Guns don't fire themselves.  Whenever you hear "accidental discharge" that means the fool mishandling the firearm pulled the trigger or in some other way caused the event by handling the firearm in an unsafe manner.

Firearms never "accidentally go off" as is so often reported.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1363 on: June 28, 2016, 05:07:16 PM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

The accepted range of self-defense uses of firearms is in the 300K to 750K per year range.  Of course, people like you continue to deny this is true, but you always lose this argument on logical, rational & scientific grounds.  Always.  So even taking the minimum of the range, gun ownership in the United States is a net benefit, every single year.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1364 on: June 28, 2016, 05:11:57 PM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Guitarstv, what would you consider evidence, one way or the other, to 'prove' either argument?

hdatontodo

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 230
  • Location: Balto Co, MD
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1365 on: June 28, 2016, 05:51:20 PM »
There are no accidental shootings.  Guns don't fire themselves.  Whenever you hear "accidental discharge" that means the fool mishandling the firearm pulled the trigger or in some other way caused the event by handling the firearm in an unsafe manner.

Firearms never "accidentally go off" as is so often reported.
Right.

ND - negligent discharge

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1366 on: June 29, 2016, 12:10:05 AM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Could be worse - someone could let their child ride a bicycle. More bicycle deaths than accidental shooting deaths, per annum in the USA, according to the CDC. Or one could have a pool in their backyard. Or worse yet, put their child in a motor vehicle.  Statistically it'd be safer to sell your car and buy a gun, than the other way around...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1367 on: June 29, 2016, 06:18:06 AM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Seriously, this again? You are asking me to PROVE that a gun in my hand is an effective way to protect myself and my wife from a violent intruder? It is self-evident. I don't need to PROVE that. People all over the world have been using firearms to protect themselves and others from those who would do them harm for hundreds of years. I don't have to prove it to you.

Please prove that bicycles are an effective means of transportation. Please prove that a roof is an effective way to keep rain off your head. Please prove that chairs are good for sitting in.

Pure nonsense.

ETA: To be fair, just HAVING a gun isn't an effective means of self defense. But having a useful firearm (read semi-automatic with a large magazine capacity), keeping it loaded and close at hand yet secured, and being exceptionally skilled in it's use IS an effective means of defending oneself and ones family.

I have explained before in this thread, statistics showing that a firearm in the home is X times more likely to harm someone in the family than be used for defense are meaningless. A gun in "Household A" will be very likely to be involved in a bad outcome. A gun in "Household Z" will be extremely unlikely to be involved in a bad outcome. Households "B" through "Y" sit on this spectrum as well. You are not helplessly or randomly placed on this spectrum. Gun owners should strive to be as close to "Household Z" on this spectrum, and in doing so will virtually eliminate any risk that a firearm in their home will be involved in a bad outcome.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 06:27:20 AM by winkeyman »

acepedro45

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1368 on: June 29, 2016, 06:47:31 AM »
Quote
Statistics showing that a firearm in the home is X times more likely to harm someone in the family than be used for defense are meaningless. I have explained before in this thread, statistics showing that a firearm in the home is X times more likely to harm someone in the family than be used for defense are meaningless. A gun in "Household A" will be very likely to be involved in a bad outcome. A gun in "Household Z" will be extremely unlikely to be involved in a bad outcome. Households "B" through "Y" sit on this spectrum as well. You are not helplessly or randomly placed on this spectrum. Gun owners should strive to be as close to "Household Z" on this spectrum, and in doing so will virtually eliminate any risk that a firearm in their home will be involved in a bad outcome.

How many of the gun owners that you know would self-identify as having gun safety practices that are below average?


GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8195
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1369 on: June 29, 2016, 06:49:41 AM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Seriously, this again? You are asking me to PROVE that a gun in my hand is an effective way to protect myself and my wife from a violent intruder?

No.  I'm not claiming that a gun is an ineffective way to protect yourself and your wife from a violent intruder.  I'm challenging your assertion that having a gun in the home makes your family safer than not having a gun in the home.  Violent home intrusions aren't particularly common in most places.  Suicide and accidents with guns are common.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8195
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1370 on: June 29, 2016, 06:54:55 AM »
There are no accidental shootings.  Guns don't fire themselves.  Whenever you hear "accidental discharge" that means the fool mishandling the firearm pulled the trigger or in some other way caused the event by handling the firearm in an unsafe manner.

Firearms never "accidentally go off" as is so often reported.
Right.

ND - negligent discharge

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

You can blame it on negligence, you can call it an accident, or you can just blame it on the fact that people are human and a deadly weapon will occasionally do what it's designed to.  It doesn't change the fact that a lot of people die or are hurt from unintentional weapons discharge (if that phrasing makes you more pleased) every year.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8195
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1371 on: June 29, 2016, 06:58:57 AM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Guitarstv, what would you consider evidence, one way or the other, to 'prove' either argument?

A large, comprehensive US wide study with strong controls would be a good starting point.  One that tracks reported instances of firearms being used for self defense in the home vs accidents and suicides in the home over a long period.  Unfortunately, this kind of study can't be performed any more in the US thanks to the NRA's lobbying.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8195
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1372 on: June 29, 2016, 07:05:00 AM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

The accepted range of self-defense uses of firearms is in the 300K to 750K per year range.  Of course, people like you continue to deny this is true, but you always lose this argument on logical, rational & scientific grounds.  Always.  So even taking the minimum of the range, gun ownership in the United States is a net benefit, every single year.

Really?  Accepted by whom?  The second hit I get on Google when researching the topic indicates that some researchers believe 55 - 80,000 per year is the number of defensive gun usages http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6938&context=jclc.  Then of course you have the impossible task of separating the uses of a gun for self defense where, say a baseball bat would have worked just as well.  The issue of defensive uses of guns is not clear cut at all, and it's a complicated one to study.  It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1373 on: June 29, 2016, 07:18:10 AM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Guitarstv, what would you consider evidence, one way or the other, to 'prove' either argument?

A large, comprehensive US wide study with strong controls would be a good starting point.  One that tracks reported instances of firearms being used for self defense in the home vs accidents and suicides in the home over a long period.  Unfortunately, this kind of study can't be performed any more in the US thanks to the NRA's lobbying.

I don't understand why anyone would consider suicides in this type of study though.  Suicide is a choice...a choice that could be made using a number of different means.  Suicide by gun may be more effective than other means, but that in no way leads me to a conclusion that guns are "bad".

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8195
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1374 on: June 29, 2016, 07:27:43 AM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Guitarstv, what would you consider evidence, one way or the other, to 'prove' either argument?

A large, comprehensive US wide study with strong controls would be a good starting point.  One that tracks reported instances of firearms being used for self defense in the home vs accidents and suicides in the home over a long period.  Unfortunately, this kind of study can't be performed any more in the US thanks to the NRA's lobbying.

I don't understand why anyone would consider suicides in this type of study though.  Suicide is a choice...a choice that could be made using a number of different means.  Suicide by gun may be more effective than other means, but that in no way leads me to a conclusion that guns are "bad".

Ease of facilitation.  Suicide is a choice, sure . . . but it's one that is often made rashly.  If the person can survive that short period of time where he or she wants to kill himself, then 90% of the time they lose the suicidal impulse.  Having easy access to guns increases the number of suicides.  https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1093
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1375 on: June 29, 2016, 08:24:49 AM »
Some of you are so absolutely misinformed that I am embarrassed for you. You act as if you know everything about something you know nothing about.

And for all of you waving the "Assault Rifle 15" ban stick...
http://www.assaultweapon.info

As for firearms in the home - yes! When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

That's a good slide presentation, especially for people who don't really understand guns, but want to participate in the political debate over guns.

If every person who has never fired a gun saw that slide show prior to "holding forth" as an expert on the topic, it would sure save a lot of time.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1376 on: June 29, 2016, 10:34:24 AM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Seriously, this again? You are asking me to PROVE that a gun in my hand is an effective way to protect myself and my wife from a violent intruder?

No.  I'm not claiming that a gun is an ineffective way to protect yourself and your wife from a violent intruder.  I'm challenging your assertion that having a gun in the home makes your family safer than not having a gun in the home.  Violent home intrusions aren't particularly common in most places.  Suicide and accidents with guns are common.

I didn't say that having a gun in the home makes a person safer. Me, having guns in MY home, makes MY family safer. Your results may vary. For some people, having a gun in the home might make them less safe. In a free society, people are free to make these choices for themselves.

A gun is not a talisman against evil. It is a tool. When selected, stored, and used properly, a firearm can and will make you and your family safer. If selected, stored, and used improperly, it may do nothing to improve your level of safety and might even have a negative effect.

The point you seem to fail to grasp is that studies and statistics are often meaningless when applied to individuals. A quick google search tells me that the chances of any given person being killed in a shark attack are 1 in 3.75 million. On it's face, this statistic tells us that it is extremely unlikely for some randomly selected person to be killed by a shark.

John is born, lives his entire life, and dies in Arizona. This statistic is meaningless to him because he has ZERO chance of being killed by a shark.

Kelly live ins North Texas but takes an annual trip to the Gulf of Mexico every summer to spend a week at the beach. This statistic is very meaningful to Kelly because she is close to the "average" or "random" individual in the population.

Fred is a lifelong professional surfer. He surfs 200 days a year, every year, for decades in locales all over the world. This statistic is meaningless to him because he is MUCH MORE likely to be killed by a shark than a randomly selected member of the population.

The same applies to "A gun in the home is X times more likely to hurt a family member than an intruder" studies for the same reasons. As it applies to the gun-owning population as a whole, it may (MAY!) have some validity. But it is often useless when applied to any particular gun owner or gun owning household due primarily to two variable: an individual household's gun safety practices, and the household's risk for home invasion.

Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1377 on: June 29, 2016, 10:45:37 AM »
There are no accidental shootings.  Guns don't fire themselves.  Whenever you hear "accidental discharge" that means the fool mishandling the firearm pulled the trigger or in some other way caused the event by handling the firearm in an unsafe manner.

Firearms never "accidentally go off" as is so often reported.
Right.

ND - negligent discharge

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

You can blame it on negligence, you can call it an accident, or you can just blame it on the fact that people are human and a deadly weapon will occasionally do what it's designed to.  It doesn't change the fact that a lot of people die or are hurt from unintentional weapons discharge (if that phrasing makes you more pleased) every year.

People die in bed.  Ban beds.  People die in car wrecks.  Ban cars.   

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1378 on: June 29, 2016, 10:48:05 AM »
I didn't say that having a gun in the home makes a person safer. Me, having guns in MY home, makes MY family safer.

Uh huh.  Roll eyes.  EVERYONE thinks that somehow the statistics don't apply to them. Nope, no way.  We're special.  My firearm will not be used to kill grandma on the way to the bathroom, my kid, my kid's friend, the neighbor looking for a lost cat, someone asking directions, etc. etc. 

Everyone thinks their special.  Newsflash - you're not.

Quote
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
Quote
American Journal of Epidemiology 2004 V160 (10)

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1379 on: June 29, 2016, 10:50:18 AM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Guitarstv, what would you consider evidence, one way or the other, to 'prove' either argument?

A large, comprehensive US wide study with strong controls would be a good starting point.  One that tracks reported instances of firearms being used for self defense in the home vs accidents and suicides in the home over a long period.  Unfortunately, this kind of study can't be performed any more in the US thanks to the NRA's lobbying.

Your position is that the NRA is preventing firearms-related studies from being conducted? Really?

In reality, the NRA and other groups lobbied Congress to prevent the Centers for DISEASE Control from performing studies related to firearms. Since guns are not diseases, this only makes sense. Anti-gun groups using the CDC to perform studies relating to firearms is obviously a politically-motivated abuse of a respected government agency.

How about this; I think that so-called Liberalism is a disease. I'm going to lobby the CDC to do a study to discover the cause of the disease of the mind known as liberalism. While we are at it, let's have the CDC perform a study on what causes someone to vote democrat, or what causes someone to be a pacifist. Let's fund a CDC study to find out just what the hell is wrong with people who don't support welfare programs.

While we are at it, let's have the IRS audit all of the political organizations who oppose our favored candidates (oh wait, this actually happened...)!

acepedro45

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1380 on: June 29, 2016, 10:50:53 AM »
Quote
The same applies to "A gun in the home is X times more likely to hurt a family member than an intruder" studies for the same reasons. As it applies to the gun-owning population as a whole, it may (MAY!) have some validity. But it is often useless when applied to any particular gun owner or gun owning household due primarily to two variable: an individual household's gun safety practices, and the household's risk for home invasion.

I'm still curious: How many gun owners do you know that self-identify as being below average in their gun safety practices?

It's a very common response among gun supporters: "Those 'X times more likely to hurt a family member' statistics are only true for people that don't properly store and secure their guns. I do know how to take treat my guns with care and respect, therefore, the stats doesn't apply to me, QED."

I guess I'm trolling a bit, but isn't this the same hubris as most drivers believing they are at reduced risk from an accident because they are better-than-average drivers?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3481
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1381 on: June 29, 2016, 10:54:41 AM »
I didn't say that having a gun in the home makes a person safer. Me, having guns in MY home, makes MY family safer.

Uh huh.  Roll eyes.  EVERYONE thinks that somehow the statistics don't apply to them. Nope, no way.  We're special.  My firearm will not be used to kill grandma on the way to the bathroom, my kid, my kid's friend, the neighbor looking for a lost cat, someone asking directions, etc. etc. 

Everyone thinks their special.  Newsflash - you're not.

Quote
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
Quote
American Journal of Epidemiology 2004 V160 (10)

I don't have kids. The chances of a child dying from a firearm in my home are approximately 0%.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/303570/us-personal-bankruptcy-rate/

Would you agree that someone on this forum is less likely than average to file bankruptcy?  Why or why not?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 10:58:24 AM by JLee »

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1382 on: June 29, 2016, 11:01:04 AM »
I didn't say that having a gun in the home makes a person safer. Me, having guns in MY home, makes MY family safer.


Uh huh.  Roll eyes.  EVERYONE thinks that somehow the statistics don't apply to them. Nope, no way.  We're special.  My firearm will not be used to kill grandma on the way to the bathroom, my kid, my kid's friend, the neighbor looking for a lost cat, someone asking directions, etc. etc. 

Everyone thinks their special.  Newsflash - you're not.

Quote
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
Quote
American Journal of Epidemiology 2004 V160 (10)

I don't know why this post is quoting itself....

[/quote]

Wow, you convinced me!

My wife and I have no children. We have never had a minor inside of our house. We store our firearms properly. We are both extensively trained and have a very high level of skill in the use of firearms. (This is reality)

Jack and Jill have 3 kids, ages 4, 6, and 8. They often have the friends of their children over for slumber parties. Neither of them have any firearms training. Jack bought a handgun and shot it once, the day he bought it. He then loaded it and placed it in his night-stand drawer, where it stays. (I made up Jack and Jill)

Is it your position that the Winkeyman household and the Jack&Jill household are EQUALLY LIKELY to have a bad outcome involving firearms? Is it your position that the universe is random, and goo/bad things happen to the entire population equally, regardless of actions individuals do and do not take? Please, tell me more.

Studies say that the Average American has about $6k in savings. Does this statistic apply to habitual Mr. Money Moustache readers in the exact same way that it applies to habitual Home Shopping Network viewers?

« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 11:14:55 AM by winkeyman »

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1383 on: June 29, 2016, 11:06:10 AM »
I didn't say that having a gun in the home makes a person safer. Me, having guns in MY home, makes MY family safer.

Uh huh.  Roll eyes.  EVERYONE thinks that somehow the statistics don't apply to them. Nope, no way.  We're special.  My firearm will not be used to kill grandma on the way to the bathroom, my kid, my kid's friend, the neighbor looking for a lost cat, someone asking directions, etc. etc. 

Everyone thinks their special.  Newsflash - you're not.

Quote
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
Quote
American Journal of Epidemiology 2004 V160 (10)

I don't have kids. The chances of a child dying from a firearm in my home are approximately 0%.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/303570/us-personal-bankruptcy-rate/

Would you agree that someone on this forum is less likely than average to file bankruptcy?  Why or why not?

This is just hubris, dontcha know?

LOL. Read my post above. It seems like we are on a similar wavelength here, no?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3481
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1384 on: June 29, 2016, 11:12:31 AM »
Northwestie's post had improper quote tag usage - to avoid the quote nesting you are experiencing, add [/ quote] (without the space) before your message, until it appears normally.  I had to add two or three to mine.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1385 on: June 29, 2016, 11:14:03 AM »
I didn't say that having a gun in the home makes a person safer. Me, having guns in MY home, makes MY family safer.

Uh huh.  Roll eyes.  EVERYONE thinks that somehow the statistics don't apply to them. Nope, no way.  We're special.  My firearm will not be used to kill grandma on the way to the bathroom, my kid, my kid's friend, the neighbor looking for a lost cat, someone asking directions, etc. etc. 

Everyone thinks their special.  Newsflash - you're not.

Quote
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
Quote
American Journal of Epidemiology 2004 V160 (10)

I don't have kids. The chances of a child dying from a firearm in my home are approximately 0%.


While significantly less - it's not zero.  My suggestion is first take a class on basic statistics, then come back and discuss.

You are not special.  There are plenty of examples of "well-trained" individuals who "secure" their weapons that have ended in tragedy. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3481
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1386 on: June 29, 2016, 11:16:13 AM »
I didn't say that having a gun in the home makes a person safer. Me, having guns in MY home, makes MY family safer.

Uh huh.  Roll eyes.  EVERYONE thinks that somehow the statistics don't apply to them. Nope, no way.  We're special.  My firearm will not be used to kill grandma on the way to the bathroom, my kid, my kid's friend, the neighbor looking for a lost cat, someone asking directions, etc. etc. 

Everyone thinks their special.  Newsflash - you're not.

Quote
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
Quote
American Journal of Epidemiology 2004 V160 (10)

I don't have kids. The chances of a child dying from a firearm in my home are approximately 0%.


While significantly less - it's not zero.  My suggestion is first take a class on basic statistics, then come back and discuss.

You are not special.  There are plenty of examples of "well-trained" individuals who "secure" their weapons that have ended in tragedy.

ap·prox·i·mate·ly
əˈpräksəmətlē
adverb
used to show that something is almost, but not completely, accurate or exact; roughly.
"a journey of approximately two hours"
synonyms:   roughly, about, around, circa, more or less, in the neighborhood of, in the region of, of/on the order of, something like, around/round about, give or take (a few)

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8195
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1387 on: June 29, 2016, 11:19:41 AM »
There are no accidental shootings.  Guns don't fire themselves.  Whenever you hear "accidental discharge" that means the fool mishandling the firearm pulled the trigger or in some other way caused the event by handling the firearm in an unsafe manner.

Firearms never "accidentally go off" as is so often reported.
Right.

ND - negligent discharge

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

You can blame it on negligence, you can call it an accident, or you can just blame it on the fact that people are human and a deadly weapon will occasionally do what it's designed to.  It doesn't change the fact that a lot of people die or are hurt from unintentional weapons discharge (if that phrasing makes you more pleased) every year.

People die in bed.  Ban beds.  People die in car wrecks.  Ban cars.

Given that I'm not arguing that all guns should be banned, that's quite a straw man you've built yourself to argue against.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1388 on: June 29, 2016, 11:24:13 AM »
Ditto -

If there's any peer-reviewed public health studies that show otherwise - please bring them forward.  Here is a very brief summary of the science.   Oh yea.  Facts and research, what a concept.

1.Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 929, 935 (2004). ⤴

2.Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998). ⤴

3.Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084 (1993). ⤴

4.Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (April 3, 2008), at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp0800859.)) Another study in the Annals of Emergency Medicine similarly found that people who keep a gun in their home are almost twice as likely to die in a gun-related homicide and 16 times more likely to use a gun to commit suicide than people without a gun in their home. ((Douglas Wiebe, Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated with Firearms in the Home: A National Case-control Study, 41 Annals of Emergency Medicine 771 (June 2003). ⤴

5.Douglas J. Wiebe, Firearms in U.S. Homes as a Risk Factor for Unintentional Gunshot Fatality, 35 Accident Analysis & Prevention 711, 713-14 (2003). ⤴

6.Matthew Miller, David Hemenway, and Deborah Azrael, State-level Homicide Victimization Rates in the U.S. in Relation to Survey Measures of Household Firearm Ownership, 2001 -2003, 64 Soc. Sci. & Med. 656, 660 (2007). ⤴

7.Catherine A. Okoro et al., Prevalence of Household Firearms and Firearm-Storage Practices in the 50 States and the District of Columbia: Findings from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2002, 116 Pediatrics e370, e371-e372 (Sept. 2005), at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/3/e370. ⤴

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8195
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1389 on: June 29, 2016, 11:27:37 AM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Seriously, this again? You are asking me to PROVE that a gun in my hand is an effective way to protect myself and my wife from a violent intruder?

No.  I'm not claiming that a gun is an ineffective way to protect yourself and your wife from a violent intruder.  I'm challenging your assertion that having a gun in the home makes your family safer than not having a gun in the home.  Violent home intrusions aren't particularly common in most places.  Suicide and accidents with guns are common.

I didn't say that having a gun in the home makes a person safer. Me, having guns in MY home, makes MY family safer.

Yeah, that's exactly the claim that I was challenging and asking for proof of.  You, having guns in your home . . . doesn't make your family safer.

The point you seem to fail to grasp is that studies and statistics are often meaningless when applied to individuals. A quick google search tells me that the chances of any given person being killed in a shark attack are 1 in 3.75 million. On it's face, this statistic tells us that it is extremely unlikely for some randomly selected person to be killed by a shark.

John is born, lives his entire life, and dies in Arizona. This statistic is meaningless to him because he has ZERO chance of being killed by a shark.

Kelly live ins North Texas but takes an annual trip to the Gulf of Mexico every summer to spend a week at the beach. This statistic is very meaningful to Kelly because she is close to the "average" or "random" individual in the population.

Fred is a lifelong professional surfer. He surfs 200 days a year, every year, for decades in locales all over the world. This statistic is meaningless to him because he is MUCH MORE likely to be killed by a shark than a randomly selected member of the population.

The same applies to "A gun in the home is X times more likely to hurt a family member than an intruder" studies for the same reasons. As it applies to the gun-owning population as a whole, it may (MAY!) have some validity. But it is often useless when applied to any particular gun owner or gun owning household due primarily to two variable: an individual household's gun safety practices, and the household's risk for home invasion.

So, in your examples the more often you're exposed to the ocean, the greater the chance of getting bitten by a shark.  The guy who never goes to the ocean has little chance of being bitten.

Your example proves my point very well.

Having exposure to guns in your home means you have a greater chance of someone in your family being shot.  The guy with no guns in his home is better protecting his family from getting shot.  Hence the point of contention with your statement above about protecting your family.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8195
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1390 on: June 29, 2016, 11:41:26 AM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Guitarstv, what would you consider evidence, one way or the other, to 'prove' either argument?

A large, comprehensive US wide study with strong controls would be a good starting point.  One that tracks reported instances of firearms being used for self defense in the home vs accidents and suicides in the home over a long period.  Unfortunately, this kind of study can't be performed any more in the US thanks to the NRA's lobbying.

Your position is that the NRA is preventing firearms-related studies from being conducted? Really?

Yes.  Since the NRA firearm research ban, government funded research into firearm related death has dropped 96%.  http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1


In reality, the NRA and other groups lobbied Congress to prevent the Centers for DISEASE Control from performing studies related to firearms. Since guns are not diseases, this only makes sense. Anti-gun groups using the CDC to perform studies relating to firearms is obviously a politically-motivated abuse of a respected government agency.

The CDC conducts a lot of research in areas not related to disease.  Can you please point to any anti-gun group that produced a study using CDC research money prior to the NRA backed ban on information?


How about this; I think that so-called Liberalism is a disease. I'm going to lobby the CDC to do a study to discover the cause of the disease of the mind known as liberalism. While we are at it, let's have the CDC perform a study on what causes someone to vote democrat, or what causes someone to be a pacifist. Let's fund a CDC study to find out just what the hell is wrong with people who don't support welfare programs.

Knock yourself out.  You can ask for some funds to do your research tomorrow.  There's no ban on studies regarding Liberalism, pacifism, or being a democrat.  Trying to ban research would indicate a real fear of learning what reality is.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1391 on: June 29, 2016, 11:47:28 AM »
I always like the "........statistics are meaningless when applied to an individual"  Huh???   Really, I kinda like the idea of unicorns too, but I don't believe in them.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1392 on: June 29, 2016, 12:53:10 PM »
I always like the "........statistics are meaningless when applied to an individual"  Huh???   Really, I kinda like the idea of unicorns too, but I don't believe in them.

But... they are.

Take BMI for example. BMI is a good indicator underweight/healthy weight/overweight for POPULATIONS. They are often not useful for individuals.

Now, every fat guy on the internet knows he is the exception to the rule: "My BMI is 40, but its all muscle!" We know not all of these people are built like The Rock; but some people are.

That doesn't make BMI useless, but it does make it of limited use. Same with gun statistics, or any statistics.

(FYI I have taken college courses on basic and applied statistics. My bachelors is in Political Science, with minors in Public Administration and International Studies.)

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1393 on: June 29, 2016, 12:57:12 PM »
Do you just make this stuff up??  BMI as a statistic and as applicable to individuals is a "useless" predictor of health.  Boom!  Dead wrong again dude.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3481
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1394 on: June 29, 2016, 12:59:51 PM »
Do you just make this stuff up??  BMI as a statistic and as applicable to individuals is a "useless" predictor of health.  Boom!  Dead wrong again dude.

Your writing is imprecise enough that I'm not sure what exactly you are attempting to convey.  Are you arguing that BMI accurately applies to every individual?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1395 on: June 29, 2016, 01:04:21 PM »

Quote
The accepted range of self-defense uses of firearms is in the 300K to 750K per year range.  Of course, people like you continue to deny this is true, but you always lose this argument on logical, rational & scientific grounds.  Always.  So even taking the minimum of the range, gun ownership in the United States is a net benefit, every single year.

Really?  Accepted by whom?  The second hit I get on Google when researching the topic indicates that some researchers believe 55 - 80,000 per year is the number of defensive gun usages http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6938&context=jclc.  Then of course you have the impossible task of separating the uses of a gun for self defense where, say a baseball bat would have worked just as well.  The issue of defensive uses of guns is not clear cut at all, and it's a complicated one to study.  It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

I see your 20 year old, obviously biased study and raise you another 20 year old, obviously biased study.  BTW, I said 300K only because that was the low end of the practical error range of combined studies of the past several decades....

Quote
The study concluded, based only on stories said to have occurred to the speaker during the past year, and extrapolating from their results, that 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs happened in the U.S. a year.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/09/how-to-count-the-defensive-use-of-guns

http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8195
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1396 on: June 29, 2016, 01:18:49 PM »

Quote
The accepted range of self-defense uses of firearms is in the 300K to 750K per year range.  Of course, people like you continue to deny this is true, but you always lose this argument on logical, rational & scientific grounds.  Always.  So even taking the minimum of the range, gun ownership in the United States is a net benefit, every single year.

Really?  Accepted by whom?  The second hit I get on Google when researching the topic indicates that some researchers believe 55 - 80,000 per year is the number of defensive gun usages http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6938&context=jclc.  Then of course you have the impossible task of separating the uses of a gun for self defense where, say a baseball bat would have worked just as well.  The issue of defensive uses of guns is not clear cut at all, and it's a complicated one to study.  It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

I see your 20 year old, obviously biased study and raise you another 20 year old, obviously biased study.  BTW, I said 300K only because that was the low end of the practical error range of combined studies of the past several decades....

Quote
The study concluded, based only on stories said to have occurred to the speaker during the past year, and extrapolating from their results, that 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs happened in the U.S. a year.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/09/how-to-count-the-defensive-use-of-guns

http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf

The study I found may well be inaccurate.  My point was simply that there is no commonly accepted number you can use.  Estimating defensive usage of guns is a complicated business, and there are widely varying estimates.  Claiming gun ownership is a net benefit is therefore not really possible if you're being honest.


winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1397 on: June 29, 2016, 01:29:57 PM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Seriously, this again? You are asking me to PROVE that a gun in my hand is an effective way to protect myself and my wife from a violent intruder?

No.  I'm not claiming that a gun is an ineffective way to protect yourself and your wife from a violent intruder.  I'm challenging your assertion that having a gun in the home makes your family safer than not having a gun in the home.  Violent home intrusions aren't particularly common in most places.  Suicide and accidents with guns are common.

I didn't say that having a gun in the home makes a person safer. Me, having guns in MY home, makes MY family safer.

Yeah, that's exactly the claim that I was challenging and asking for proof of.  You, having guns in your home . . . doesn't make your family safer.

The point you seem to fail to grasp is that studies and statistics are often meaningless when applied to individuals. A quick google search tells me that the chances of any given person being killed in a shark attack are 1 in 3.75 million. On it's face, this statistic tells us that it is extremely unlikely for some randomly selected person to be killed by a shark.

John is born, lives his entire life, and dies in Arizona. This statistic is meaningless to him because he has ZERO chance of being killed by a shark.

Kelly live ins North Texas but takes an annual trip to the Gulf of Mexico every summer to spend a week at the beach. This statistic is very meaningful to Kelly because she is close to the "average" or "random" individual in the population.

Fred is a lifelong professional surfer. He surfs 200 days a year, every year, for decades in locales all over the world. This statistic is meaningless to him because he is MUCH MORE likely to be killed by a shark than a randomly selected member of the population.

The same applies to "A gun in the home is X times more likely to hurt a family member than an intruder" studies for the same reasons. As it applies to the gun-owning population as a whole, it may (MAY!) have some validity. But it is often useless when applied to any particular gun owner or gun owning household due primarily to two variable: an individual household's gun safety practices, and the household's risk for home invasion.

So, in your examples the more often you're exposed to the ocean, the greater the chance of getting bitten by a shark.  The guy who never goes to the ocean has little chance of being bitten.

Your example proves my point very well.

Having exposure to guns in your home means you have a greater chance of someone in your family being shot.  The guy with no guns in his home is better protecting his family from getting shot.  Hence the point of contention with your statement above about protecting your family.

Wait wait... I said having firearms in my home makes my family safer. You are saying it doesn't. Do You think you have PROVEN that my family is less safe due to the presence of firearms?

And there you go picking out an insignificant part of my statement to pick apart instead of attempting to understand the point. My example showed that statistics aren't always meaningful when applied to individuals. How about this one.

People involved in water sports have X chance of drowning.

John hangs out on the bay all day boating every Saturday in the summer with his friends. John and his friends drink heavily. None of them know how to swim. They pay no attention to weather reports.

Bill and his friends hang out on the bay all day every Saturday fishing. They all know how to swim, wear life vests, drink plenty of water and nothing else, and pay close attention to weather forecasts.

Do John and Bill spend equal amounts of time on the water, but do they have equal chances of drowning? Obviously not.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1398 on: June 29, 2016, 01:33:56 PM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Guitarstv, what would you consider evidence, one way or the other, to 'prove' either argument?

A large, comprehensive US wide study with strong controls would be a good starting point.  One that tracks reported instances of firearms being used for self defense in the home vs accidents and suicides in the home over a long period.  Unfortunately, this kind of study can't be performed any more in the US thanks to the NRA's lobbying.

Your position is that the NRA is preventing firearms-related studies from being conducted? Really?

Yes.  Since the NRA firearm research ban, government funded research into firearm related death has dropped 96%http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1


In reality, the NRA and other groups lobbied Congress to prevent the Centers for DISEASE Control from performing studies related to firearms. Since guns are not diseases, this only makes sense. Anti-gun groups using the CDC to perform studies relating to firearms is obviously a politically-motivated abuse of a respected government agency.

The CDC conducts a lot of research in areas not related to disease.  Can you please point to any anti-gun group that produced a study using CDC research money prior to the NRA backed ban on information?


How about this; I think that so-called Liberalism is a disease. I'm going to lobby the CDC to do a study to discover the cause of the disease of the mind known as liberalism. While we are at it, let's have the CDC perform a study on what causes someone to vote democrat, or what causes someone to be a pacifist. Let's fund a CDC study to find out just what the hell is wrong with people who don't support welfare programs.

Knock yourself out.  You can ask for some funds to do your research tomorrow.  There's no ban on studies regarding Liberalism, pacifism, or being a democrat.  Trying to ban research would indicate a real fear of learning what reality is.

And this prevents other organizations and individuals from studying whatever they want how...?

The NRA, representing millions of Americans lobbied the government to prevent the Centers for DISEASE Control from wasting taxpayer money on politically-motivated "research" far outside it's mission. Thank you NRA.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1399 on: June 29, 2016, 01:52:05 PM »
Do you just make this stuff up??  BMI as a statistic and as applicable to individuals is a "useless" predictor of health.  Boom!  Dead wrong again dude.

Don't drink and post. I literally said, in my post right above yours, that BMI is NOT a useless predictor of the health of an individual. It is , however, of limited use. While at the population level it can be a good predictor of health, on an individual level it is sometimes useless. The cliché example is The Rock. According to BMI, he is dangerously obese. But a cursory glance at the fellow tells you this is an incorrect assessment.

Statistics tell us there are X amount of gun deaths per year. Extrapolated to the entire population, statistics tell us that an American has a X in Y chance of being killed with a gun.

However, if we can then determine that half of those gun deaths are from suicide, we see that in reality people who suffer from depression have a much GREATER chance of their death involving a firearm, while those without depression have a much SMALLER chance of their death involving a firearm.

If we can then also determine that 25 percent of all homicides involving a firearm occur in certain neighborhoods in certain cities, we can conclude that people living in those neighborhoods/cities have a HIGHER chance of being murdered with a firearm, and those outside those cities have a much LOWER chance of being murdered with a firearm.

So people who do not suffer from depression and live outside of certain neighborhoods in certain cities do not have an X in Y chance of being killed with a firearm; they have a much smaller chance. The original statistic was misleading. Statistical probabilities at the population level are not always very useful when applied to individuals.

Geography and mental health are not the only variables here. Hunting is a dangerous firearms-involved activity. Having children in the home increases risk. Having no training or proficiency increases risk. Substance abuse increases risk. On and on.

So gun owner who lives outside of certain neighborhoods of certain cities, who is in good mental health has a very small chance of being killed or injured intentionally with a firearm. If that same gun owner has training, maintains proficiency, knows and follows good safety and storage practices, doesn't hunt, and doesn't have small children running around, and doesn't get drunk or high, they have a very small chance of being killed or injured unintentionally as well. So as a result, this hypothetical gun owner (me) can safely say "Screw your shoddy application of questionable statistics".

Thank goodness I DID take those poli-sci statistics courses in college; otherwise I would blindly believe all of the conflicting facts and figures constantly reported by my intellectual superiors who intend to modify my behavior to better suit their ridiculous worldview.

« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 01:59:18 PM by winkeyman »