Buy a Mustachian Gun? Or Facepunch Me

[Indexer]

For all the gun haters, I bought a gun after my grandfather, who was a cop for decades told me, "police don't prevent murders. They investigate them after the fact. It's better for you to be on trial for self defense than them be on trial for your murder."

Yes, people hurt themselves by accident with guns. Training, responsibility, and safety will prevent this.

Shooting down a burglar sounds good in theory, but their gang/family/etc. know exactly where you live and are usually not the most reasonable and forgiving types. So the trial is not what worries me the most. Violence begets violence. The best defense is to scare them away with an alarm, lights or a dog. And if they get away with your phone or laptop let them. Not worth the risk of getting into a fight. Doesn't feel very manly, but it's the smart thing to do. And as a moustachian you probably don't have to many fancy items lying around anyway, and could easily replace them.

I never said burglar. If I thought someone was in my house, but in another room I'm not going to run in and confront them. It's much safer to create a lot of noise to let them know I'm aware they are there, but doesn't hurt to have a means to defend yourself if it comes to that.

In my earlier post I was clearly talking about defending myself.

[Nightwatchman9270]

For all the gun haters, I bought a gun after my grandfather, who was a cop for decades told me, "police don't prevent murders. They investigate them after the fact. It's better for you to be on trial for self defense than them be on trial for your murder."

Yes, people hurt themselves by accident with guns. Training, responsibility, and safety will prevent this.

Shooting down a burglar sounds good in theory, but their gang/family/etc. know exactly where you live and are usually not the most reasonable and forgiving types. So the trial is not what worries me the most. Violence begets violence. The best defense is to scare them away with an alarm, lights or a dog. And if they get away with your phone or laptop let them. Not worth the risk of getting into a fight. Doesn't feel very manly, but it's the smart thing to do. And as a moustachian you probably don't have to many fancy items lying around anyway, and could easily replace them.

My Wife and Kids are irreplaceable.  So is their mental health if they get violated.  If I hear someone trying to break they are getting lead the minute they cross the threshhold.  I have reinforced doors so I will have plenty of time to grab my Glock and take a covered position.  Police are not coming in time in my area to do jack-shit.  If their family knows where I live that's fine.  I have enough clips for everyone.:)

[GuitarStv]

For all the gun haters, I bought a gun after my grandfather, who was a cop for decades told me, "police don't prevent murders. They investigate them after the fact. It's better for you to be on trial for self defense than them be on trial for your murder."

Yes, people hurt themselves by accident with guns. Training, responsibility, and safety will prevent this.

Shooting down a burglar sounds good in theory, but their gang/family/etc. know exactly where you live and are usually not the most reasonable and forgiving types. So the trial is not what worries me the most. Violence begets violence. The best defense is to scare them away with an alarm, lights or a dog. And if they get away with your phone or laptop let them. Not worth the risk of getting into a fight. Doesn't feel very manly, but it's the smart thing to do. And as a moustachian you probably don't have to many fancy items lying around anyway, and could easily replace them.

My Wife and Kids are irreplaceable.  So is their mental health if they get violated.  If I hear someone trying to break they are getting lead the minute they cross the threshhold.  I have reinforced doors so I will have plenty of time to grab my Glock and take a covered position.  Police are not coming in time in my area to do jack-shit.  If their family knows where I live that's fine.  I have enough clips for everyone.:)

https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/us/father-shoots-son/index.html
http://www.cleveland19.com/story/35405895/daughter-22-shot-by-dad-who-says-he-mistook-her-for-intruder/
https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/us/florida-mother-shoots-daughter/
https://www.kptv.com/news/aloha-man-says-he-accidentally-shot-son-after-mistaking-cat/article_80386d83-42c0-54ce-8768-92b27b5c0077.html


I'm not sure that jumping into the shadows with your Glock and filling the doorway with lead at the sound of an 'intruder' will necessarily make your family safer, but best of luck to you.  As you mention, kids and wife are irreplaceable.

[SwitchActiveDWG]

For all the gun haters, I bought a gun after my grandfather, who was a cop for decades told me, "police don't prevent murders. They investigate them after the fact. It's better for you to be on trial for self defense than them be on trial for your murder."

Yes, people hurt themselves by accident with guns. Training, responsibility, and safety will prevent this.

Shooting down a burglar sounds good in theory, but their gang/family/etc. know exactly where you live and are usually not the most reasonable and forgiving types. So the trial is not what worries me the most. Violence begets violence. The best defense is to scare them away with an alarm, lights or a dog. And if they get away with your phone or laptop let them. Not worth the risk of getting into a fight. Doesn't feel very manly, but it's the smart thing to do. And as a moustachian you probably don't have to many fancy items lying around anyway, and could easily replace them.

My Wife and Kids are irreplaceable.  So is their mental health if they get violated.  If I hear someone trying to break they are getting lead the minute they cross the threshhold.  I have reinforced doors so I will have plenty of time to grab my Glock and take a covered position.  Police are not coming in time in my area to do jack-shit.  If their family knows where I live that's fine.  I have enough clips for everyone.:)

https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/us/father-shoots-son/index.html
http://www.cleveland19.com/story/35405895/daughter-22-shot-by-dad-who-says-he-mistook-her-for-intruder/
https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/us/florida-mother-shoots-daughter/
https://www.kptv.com/news/aloha-man-says-he-accidentally-shot-son-after-mistaking-cat/article_80386d83-42c0-54ce-8768-92b27b5c0077.html


I'm not sure that jumping into the shadows with your Glock and filling the doorway with lead at the sound of an 'intruder' will necessarily make your family safer, but best of luck to you.  As you mention, kids and wife are irreplaceable.

Idiots are always news worthy. Regarding gun violence, Google will provide whatever answers/"research" the searcher would like to see.

If one has the freedom and proper training, one can only choose what they believe is best. Personally, if I hear the sound of an 'intruder', then visually confirm an 'intruder' potentially with a firearm themselves, I'd like more options than my cell phone and a bat/knife/insert useless choice against a firearm here.

[GuitarStv]

Nobody believes that they're an idiot.  People in stressful situations often make mistakes though, and making a mistake with a gun is too often permanent.  Best of luck to you.

[SwitchActiveDWG]

Nobody believes that they're an idiot.  People in stressful situations often make mistakes though, and making a mistake with a gun is too often permanent.  Best of luck to you.

Very true, mistakes happen all the time. Not having a firearm in the same scenario could be a permanent mistake. I will take that luck though; as chance will have the ultimate say for us all.

[ericrugiero]

Using a gun in self defense is a very personal decision.  As pointed out above, actions taken with a gun are permanent and mistakes can have terrible consequences.  But, trusting that someone who breaks into an occupied residence is just going to take your stuff and not harm the people can have terrible (permanent) consequences as well.  I choose to have a gun available (locked in a quick access safe).  If someone breaks in, my family will huddle together and not worry about our possessions.  Those aren't worth shooting anyone over.  But, if the intruder attempts to come near after being warned I will shoot them.  There are evil people in the world and I have chosen to not be defenseless. 

If you make the same decision as me, remember a few things:
The cost of shooting someone will almost certainly be more than what they were going to steal.  It's only worth it to protect people not things. 
You CANNOT legally chase someone down and shoot them.  It MUST be to protect yourself or others from significant bodily hard.
You are responsible for your bullets, be sure of your target and what is beyond. 

[Abe]

Has anyone had a break-in while home? If so, I'm curious to hear how you handled it. When I was young, a couple of kids tried to break into the house when I was home alone, and I shooed them off with an M1 of all things. Obviously that's not an ideal close-quarter weapon. My concern with having a gun in the house is that I don't have time to train regularly with it and definitely am concerned of accidentally injuring my family. This gets back to the risk/benefit ratio. We're all talking about a low-probability but high-risk scenario. It's important to also discuss avoiding those scenarios. Most of this is being aware of your neighborhood and potential bad actors in the area, avoiding confrontations with short-fused individuals, and not flashing signs of wealth. Beyond that, my plan if someone breaks in while we're at home is to slow their progress through the house by locking interior doors, while getting everyone into the car to get out.
 

[Goldielocks]

For all the gun haters, I bought a gun after my grandfather, who was a cop for decades told me, "police don't prevent murders. They investigate them after the fact. It's better for you to be on trial for self defense than them be on trial for your murder."

Yes, people hurt themselves by accident with guns. Training, responsibility, and safety will prevent this.

Shooting down a burglar sounds good in theory, but their gang/family/etc. know exactly where you live and are usually not the most reasonable and forgiving types. So the trial is not what worries me the most. Violence begets violence. The best defense is to scare them away with an alarm, lights or a dog. And if they get away with your phone or laptop let them. Not worth the risk of getting into a fight. Doesn't feel very manly, but it's the smart thing to do. And as a moustachian you probably don't have to many fancy items lying around anyway, and could easily replace them.

I never said burglar. If I thought someone was in my house, but in another room I'm not going to run in and confront them. It's much safer to create a lot of noise to let them know I'm aware they are there, but doesn't hurt to have a means to defend yourself if it comes to that.

In my earlier post I was clearly talking about defending myself.

HMM...reading quickly, and replacing the word "burglar" with "bear"... this is very true... except that my first choice for "bear" is to close the door between us and try to leave as quickly and quietly as possible....  or close the door, baricade it, and call 911.

would that not work with an armed "burglar" too?

[2Cent]

For all the gun haters, I bought a gun after my grandfather, who was a cop for decades told me, "police don't prevent murders. They investigate them after the fact. It's better for you to be on trial for self defense than them be on trial for your murder."

Yes, people hurt themselves by accident with guns. Training, responsibility, and safety will prevent this.

Shooting down a burglar sounds good in theory, but their gang/family/etc. know exactly where you live and are usually not the most reasonable and forgiving types. So the trial is not what worries me the most. Violence begets violence. The best defense is to scare them away with an alarm, lights or a dog. And if they get away with your phone or laptop let them. Not worth the risk of getting into a fight. Doesn't feel very manly, but it's the smart thing to do. And as a moustachian you probably don't have to many fancy items lying around anyway, and could easily replace them.

My Wife and Kids are irreplaceable.  So is their mental health if they get violated.  If I hear someone trying to break they are getting lead the minute they cross the threshhold.  I have reinforced doors so I will have plenty of time to grab my Glock and take a covered position.  Police are not coming in time in my area to do jack-shit.  If their family knows where I live that's fine.  I have enough clips for everyone.:)

Except you don't know who they are or when they will come. If someone is intent on hurting you, you and your family are defenseless as they will just have to wait for one a moment when your guard is down. How about loading the first one or two rounds as blanks. That would scare them off. People breaking in in the night are not coming at night for a gun fight, so they will surely run. Rapists breaking in to a family home is quite rare as it is the one time they can be sure the husband is home. They are more likely to target girls on the street, or living alone. 99% of this type of crime is opportunistic, meaning they will look for an easy target. Having security doors is probably enough to make them go to the neighbors unless you give them some reason to target you.

And as GuitarStv mentioned being stressed and half asleep, maybe a bit drunk still is enough to undo any training. Maybe you should lock the gun with some math problem to check your state of mind. :-)

[thesavoryhello]

Have you checked with your GF? I personally would be touched by the sentiment, but not eager to have a gun in the house.

It also doesn't really sound like you want it that much, which deserves some attention--although I do see there has been some face punching already ;). If you're planning to reach FI/retire early, do you have a plan for what you want to do once you reach that goal? Would you rather reach your goal sooner or have a gun? Or as MMM puts it:

“will this really make me happier? / is there any other way to get the same happiness? / can it be delayed? / how can it be optimized to get the most at the lowest cost?”"

[El Jacinto]

A gun is the absolute last line of defense. Active shooting trainers teach that the order of priorities is as follows: 1) Leave the area 2) Hide 3) Fight back. You should only need a gun (or other form of defense) if you are unable to escape or hide.

You are responsible for any damage your gun does. If you shoot and miss, you could be responsible for anything from property damage to manslaughter. Also, police might mistake you for the shooter.

That said, there is a reason that the vast majority of shootings happen in gun-free zones, and it's why I carry everywhere that doesn't have a metal detector. I will most likely never need it, but luck favors the prepared. As for gun choice, I use an M&P Shield 9mm.

[GuitarStv]

That said, there is a reason that the vast majority of shootings happen in gun-free zones

13% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones (https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/), with the vast majority of them happening elsewhere.

[El Jacinto]

That said, there is a reason that the vast majority of shootings happen in gun-free zones

13% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones (https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/), with the vast majority of them happening elsewhere.

That's a pro-gun control organization. They are going to skew research to suit their needs.

Per the FBI, out of 160 active shooter incidents from 2000 to 2013, 39 occurred in educational institutions, 16 occurred at government facilities, 6 occurred at churches, 6 occurred at malls, 4 occurred at hospitals, 44 occurred at open-to-pedestrian businesses, and 23 occurred at closed-to-pedestrian businesses. The rest were in open spaces & residences, which are undoubtedly not gun-free zones.

Assuming only a fifth of the businesses have gun-free policies, then at least half of the active shooter incidents occurred in a gun-free zone.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/U-_ActiveShooter13B_FBI.pdf

[GuitarStv]

That said, there is a reason that the vast majority of shootings happen in gun-free zones

13% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones (https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/), with the vast majority of them happening elsewhere.

That's a pro-gun control organization. They are going to skew research to suit their needs.

Per the FBI, out of 160 active shooter incidents from 2000 to 2013, 39 occurred in educational institutions, 16 occurred at government facilities, 6 occurred at churches, 6 occurred at malls, 4 occurred at hospitals, 44 occurred at open-to-pedestrian businesses, and 23 occurred at closed-to-pedestrian businesses. The rest were in open spaces & residences, which are undoubtedly not gun-free zones.

Assuming only a fifth of the businesses have gun-free policies, then at least half of the active shooter incidents occurred in a gun-free zone.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/U-_ActiveShooter13B_FBI.pdf

Many educational institutes aren't gun free zones (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/california-teacher-fires-gun/index.html).  Neither are government facilities (a police station is a government facility, as is a military base - and they are patrolled by guys with guns).  Churches are not gun free zones (https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2017/11/16/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-wife-church-during-discussion-church-shootings/872374001/).  Malls are not gun free zones (https://wsvn.com/news/local/police-man-accidentally-shoots-himself-at-miami-international-mall/).  Many open/closed to pedestrian businesses are not gun free zones.

Do you have any actual data at all that backs up your claim that 'the vast majority of shootings happen in gun-free zones'?

[2Cent]

That said, there is a reason that the vast majority of shootings happen in gun-free zones

13% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones (https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/), with the vast majority of them happening elsewhere.

That's a pro-gun control organization. They are going to skew research to suit their needs.

Per the FBI, out of 160 active shooter incidents from 2000 to 2013, 39 occurred in educational institutions, 16 occurred at government facilities, 6 occurred at churches, 6 occurred at malls, 4 occurred at hospitals, 44 occurred at open-to-pedestrian businesses, and 23 occurred at closed-to-pedestrian businesses. The rest were in open spaces & residences, which are undoubtedly not gun-free zones.

Assuming only a fifth of the businesses have gun-free policies, then at least half of the active shooter incidents occurred in a gun-free zone.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/U-_ActiveShooter13B_FBI.pdf

160 active shooter incidents are only a fraction of the gun related killings. There are now about 10.000 people killed using guns per year in the US.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
The chance of being killed in an active shooter incident are about the same as being killed by lightning strike. In the end having a gun reduces some risks, while also introducing new risks, so for most people there is no real improvement in safety. The main reason people still buy one is that a burglar in your house is more scary than a gun accident. So a gun is mostly a kind of security blanket, used for psychological comfort.

[El Jacinto]

That said, there is a reason that the vast majority of shootings happen in gun-free zones

13% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones (https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/), with the vast majority of them happening elsewhere.

That's a pro-gun control organization. They are going to skew research to suit their needs.

Per the FBI, out of 160 active shooter incidents from 2000 to 2013, 39 occurred in educational institutions, 16 occurred at government facilities, 6 occurred at churches, 6 occurred at malls, 4 occurred at hospitals, 44 occurred at open-to-pedestrian businesses, and 23 occurred at closed-to-pedestrian businesses. The rest were in open spaces & residences, which are undoubtedly not gun-free zones.

Assuming only a fifth of the businesses have gun-free policies, then at least half of the active shooter incidents occurred in a gun-free zone.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/U-_ActiveShooter13B_FBI.pdf

Many educational institutes aren't gun free zones (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/california-teacher-fires-gun/index.html).  Neither are government facilities (a police station is a government facility, as is a military base - and they are patrolled by guys with guns).  Churches are not gun free zones (https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2017/11/16/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-wife-church-during-discussion-church-shootings/872374001/).  Malls are not gun free zones (https://wsvn.com/news/local/police-man-accidentally-shoots-himself-at-miami-international-mall/).  Many open/closed to pedestrian businesses are not gun free zones.

Do you have any actual data at all that backs up your claim that 'the vast majority of shootings happen in gun-free zones'?

For one, government buildings and military bases are gun-free zones. Because military police (who are even more sparse than police in public) are allowed to carry on base does not make it legal for anyone else to carry (source: was in military). You're cherry-picking examples, but let's break them down.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/california-teacher-fires-gun/index.html

This was a police officer who accidentally shot himself. The school is still a gun-free zone (government building gun-free zones don't apply to police officers for the most part)

https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2017/11/16/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-wife-church-during-discussion-church-shootings/872374001

This doesn't say that the church was not a gun-free zone.

https://wsvn.com/news/local/police-man-accidentally-shoots-himself-at-miami-international-mall

This doesn't say that the mall was not a gun-free zone. It is "legal" to carry a weapon in malls in Florida, but property owners can refuse service to customers for it, which makes it a de-facto gun-free zone. TN actually has a law that makes property owners liable if they make an establishment a gun-free zone, and someone is a victim of gun-violence.

[KBecks]

I think you  might like going to a gun shop w/a shooting range and working with their guns for a while.  Practice your shooting, try out some different styles and models and see if this feels like something you want to commit to.  You don't have to start out with a purchase to try out a new activity or sport/lifestyle.

If you want a gun for home defense / personal protection, you should commit to regular training.  Otherwise you will just have an expensive shiny object sitting around.

[KBecks]

@Nightwatchman9270

If I hear someone trying to break they are getting lead the minute they cross the threshhold.

I'm sure you know this, but it is worth repeating -- ALWAYS identify your target.  You do not want to be in a shoot first, think later situation with a person's life.

As I’ve said before, if you live with anyone else, my analysis is that there is a 97 percent probability that the ‘bump in the night’ is a member of your own household. With those kinds of numbers, gunowners cannot take the risk of shooting someone at home without establishing a positive ID.

“It is 32 times more likely that the sound or shadow is a member of the household than it is an intruder. Las Vegas would really like those odds. If we’re going to be the slightest bit responsible, we have to look at ALL the possibilities, not just the ones that scare us the most. Shooting through the door without doing any kind of identification is just plain wrong.” ~ Claude Werner, The Tactical Professor

For suspected burglary / home invasion:
https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/the-importance-of-target-identification/

For hunting:
http://www.firearmsafety.org.au/rules/page.php/1/2/7

[GuitarStv]

That said, there is a reason that the vast majority of shootings happen in gun-free zones

13% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones (https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/), with the vast majority of them happening elsewhere.

That's a pro-gun control organization. They are going to skew research to suit their needs.

Per the FBI, out of 160 active shooter incidents from 2000 to 2013, 39 occurred in educational institutions, 16 occurred at government facilities, 6 occurred at churches, 6 occurred at malls, 4 occurred at hospitals, 44 occurred at open-to-pedestrian businesses, and 23 occurred at closed-to-pedestrian businesses. The rest were in open spaces & residences, which are undoubtedly not gun-free zones.

Assuming only a fifth of the businesses have gun-free policies, then at least half of the active shooter incidents occurred in a gun-free zone.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/U-_ActiveShooter13B_FBI.pdf

Many educational institutes aren't gun free zones (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/california-teacher-fires-gun/index.html).  Neither are government facilities (a police station is a government facility, as is a military base - and they are patrolled by guys with guns).  Churches are not gun free zones (https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2017/11/16/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-wife-church-during-discussion-church-shootings/872374001/).  Malls are not gun free zones (https://wsvn.com/news/local/police-man-accidentally-shoots-himself-at-miami-international-mall/).  Many open/closed to pedestrian businesses are not gun free zones.

Do you have any actual data at all that backs up your claim that 'the vast majority of shootings happen in gun-free zones'?

For one, government buildings and military bases are gun-free zones. Because military police (who are even more sparse than police in public) are allowed to carry on base does not make it legal for anyone else to carry (source: was in military). You're cherry-picking examples, but let's break them down.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/california-teacher-fires-gun/index.html

This was a police officer who accidentally shot himself. The school is still a gun-free zone (government building gun-free zones don't apply to police officers for the most part)

https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2017/11/16/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-wife-church-during-discussion-church-shootings/872374001

This doesn't say that the church was not a gun-free zone.

https://wsvn.com/news/local/police-man-accidentally-shoots-himself-at-miami-international-mall

This doesn't say that the mall was not a gun-free zone. It is "legal" to carry a weapon in malls in Florida, but property owners can refuse service to customers for it, which makes it a de-facto gun-free zone. TN actually has a law that makes property owners liable if they make an establishment a gun-free zone, and someone is a victim of gun-violence.

I guess we have different definitions then.  To me, a gun free zone is a place where people aren't allowed to carry weapons and where it's not patrolled by armed people.

To you, a gun free zone is a place where people are allowed to carry guns or is actively patrolled by people with guns.  Seems weird to call that 'gun free', but whatever floats your boat.

[TexasRunner]

Gun owner here who spent many years working on an ambulance in rural & suburban districts. 

1) Try it before you buy it
2) Consider the cost of ammunition as this will be your ongoing expense
3) Buy used
4) Lock it up when it isn’t in your hand. 
5) Invest in a safe that is bolted to the wall. Trigger locks and gun cases provide some short term security but your kids/friend’s kids/friends/family and anyone else who has access to your home can overcome these locks with a little practice/advance planning and suddenly you are a contributing factor in future accidents, suicides, murders or armed robberies.
6) Insist that every adult in your household know how to safely fire and disarm the weapon – even if they don’t plan to ever touch it.
7) Teach every child in your household how to safely fire and disarm the weapon.  For real.  Letting them shoot in heavily supervised, controlled circumstances makes your kid wiser and potentially safer if they encounter an unsecured gun when you’re not around. You teach them how to use a knife to cut up their food safely.  Be as boring about the gun as you are about the knife.  Suck all the fun out of playing with the real gun by teaching gun safety ad infiniutm.
8) Never forget that having a gun doesn’t make you invincible. It can, in fact, make you a target.

You have to decide what’s right for you, but if you decide to own a weapon, do your research and be responsible with that weapon.

All of this is golden advice.

Also note, firearms have a base value that they typically do not go below (unlike other depreciating assets).  Cars can become basically worthless (IE that Toyota Corolla with 800k miles isn't going to be worth much) but guns are different.  Typically they have a base value of original MSRP x 40% or so and no worse.  Glocks and other "premier" brands are even better at about 60% value.  So a Glock 43 that MSRPs at $460.00 new will likely never be worth less than 280 dollars and that is after a round count gets into the hundreds of thousands or it gets beat up / destroyed.  Buying used, a G43 runs about 300 - 400 dollars so you are already taking that into account.  As such, buying a used, quality firearm will only set you back 120 -180 dollars if you decide to sell in the future.  If you keep it for 10 years, then thats $18 a year + training (which is inherently valuable anyway).

In other words, (1) take classes (like the NRA's Basic Pistol Course which goes over gun safety extensively and hits all the basics of pistol marksmanship) as well as any more advanced classes you want.  I would recommend the GF take the course as well, even if she doesn't want to ever use the firearm.  (2) Buy a used, high quality firearm that will last and you can shoot well.  Try out shotguns (or take a shotgunning class which is quite fun) to see if that fits your preferences more.  (3) Train regularly and get at least a basic firearm safe. Do these three things and I would state that it is a 'mustachian' way of going about it.

And to restate:  You have to decide what’s right for you, but if you decide to own a weapon, do your research and be responsible with that weapon.

[robartsd]

I guess we have different definitions then.  To me, a gun free zone is a place where people aren't allowed to carry weapons and where it's not patrolled by armed people.

To you, a gun free zone is a place where people are allowed to carry guns or is actively patrolled by people with guns.  Seems weird to call that 'gun free', but whatever floats your boat.

I don't think you got his definition right. El Jacinto's "gun free zone" is anywhere where citizens are not allowed to carry guns regardless of presence or lack of armed security.

It seems to me that most of the shootings that make it into the national news are in public places where the general public is not legally allowed to carry a gun.

The article you linked to indicated that 10% of mass shootings happen at places that meet your definition of gun free zone. It also indicated that 63% happen in private homes. That means that 27% of mass shootings that do not occur in homes are in places that fall under your definition of "gun free zone". If 1/3 of the remaining shootings occur in places where the general public is prohibited from carrying guns, then the majority of mass shootings outside of private homes are in El Jacinto's definition of gun free zone.

In my opinion, the only gun free zones that should exist are the ones were everyone is searched (metal detector, etc.) upon entering and the entry is protected by armed guards. Places that you define as gun free zones may make (some) people feel safer, but they do not provide safety.

[Glenstache]

If you are worried about protection, skip the handgun and buy a shotgun that you won't have to aim while in the dark and half-asleep (at which point you probably shouldn't be shooting anything anyways). Or, just skip the guns altogether and get yourself a DIY Lucille:


If you do purchase a firearm it is imperative that you store it safely and properly. Throwing it in the (shared) closet does not count. Improperly stored firearms are dangerous.

If you just want to learn how to shoot, then find some friends and go to a range with them and learn how to do it safely. I've owned and shot quite a few firearms over the years and it can be quite enjoyable if done properly. I at no point have considered it necessary for my personal protection.

[GuitarStv]

I guess we have different definitions then.  To me, a gun free zone is a place where people aren't allowed to carry weapons and where it's not patrolled by armed people.

To you, a gun free zone is a place where people are allowed to carry guns or is actively patrolled by people with guns.  Seems weird to call that 'gun free', but whatever floats your boat.

I don't think you got his definition right. El Jacinto's "gun free zone" is anywhere where citizens are not allowed to carry guns regardless of presence or lack of armed security.

It seems to me that most of the shootings that make it into the national news are in public places where the general public is not legally allowed to carry a gun.

The article you linked to indicated that 10% of mass shootings happen at places that meet your definition of gun free zone. It also indicated that 63% happen in private homes. That means that 27% of mass shootings that do not occur in homes are in places that fall under your definition of "gun free zone". If 1/3 of the remaining shootings occur in places where the general public is prohibited from carrying guns, then the majority of mass shootings outside of private homes are in El Jacinto's definition of gun free zone.

In my opinion, the only gun free zones that should exist are the ones were everyone is searched (metal detector, etc.) upon entering and the entry is protected by armed guards. Places that you define as gun free zones may make (some) people feel safer, but they do not provide safety.

As you mentioned, 90% of mass shootings take place outside of gun free zones.  The original claim was that the "vast majority of shootings occur in gun free zones".  10% is not 'the vast majority of shootings'.

I don't disagree with you that certain news organizations do their best to give the false impression that shootings are more common in gun free zones though.  It's typically the same ones concerned about the 'War on Christmas' . . . in a 75% Christian nation.

[robartsd]

I don't disagree with you that certain news organizations do their best to give the false impression that shootings are more common in gun free zones though.  It's typically the same ones concerned about the 'War on Christmas' . . . in a 75% Christian nation.

I'm talking about mainstream media - though I agree that the type of media outlets you reference are more likely to emphasize the "gun free zone". If you define "gun free zone" as areas where ordinary citizens are not allowed to carry and ignore shootings that occur at a private residence, it's easily plausible that the majority mass shootings in public places occur in gun free zones.

[ROF Expat]

If you are worried about protection, skip the handgun and buy a shotgun that you won't have to aim while in the dark and half-asleep (at which point you probably shouldn't be shooting anything anyways). Or, just skip the guns altogether and get yourself a DIY Lucille:


Please tell me that this is some kind of joke.  A shotgun's pattern in the 15-20 foot range isn't going to be much more than a couple of inches, so aiming is no less important than with a pistol or rifle.  And if failing to aim means missing your target, buckshot will certainly pass through drywall with potentially catastrophic consequences to a family member or other innocent bystander. 

[GuitarStv]

As you mentioned, 90% of mass shootings take place outside of gun free zones.  The original claim was that the "vast majority of shootings occur in gun free zones".  10% is not 'the vast majority of shootings'.

I don't disagree with you that certain news organizations do their best to give the false impression that shootings are more common in gun free zones though.  It's typically the same ones concerned about the 'War on Christmas' . . . in a 75% Christian nation.

I'm talking about mainstream media - though I agree that the type of media outlets you reference are more likely to emphasize the "gun free zone". If you define "gun free zone" as areas where ordinary citizens are not allowed to carry and ignore shootings that occur at a private residence, it's easily plausible that the majority mass shootings in public places occur in gun free zones.

By the same token, if we defined "gun free zone" as areas where there no guns are present, then 0% of shootings occur in gun free zones.  Arbitrarily ignoring the location of the majority of shootings when picking your stats doesn't make any sense at all.

There's also a difference between arguing that something is possible and arguing that it's true.  Even after arbitrarily excluding the majority of shootings from your data set, there still haven't been any statistics or facts provided that indicate that the majority of shootings in non-private residences occur in gun free zones.  To the contrary, only about a third of the shootings in your (again, inexplicably ignoring the majority of shootings) dataset are shown to be gun free zones.  This still doesn't constitute a majority.

[robartsd]

As you mentioned, 90% of mass shootings take place outside of gun free zones.  The original claim was that the "vast majority of shootings occur in gun free zones".  10% is not 'the vast majority of shootings'.

I don't disagree with you that certain news organizations do their best to give the false impression that shootings are more common in gun free zones though.  It's typically the same ones concerned about the 'War on Christmas' . . . in a 75% Christian nation.

I'm talking about mainstream media - though I agree that the type of media outlets you reference are more likely to emphasize the "gun free zone". If you define "gun free zone" as areas where ordinary citizens are not allowed to carry and ignore shootings that occur at a private residence, it's easily plausible that the majority mass shootings in public places occur in gun free zones.

By the same token, if we defined "gun free zone" as areas where there no guns are present, then 0% of shootings occur in gun free zones.  Arbitrarily ignoring the location of the majority of shootings when picking your stats doesn't make any sense at all.

There's also a difference between arguing that something is possible and arguing that it's true.  Even after arbitrarily excluding the majority of shootings from your data set, there still haven't been any statistics or facts provided that indicate that the majority of shootings in non-private residences occur in gun free zones.  To the contrary, only about a third of the shootings in your (again, inexplicably ignoring the majority of shootings) dataset are shown to be gun free zones.  This still doesn't constitute a majority.

It's not arbitrary to exclude private homes. Your article stated that 54% of cases were family or domestic violence and 63% were in private homes. Assuming that all the domestic cases were in private homes, 11% of cases were home invasions (about as many as were in your definition of gun free zone). To someone who doesn't feel that their family relations are threatening those 54% of cases aren't relevant. Shootings in public places also get much more media attention than shootings in private homes. If anything your article supports the notion that domestic violence is a much bigger problem than gun violence.

As I stated in each of my posts, I am not using your article's definition of gun free zone. I think of gun free zone as any place where a citizen who is allowed to carry a gun in other public places is not allowed to carry a gun. I feel that this definition is the most useful to someone who views a gun as a means of personal defense. Your article indicates that at least 27% of shootings in public places occur in such places, but does not provide adequate information about the other 73% of the public places where shootings occur to eliminate them as gun free zones under the definition that I accept. Based on the most widely circulated media stories, it's easy to think that at least 1/3 of these other cases were in places where my definition of gun free zone applies. Of the many shootings I've seen reported I can think of a few shootings that were confirmed to not be in a gun free zone under my definition (college campuses) but many more that were gun free zone (bar, state office building, many schools). There are also many where the gun free status is uncertain (many businesses and churches).

[GuitarStv]

As you mentioned, 90% of mass shootings take place outside of gun free zones.  The original claim was that the "vast majority of shootings occur in gun free zones".  10% is not 'the vast majority of shootings'.

I don't disagree with you that certain news organizations do their best to give the false impression that shootings are more common in gun free zones though.  It's typically the same ones concerned about the 'War on Christmas' . . . in a 75% Christian nation.

I'm talking about mainstream media - though I agree that the type of media outlets you reference are more likely to emphasize the "gun free zone". If you define "gun free zone" as areas where ordinary citizens are not allowed to carry and ignore shootings that occur at a private residence, it's easily plausible that the majority mass shootings in public places occur in gun free zones.

By the same token, if we defined "gun free zone" as areas where there no guns are present, then 0% of shootings occur in gun free zones.  Arbitrarily ignoring the location of the majority of shootings when picking your stats doesn't make any sense at all.

There's also a difference between arguing that something is possible and arguing that it's true.  Even after arbitrarily excluding the majority of shootings from your data set, there still haven't been any statistics or facts provided that indicate that the majority of shootings in non-private residences occur in gun free zones.  To the contrary, only about a third of the shootings in your (again, inexplicably ignoring the majority of shootings) dataset are shown to be gun free zones.  This still doesn't constitute a majority.

It's not arbitrary to exclude private homes.

Yes, actually . . . the way that you have done it is completely arbitrary.

Your article stated that 54% of cases were family or domestic violence and 63% were in private homes. Assuming that all the domestic cases were in private homes, 11% of cases were home invasions (about as many as were in your definition of gun free zone).

This is an assumption made arbitrarily without evidence.  The article mentions 'domestic or family violence', you're assuming that it says 'domestic violence' only.

So someone who doesn't feel that their family relations are threatening those 54% of cases aren't relevant.

This is an invalid conclusions from the data provided.  What evidence do you have that every instance of family gun violence happens in the home?

Shootings in public places also get much more media attention than shootings in private homes. If anything your article supports the notion that domestic violence is a much bigger problem than gun violence.

More invalid conclusions from the invalid assumptions made.  Domestic violence and familial violence are related, but to assume that all familial violence happens at home is not supported by data.  (But yes, there's certainly an indication of problems with familial violence.)

As I stated in each of my posts, I am not using your article's definition of gun free zone.

Yes, this has been mentioned several times.

I think of gun free zone as any place where a citizen who is allowed to carry a gun in other public places is not allowed to carry a gun. I feel that this definition is the most useful to someone who views a gun as a means of personal defense.

Right.  There can be plenty of guns in your definition of a "gun free zone" (as is the case with a police station).

There exists a problem here.  If (as you've stated) you assume that more people with guns makes things safer, then an area protected by trained people with guns should be safer than a place where guns are not allowed to be carried by anyone.  This data should therefore be excluded from your 'gun free zone' analysis.  If this data increases the number of folks killed, then it indicates a problem with your initial assumption.  Apparently trained people with guns do not make things safer.  Unless your argument is that relatively untrained people with guns (your average citizen) are safer when armed than experienced and trained people with guns (like police officers).

Your article indicates that at least 27% of shootings in public places occur in such places

Agreed.  10% of all mass shootings occur in gun free zones.

"Only ten percent of incidents took place in “gun-free zones”, or areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms and there is not a regular armed law enforcement presence (armed security guards, for example). The vast majority of incidents—63 percent—took place entirely in private homes."

Therefore 37% of incidents occurred in public.  If you assume that all of the gun free zones are in public, then 27% of shootings occur in gun free zones.

but does not provide adequate information about the other 73% of the public places where shootings occur to eliminate them as gun free zones under the definition that I accept.

Agreed.

Based on the most widely circulated media stories, it's easy to think that at least 1/3 of these other cases were in places where my definition of gun free zone applies.  Of the many shootings I've seen reported I can think of a few shootings that were confirmed to not be in a gun free zone under my definition (college campuses) but many more that were gun free zone (bar, state office building, many schools). There are also many where the gun free status is uncertain (many businesses and churches).

The plural of anecdote is not data.  This assumption is unsupported by fact or data so far brought forth.



You have personally redefined what 'gun free zone' means, and then failed to find any data supporting your new definition, which is why it's difficult to agree with your conclusions.

[BECABECA]

As a Mustachian, I trust in statistics. I live in the U.S., and the statistics show that having a gun in my home would make me and my loved ones less safe. So I don’t.

From Wikipedia’s Gun Violence in the United States page:
“There are over twice as many gun-related suicides than gun-related homicides in the United States... 90% of all suicides attempted using a firearm result in a fatality, as opposed to less than 3% of suicide attempts involving cutting or drug-use...The risk of someone attempting suicide is also 4.8 times greater if they are exposed to a firearm on a regular basis; for example, in the home.”

Do you want to increase your chance of committing suicide by 4.8 times? Maybe you feel like you have much better mental health than the average American adult, but what about the other people in your household? And this isn’t even counting accidental firearm deaths like kids finding it or misidentifying a family member as an intruder.

Suicide rate in the U.S. is at a 50 year peak. It’s even caused the average life expectancy to drop for the last 2 years.

You can keep any other weapons in the home without subjecting yourself and your family to this huge increase in suicide risk. Swords, pepper spray, stun guns, crossbows, baseball bats, sledge hammers, guard dogs...the list goes on. I’d recommend these instead.

[SwitchActiveDWG]

As a Mustachian, I trust in statistics. I live in the U.S., and the statistics show that having a gun in my home would make me and my loved ones less safe. So I don’t.

From Wikipedia’s Gun Violence in the United States page:
“There are over twice as many gun-related suicides than gun-related homicides in the United States... 90% of all suicides attempted using a firearm result in a fatality, as opposed to less than 3% of suicide attempts involving cutting or drug-use...The risk of someone attempting suicide is also 4.8 times greater if they are exposed to a firearm on a regular basis; for example, in the home.”

Do you want to increase your chance of committing suicide by 4.8 times? Maybe you feel like you have much better mental health than the average American adult, but what about the other people in your household? And this isn’t even counting accidental firearm deaths like kids finding it or misidentifying a family member as an intruder.

Suicide rate in the U.S. is at a 50 year peak. It’s even caused the average life expectancy to drop for the last 2 years.

You can keep any other weapons in the home without subjecting yourself and your family to this huge increase in suicide risk. Swords, pepper spray, stun guns, crossbows, baseball bats, sledge hammers, guard dogs...the list goes on. I’d recommend these instead.

The source for this quote is from an article published in 1986.

Nothing against your choice not to own a gun by the way, to each their own. Just a comment about the statistics in which we trust. I know there are other statistics, I know some are more recent, I know it's easy to go find them; the fact that this one pops up on the forum is what is interesting to me.

[SnackDog]

I grew up around guns and was on the high school rifle team. My spouse was in the army. I can't think of anyone we know closely who has been shot but a family member was nearly shot by the cops after drunkenly brandishing a rifle on his front lawn.  A college friend got depressed and happened to have a pistol handy and blew his own brains out. 

I live in a moderately high crime inner city Texas neighborhood.  I don't have any firearms in the house nor any desire to own any  nor to kill anyone or anything.  I have no fear of criminals with guns entering my home intent on bodily harm (since I have no criminal associates, no drugs, no cash, jewels, gold, etc).  For every one story I read in the news about someone protecting their family with a handgun, I read a hundred or more about suicide, accidental death, criminals with guns shooting other people with guns, criminals stealing guns, etc.

Having lived in places strict gun laws and very low crime (Europe) and places with violent crime mercifully dominated by knives instead of guns (Latin America), I have no enthusiasm for guns.  I'm ok with others making their own decisions as long as they do so eyes wide open and realize they may actually be putting themselves and others at risk and generally escalating the war.

If you do get a handgun, avoid the cheap Brazilian ones (Taurus) which often misfire and kill people.

[Glenstache]

Please tell me that this is some kind of joke.  A shotgun's pattern in the 15-20 foot range isn't going to be much more than a couple of inches, so aiming is no less important than with a pistol or rifle.  And if failing to aim means missing your target, buckshot will certainly pass through drywall with potentially catastrophic consequences to a family member or other innocent bystander.

nope. The spread depends on choke and load, as I suspect you already know. The wall penetration of birdshot is substantially less than many handgun, and pretty much any centerfire rifle. Honestly, as many others in this thread have pointed out, the baseball bat is probably more useful and less dangerous to have around the house for a few decades.

Personally, I got rid of ALL of my firearms because I no longer had a safe storage option in my current living situation. YMMV, of course.

[ROF Expat]

Please tell me that this is some kind of joke.  A shotgun's pattern in the 15-20 foot range isn't going to be much more than a couple of inches, so aiming is no less important than with a pistol or rifle.  And if failing to aim means missing your target, buckshot will certainly pass through drywall with potentially catastrophic consequences to a family member or other innocent bystander.

nope. The spread depends on choke and load, as I suspect you already know. The wall penetration of birdshot is substantially less than many handgun, and pretty much any centerfire rifle. Honestly, as many others in this thread have pointed out, the baseball bat is probably more useful and less dangerous to have around the house for a few decades.

Personally, I got rid of ALL of my firearms because I no longer had a safe storage option in my current living situation. YMMV, of course.

Choke and load will make a difference, but that difference is going to be very limited in the short distance implied by a home defense situation.  You are correct that penetration of birdshot will be lower than most centerfire rounds, although your post didn't mention birdshot (or specific chokes).  And I respectfully suggest that telling anyone he/she does not need to aim a shotgun is dangerously incorrect. 

I agree with you 100% on proper storage.  I have a heavy gun safe because I think that unsecured firearms are far more likely to involve theft and stupidity than they are to save my life.  I'm not sure I would want to rely on a baseball bat if I truly felt my life was at stake, but I definitely think that having (and consistently using) things like solid doors, good locks, alarms, alert neighbors, and a barking dog contribute more to home security than owning a firearm. 

If shotguns really meant hitting without aiming, I'd be far better at trap, skeet, sporting clays, and bird hunting... 

[Glenstache]

If shotguns really meant hitting without aiming, I'd be far better at trap, skeet, sporting clays, and bird hunting...

LOL. Wouldn't we all? Spread at 10 m with a wide choke can be 9 +/- inches.  If the average person is 18 inches wide, then the target gets about 30% "bigger" if you allow for a partial hit with birdshot. Probably not enough to significantly change things in skeet shooting where the target is 4 or 5 inches wide. :)

[js82]

As a Mustachian, I trust in statistics. I live in the U.S., and the statistics show that having a gun in my home would make me and my loved ones less safe. So I don’t.

From Wikipedia’s Gun Violence in the United States page:
“There are over twice as many gun-related suicides than gun-related homicides in the United States... 90% of all suicides attempted using a firearm result in a fatality, as opposed to less than 3% of suicide attempts involving cutting or drug-use...The risk of someone attempting suicide is also 4.8 times greater if they are exposed to a firearm on a regular basis; for example, in the home.”

Do you want to increase your chance of committing suicide by 4.8 times? Maybe you feel like you have much better mental health than the average American adult, but what about the other people in your household? And this isn’t even counting accidental firearm deaths like kids finding it or misidentifying a family member as an intruder.

Suicide rate in the U.S. is at a 50 year peak. It’s even caused the average life expectancy to drop for the last 2 years.

You can keep any other weapons in the home without subjecting yourself and your family to this huge increase in suicide risk. Swords, pepper spray, stun guns, crossbows, baseball bats, sledge hammers, guard dogs...the list goes on. I’d recommend these instead.

The source for this quote is from an article published in 1986..

"The data is old" is not a valid rebuttal, because the current data has not changed substantially.

-60-some percent of gun deaths are suicides.  This has not changed.
-The overwhelming majority of gun suicide attempts are successful.  This has not changed.
-The majority of suicide attempts by other methods are not successful.  This has not changed.
-A large fraction of instances where someone is suicidal(and either does not attempt, or attempts and survives) are transient, lasting a relatively brief period of time - i.e. if someone is there to intervene the suicide attempt can be prevented and in many cases, does not recur.  Intervention is much more difficult in cases when a suicidal individual has easy access to a firearm.

All available evidence overwhelmingly points to gun access as a factor increasing suicide risk.  This doesn't mean that there aren't perfectly valid reasons to own a gun, but in the majority of instances(and certainly, for most men) the "self-defense" argument is a case of emotion winning out over rationality.

The brain is weighing the emotionally-charged, low probability of a potential home invasion against the low, persistent risk of a suicide attempt by a family member.  We, as humans, are notoriously terrible at these sorts of risk calculations.  Would I be wishing for a gun if I heard someone breaking a window 2 rooms away?  Absolutely.  But I also know that living in a (relatively) low-crime area, and on the 2nd floor of my building, that a home invasion is not a particularly likely thing.  Your mileage may vary, but unless you're in an area with a crime rate significantly higher than the national average, the statistics almost certainly aren't on the side of gun ownership.

[SwitchActiveDWG]

As a Mustachian, I trust in statistics. I live in the U.S., and the statistics show that having a gun in my home would make me and my loved ones less safe. So I don’t.

From Wikipedia’s Gun Violence in the United States page:
“There are over twice as many gun-related suicides than gun-related homicides in the United States... 90% of all suicides attempted using a firearm result in a fatality, as opposed to less than 3% of suicide attempts involving cutting or drug-use...The risk of someone attempting suicide is also 4.8 times greater if they are exposed to a firearm on a regular basis; for example, in the home.”

Do you want to increase your chance of committing suicide by 4.8 times? Maybe you feel like you have much better mental health than the average American adult, but what about the other people in your household? And this isn’t even counting accidental firearm deaths like kids finding it or misidentifying a family member as an intruder.

Suicide rate in the U.S. is at a 50 year peak. It’s even caused the average life expectancy to drop for the last 2 years.

You can keep any other weapons in the home without subjecting yourself and your family to this huge increase in suicide risk. Swords, pepper spray, stun guns, crossbows, baseball bats, sledge hammers, guard dogs...the list goes on. I’d recommend these instead.

The source for this quote is from an article published in 1986..

"The data is old" is not a valid rebuttal, because the current data has not changed substantially.

-60-some percent of gun deaths are suicides.  This has not changed.
-The overwhelming majority of gun suicide attempts are successful.  This has not changed.
-The majority of suicide attempts by other methods are not successful.  This has not changed.
-A large fraction of instances where someone is suicidal(and either does not attempt, or attempts and survives) are transient, lasting a relatively brief period of time - i.e. if someone is there to intervene the suicide attempt can be prevented and in many cases, does not recur.  Intervention is much more difficult in cases when a suicidal individual has easy access to a firearm.

All available evidence overwhelmingly points to gun access as a factor increasing suicide risk.  This doesn't mean that there aren't perfectly valid reasons to own a gun, but in the majority of instances(and certainly, for most men) the "self-defense" argument is a case of emotion winning out over rationality.

The brain is weighing the emotionally-charged, low probability of a potential home invasion against the low, persistent risk of a suicide attempt by a family member.  We, as humans, are notoriously terrible at these sorts of risk calculations.  Would I be wishing for a gun if I heard someone breaking a window 2 rooms away?  Absolutely.  But I also know that living in a (relatively) low-crime area, and on the 2nd floor of my building, that a home invasion is not a particularly likely thing.  Your mileage may vary, but unless you're in an area with a crime rate significantly higher than the national average, the statistics almost certainly aren't on the side of gun ownership.

If you'd continued reading my post, you'd have seen I wasn't posting a rebuttal, simply an observation.

[GuitarStv]

As a Mustachian, I trust in statistics. I live in the U.S., and the statistics show that having a gun in my home would make me and my loved ones less safe. So I don’t.

From Wikipedia’s Gun Violence in the United States page:
“There are over twice as many gun-related suicides than gun-related homicides in the United States... 90% of all suicides attempted using a firearm result in a fatality, as opposed to less than 3% of suicide attempts involving cutting or drug-use...The risk of someone attempting suicide is also 4.8 times greater if they are exposed to a firearm on a regular basis; for example, in the home.”

Do you want to increase your chance of committing suicide by 4.8 times? Maybe you feel like you have much better mental health than the average American adult, but what about the other people in your household? And this isn’t even counting accidental firearm deaths like kids finding it or misidentifying a family member as an intruder.

Suicide rate in the U.S. is at a 50 year peak. It’s even caused the average life expectancy to drop for the last 2 years.

You can keep any other weapons in the home without subjecting yourself and your family to this huge increase in suicide risk. Swords, pepper spray, stun guns, crossbows, baseball bats, sledge hammers, guard dogs...the list goes on. I’d recommend these instead.

The source for this quote is from an article published in 1986..

"The data is old" is not a valid rebuttal, because the current data has not changed substantially.

-60-some percent of gun deaths are suicides.  This has not changed.
-The overwhelming majority of gun suicide attempts are successful.  This has not changed.
-The majority of suicide attempts by other methods are not successful.  This has not changed.
-A large fraction of instances where someone is suicidal(and either does not attempt, or attempts and survives) are transient, lasting a relatively brief period of time - i.e. if someone is there to intervene the suicide attempt can be prevented and in many cases, does not recur.  Intervention is much more difficult in cases when a suicidal individual has easy access to a firearm.

All available evidence overwhelmingly points to gun access as a factor increasing suicide risk.  This doesn't mean that there aren't perfectly valid reasons to own a gun, but in the majority of instances(and certainly, for most men) the "self-defense" argument is a case of emotion winning out over rationality.

The brain is weighing the emotionally-charged, low probability of a potential home invasion against the low, persistent risk of a suicide attempt by a family member.  We, as humans, are notoriously terrible at these sorts of risk calculations.  Would I be wishing for a gun if I heard someone breaking a window 2 rooms away?  Absolutely.  But I also know that living in a (relatively) low-crime area, and on the 2nd floor of my building, that a home invasion is not a particularly likely thing.  Your mileage may vary, but unless you're in an area with a crime rate significantly higher than the national average, the statistics almost certainly aren't on the side of gun ownership.

If you'd continued reading my post, you'd have seen I wasn't posting a rebuttal, simply an observation.

The 'observation' made was a clear attempt to de-legitimize the argument and studies and argument presented.

- Age of the article was mentioned to imply that it's no longer valid. (Vacuous truth fallacy.)
- Mention of "other statistics" was made to imply that you felt the provided ones are not valid.  (Mild form of the nirvana fallacy.)
- You implied that BECABECA was arguing in bad faith and cherry picking results with the claim that it's "easy to go find" other statistics. (Mild Ad Hominem fallacy - Poisoning the Well.)

The technique of casting doubt / implying an argument without bothering to go through the hard work of actually proving a statement with evidence has often been used to try to legitimize invalid arguments and is quite effective.  (See: Tobacco industry misinformation campaign, climate change denial, etc.)

[SwitchActiveDWG]

As a Mustachian, I trust in statistics. I live in the U.S., and the statistics show that having a gun in my home would make me and my loved ones less safe. So I don’t.

From Wikipedia’s Gun Violence in the United States page:
“There are over twice as many gun-related suicides than gun-related homicides in the United States... 90% of all suicides attempted using a firearm result in a fatality, as opposed to less than 3% of suicide attempts involving cutting or drug-use...The risk of someone attempting suicide is also 4.8 times greater if they are exposed to a firearm on a regular basis; for example, in the home.”

Do you want to increase your chance of committing suicide by 4.8 times? Maybe you feel like you have much better mental health than the average American adult, but what about the other people in your household? And this isn’t even counting accidental firearm deaths like kids finding it or misidentifying a family member as an intruder.

Suicide rate in the U.S. is at a 50 year peak. It’s even caused the average life expectancy to drop for the last 2 years.

You can keep any other weapons in the home without subjecting yourself and your family to this huge increase in suicide risk. Swords, pepper spray, stun guns, crossbows, baseball bats, sledge hammers, guard dogs...the list goes on. I’d recommend these instead.

The source for this quote is from an article published in 1986..

"The data is old" is not a valid rebuttal, because the current data has not changed substantially.

-60-some percent of gun deaths are suicides.  This has not changed.
-The overwhelming majority of gun suicide attempts are successful.  This has not changed.
-The majority of suicide attempts by other methods are not successful.  This has not changed.
-A large fraction of instances where someone is suicidal(and either does not attempt, or attempts and survives) are transient, lasting a relatively brief period of time - i.e. if someone is there to intervene the suicide attempt can be prevented and in many cases, does not recur.  Intervention is much more difficult in cases when a suicidal individual has easy access to a firearm.

All available evidence overwhelmingly points to gun access as a factor increasing suicide risk.  This doesn't mean that there aren't perfectly valid reasons to own a gun, but in the majority of instances(and certainly, for most men) the "self-defense" argument is a case of emotion winning out over rationality.

The brain is weighing the emotionally-charged, low probability of a potential home invasion against the low, persistent risk of a suicide attempt by a family member.  We, as humans, are notoriously terrible at these sorts of risk calculations.  Would I be wishing for a gun if I heard someone breaking a window 2 rooms away?  Absolutely.  But I also know that living in a (relatively) low-crime area, and on the 2nd floor of my building, that a home invasion is not a particularly likely thing.  Your mileage may vary, but unless you're in an area with a crime rate significantly higher than the national average, the statistics almost certainly aren't on the side of gun ownership.

If you'd continued reading my post, you'd have seen I wasn't posting a rebuttal, simply an observation.

The 'observation' made was a clear attempt to de-legitimize the argument and studies and argument presented.

- Age of the article was mentioned to imply that it's no longer valid. (Vacuous truth fallacy.)
- Mention of "other statistics" was made to imply that you felt the provided ones are not valid.  (Mild form of the nirvana fallacy.)
- You implied that BECABECA was arguing in bad faith and cherry picking results with the claim that it's "easy to go find" other statistics. (Mild Ad Hominem fallacy - Poisoning the Well.)

The technique of casting doubt / implying an argument without bothering to go through the hard work of actually proving a statement with evidence has often been used to try to legitimize invalid arguments and is quite effective.  (See: Tobacco industry misinformation campaign, climate change denial, etc.)

I'm not making an argument at all. People can think what they want. No opinions will change based on what were posting here. I read the sentence "Do you want to increase your chance of committing suicide by 4.8 times?" in the post and thought it was an interesting sentence; that prompted me to go look at the source.

[BECABECA]

I would hope some opinions do change based on what we are posting here. If anybody didn’t have access to this data before, they have it now, and I’d hope that most people on these forums are open to changing their opinions when they get data that suggests that they should.

At first I felt pretty stupid about not posting some more recent statistics, but then I realized that if the entire hive-mind of Wikipedia contributors hadn’t felt the need to update the stats reference, then it is probably still valid, and likely more valid than whatever individual article I might try to cite, being a non-expert in this area.