Guns rarely used for self defence

[Ernie S.]

Suicide and defensive use of a firearm are two entirely different subjects.

Not when you're discussing guns in the home and whether they actually make you safer. Which I am.

Suicide rates, murder rates of women when guns are in the home, accidental shooting rates, murder rates of women with guns and DV, etc are all relevant. As are the fact that there's no evidence that owning a gun reduces the odds you'll be a victim of any major crime. Rates of burglary, robbery, home invasion, etc are the same for gun owners as for non-gun owners.

So with no increase in safety from crime by owning a gun.....and a massive increase in risk from suicide, accidental shootings, and murder *within* the home when a gun is present...

....owning a gun for self defense is a shitty, shitty bet.

A gun with its firing pin removed and no ammunition works just as well in the overwhelming majority of defensive uses of firearms. But has none of the risks associated with a fire arm in the home.

I'll take those odds.

I won't. My ex is rather happy she wasn't raped and I'm just frigging ecstatic that I wasn't knifed.

My friend of almost 20 years isn't 'ecstatic' that her son killed himself with a gun she owned. For every 'intruder' shot and killed with a gun, there are more than 80 suicides with a gun.

Accidental shootings are twice as as likely as shooting the 'intruder'. DV incidents with a gun are far more likely by a factor of 5. And a woman is 3 times as likely to be murdered in her home if there is a gun in it.

Those are shit odds.

Bullshit. Sorry for your friend's loss. I too have lost someone dear to me to suicide. The difference is, I don't blame the means.
A gun is an inanimate object. It does exactly what it is intended to do. Blame, if any, belongs to the person who pulls the trigger.

No one is arguing that a gun had intentionality. What is being argued is that a gun makes suicide attempts far more likely to succeed. In general suicide attempts succeed about 4% of the time. Suicide attempts with a gun, far more than 90%.

Which is why half of all suicides in the US involve a gun. And why having a gun in the house doubles the odds of suicide. Suicide attempts may be comparable between homes that have guns and those that don't. But 'success' rates at suicide are far higher in homes with guns.

Roughly double.

Of course a gun makes suicide attempts more successful. Hammers make nail driving more successful.
A gun is a tool. Without intent, a gun is no more dangerous than a pillow.
The old saw,"guns don't kill people. People kill people.", is a truism Guns are harmless.
If I was to decide to take my life, my first choice would be to run my Harley into a bridge abutment at 125. A gun would be my second choice, BUT I am a relatively stable, balanced individual and I am not suicidal.
For those that are, a gun makes far more sense than, perhaps driving head on into a school bus at 80 MPH or holding their breath for 10 minutes.
I am in a fairly dangerous business and deal in large amounts of cash. I could easily become a target when on the way to make my deposit. I feel pretty damned sure I won't become a statistic and that anyone who tries to rob me, will.

 

[Skylar]

Apparently, the 19 year old shooter's father bought him a .45ACP for Christmas. The kid had no job, wasn't in school, stayed in his room a lot, and had charges for drugs and trespass. But they never saw this coming. Sigh.

Those are known risk factors for robbing a convenience store. Not a mass shooting of a black church.

 

[Skylar]

You should wave that empty gun at some Crips members.

Unwise, as they tend to be very well armed. But, I'm keeping my pistol handy in any event.

Soros hate drone Skyler claims that a "toy gun" is just as effective as a real one - so she should be happy to test her theory. I even offered to nominate her for a Darwin award!

I've said since the overwhelming majority of the defensive uses of guns doesn't involve pulling the trigger, that a toy gun would work just as well in those instances.

As the odds of actually having to shoot an intruder is less than half the odds of getting by lighting. And you have yet to disagree with me.

As for 'Soros', that's your personal obsession. It has nothing to do with me.

 

[2aguy]

I notice you don't dispute my point that accidental shootings are a fraction of accidental drownings. Nor should you, as we both know I'm right.

Accidental drowings have nothing to do with gun deaths. Accidental shootings do. You have yet to refute my point that an accidental shooting is twice as likely as shooting an intruder.

A gun doesn't make you safer.

Second, what 'civil right' have I sought to deny others? Recognizing that I own two fire arms myself (well, technically 3) and target shoot regularly.

You argue against the most fundamental right of persons to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their family, and their property.

And where have I done this?

Quote me.

I understand, and armed populace cannot be ruled.

You clearly don't understand. As you're not quoting me. You're quoting an imaginary character inside your head that you're pretending is me.

And that's not 'understanding'. That's what we call 'delusion'.

You are in this thread arguing against the right of people to defend themselves. The opposition to civil rights is one of the most fundamental goals of the democrats and the left in general.

I've never argued you shouldn't be able to own a gun or use it. I've argued that a gun is far more likely to hurt you and your family than an intruder when kept in your home.

Again, you're scripting. Just reciting some prechewed, predigested, canned and mechanical argument. And it has nothing to do with me.

Show me. Don't tell me. As killing an intruder with a gun in self defense happens about 250 times a year. While suicide with a gun happens about 21,000 times a year. Making the latter an 80 times more likely use of a gun than the former.

You post that as if it has some sort of meaning.

It means guns are 80 times more likely to be used for suicide than in shooting an intruder.

Defense of home and person usually does not require the discharge of a firearm.

Which is why I've argued that a gun without a firing pin or ammunition is far more useful in increasing the safety of you family than an actual gun is. You get all the 'does not require the discharge of of a firearm' benefits with none of accompanying harm to your family or yourself.

As a functioning gun in your home doesn't make you safer. Quite the opposite. The presence of a functioning gun in the home endangers your family.

Sorry...that 80 times number is fake.....it only counts dead criminals, not criminals shot and arrested or simply driven off....of course...anti gun extremists can't report the truth or reality....truth and reality are their enemies....

 

[2aguy]

I notice you don't dispute my point that accidental shootings are a fraction of accidental drownings. Nor should you, as we both know I'm right.

Accidental drowings have nothing to do with gun deaths. Accidental shootings do. You have yet to refute my point that an accidental shooting is twice as likely as shooting an intruder.

A gun doesn't make you safer.

Second, what 'civil right' have I sought to deny others? Recognizing that I own two fire arms myself (well, technically 3) and target shoot regularly.

You argue against the most fundamental right of persons to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their family, and their property.

And where have I done this?

Quote me.

I understand, and armed populace cannot be ruled.

You clearly don't understand. As you're not quoting me. You're quoting an imaginary character inside your head that you're pretending is me.

And that's not 'understanding'. That's what we call 'delusion'.

You are in this thread arguing against the right of people to defend themselves. The opposition to civil rights is one of the most fundamental goals of the democrats and the left in general.

I've never argued you shouldn't be able to own a gun or use it. I've argued that a gun is far more likely to hurt you and your family than an intruder when kept in your home.

Again, you're scripting. Just reciting some prechewed, predigested, canned and mechanical argument. And it has nothing to do with me.

Show me. Don't tell me. As killing an intruder with a gun in self defense happens about 250 times a year. While suicide with a gun happens about 21,000 times a year. Making the latter an 80 times more likely use of a gun than the former.

You post that as if it has some sort of meaning.

It means guns are 80 times more likely to be used for suicide than in shooting an intruder.

Defense of home and person usually does not require the discharge of a firearm.

Which is why I've argued that a gun without a firing pin or ammunition is far more useful in increasing the safety of you family than an actual gun is. You get all the 'does not require the discharge of of a firearm' benefits with none of accompanying harm to your family or yourself.

As a functioning gun in your home doesn't make you safer. Quite the opposite. The presence of a functioning gun in the home endangers your family.

Wrong...lying with stats still doesn't make it true.....

 

[2aguy]

Apparently, the 19 year old shooter's father bought him a .45ACP for Christmas. The kid had no job, wasn't in school, stayed in his room a lot, and had charges for drugs and trespass. But they never saw this coming. Sigh.

Well, a relative of a witness said he reloaded many times...if it was a 1911 .45 then that destroys the stupid..."They could charge him if only he had to reload a lot" meme....it obviously did not work here.....if what we know is accurate....the 10 round magazine limit proven wrong......

 

[Skylar]

Of course a gun makes suicide attempts more successful. Hammers make nail driving more successful.
A gun is a tool.

Its a tool that makes suicide much more likely. All you're doing is rephrasing my point and then agreeing with me.

As survival rates of suicide attempts plunge from 96% for suicide in general.....to far less than 10% for gun attempts. If you have one person taking pills (survival rate 97%) and another putting a gun to their head (survival rate far below 10%), you're more likely to see a 'successful' suicide with the gun. With no gun in the home, people tend toward far less effective methods of suicide. So they succeed far less often. And thus have lower suicides rates.

Do you even disagree?

Without intent, a gun is no more dangerous than a pillow.

Strawman. No one has argued that a gun has intentionality. What is being argued is that a gun makes suicide far more likely. With the presence of a gun in a US home doubling the odds of someone in that home committing suicide. With guns a method of suicide exceeding all other methods put together.

A gun in your home doesn't make you safer. It makes it far more likely that a litany of horrible outcomes will happen to you or your family

 

[bendog]

Apparently, the 19 year old shooter's father bought him a .45ACP for Christmas. The kid had no job, wasn't in school, stayed in his room a lot, and had charges for drugs and trespass. But they never saw this coming. Sigh.

Well, a relative of a witness said he reloaded many times...if it was a 1911 .45 then that destroys the stupid..."They could charge him if only he had to reload a lot" meme....it obviously did not work here.....if what we know is accurate....the 10 round magazine limit proven wrong......

I just read a link from the kid's uncle that said is BiL bought the kid a 45 for Christmas. I assume it had to be a .45 ACP of some kind. Even with a 7 stack, you'd start out with 8 rounds, and it doesn't take much effort to eject and insert a new clip, and rack the slide .... and off he goes.

If the link was true, I hope the father shoots himself and rots in hell.

 

[Skylar]

I notice you don't dispute my point that accidental shootings are a fraction of accidental drownings. Nor should you, as we both know I'm right.

Accidental drowings have nothing to do with gun deaths. Accidental shootings do. You have yet to refute my point that an accidental shooting is twice as likely as shooting an intruder.

A gun doesn't make you safer.

Second, what 'civil right' have I sought to deny others? Recognizing that I own two fire arms myself (well, technically 3) and target shoot regularly.

You argue against the most fundamental right of persons to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their family, and their property.

And where have I done this?

Quote me.

I understand, and armed populace cannot be ruled.

You clearly don't understand. As you're not quoting me. You're quoting an imaginary character inside your head that you're pretending is me.

And that's not 'understanding'. That's what we call 'delusion'.

You are in this thread arguing against the right of people to defend themselves. The opposition to civil rights is one of the most fundamental goals of the democrats and the left in general.

I've never argued you shouldn't be able to own a gun or use it. I've argued that a gun is far more likely to hurt you and your family than an intruder when kept in your home.

Again, you're scripting. Just reciting some prechewed, predigested, canned and mechanical argument. And it has nothing to do with me.

Show me. Don't tell me. As killing an intruder with a gun in self defense happens about 250 times a year. While suicide with a gun happens about 21,000 times a year. Making the latter an 80 times more likely use of a gun than the former.

You post that as if it has some sort of meaning.

It means guns are 80 times more likely to be used for suicide than in shooting an intruder.

Defense of home and person usually does not require the discharge of a firearm.

Which is why I've argued that a gun without a firing pin or ammunition is far more useful in increasing the safety of you family than an actual gun is. You get all the 'does not require the discharge of of a firearm' benefits with none of accompanying harm to your family or yourself.

As a functioning gun in your home doesn't make you safer. Quite the opposite. The presence of a functioning gun in the home endangers your family.

Wrong...lying with stats still doesn't make it true.....

And what 'lie' have I told.

Quote the lie. Then show us its a lie. You'll find what you are calling a 'lie' is just an argument you can't refute.

 

[2aguy]

When you use the you are 80 times more likely....you are not counting all,defensive gun uses in your number...you know that, so when you keep repeating that number you know is inaccurate you are lying...

 

[2aguy]

why are you anti gun extremists so pissy today? you should be very happy...your gun control laws actually worked....

1) The church was more than likely a gun free zone...congratulations...you won that one...

2) apparently not one peaceful, law abiding citizen in that church had a gun....congratulations....you win that one too


You should be celebrating the success of your anti gun extremist laws...

they worked...not one law abiding citizen had a gun in that gun free zone.....

Good job....

 

[Ernie S.]

I notice you don't dispute my point that accidental shootings are a fraction of accidental drownings. Nor should you, as we both know I'm right.

Accidental drowings have nothing to do with gun deaths. Accidental shootings do. You have yet to refute my point that an accidental shooting is twice as likely as shooting an intruder.

A gun doesn't make you safer.

Second, what 'civil right' have I sought to deny others? Recognizing that I own two fire arms myself (well, technically 3) and target shoot regularly.

You argue against the most fundamental right of persons to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their family, and their property.

And where have I done this?

Quote me.

I understand, and armed populace cannot be ruled.

You clearly don't understand. As you're not quoting me. You're quoting an imaginary character inside your head that you're pretending is me.

And that's not 'understanding'. That's what we call 'delusion'.

You are in this thread arguing against the right of people to defend themselves. The opposition to civil rights is one of the most fundamental goals of the democrats and the left in general.

I've never argued you shouldn't be able to own a gun or use it. I've argued that a gun is far more likely to hurt you and your family than an intruder when kept in your home.

Again, you're scripting. Just reciting some prechewed, predigested, canned and mechanical argument. And it has nothing to do with me.

Show me. Don't tell me. As killing an intruder with a gun in self defense happens about 250 times a year. While suicide with a gun happens about 21,000 times a year. Making the latter an 80 times more likely use of a gun than the former.

You post that as if it has some sort of meaning.

It means guns are 80 times more likely to be used for suicide than in shooting an intruder.

Defense of home and person usually does not require the discharge of a firearm.

Which is why I've argued that a gun without a firing pin or ammunition is far more useful in increasing the safety of you family than an actual gun is. You get all the 'does not require the discharge of of a firearm' benefits with none of accompanying harm to your family or yourself.

As a functioning gun in your home doesn't make you safer. Quite the opposite. The presence of a functioning gun in the home endangers your family.

And where have I done this?

Quote me.

Which is why I've argued that a gun without a firing pin or ammunition is far more useful in increasing the safety of you family than an actual gun is.


A non functioning gun is not a firearm. It's a movie prop. The second amendment does not deal with movie props, you idiot.

 

[Skylar]

When you use the you are 80 times more likely....you are not counting all,defensive gun uses in your number...you know that, so when you keep repeating that number you know is inaccurate you are lying...

So the 'lie' is an argument I'm not even making. That's called a strawman.

I'm comparing the number of justified homicides in self defense with the number of suicide gun deaths. My stat is dead on. In fact, if anything I've understimated how long the odds are. As its actually 84 suicides to every intruder killed in self defense. You neither refute my claims. Nor even disagree with them. Debunking your 'lie' claim.

We both know I'm right.

'Defensive uses of a gun' almost never involve discharging the weapon. Which is why a gun with the firing pin removed and no ammo is just as effective when the gun isn't discharged. Which is almost always. The odds of actually having to pull the trigger and kill an intruder with your gun is than HALF that of being struck by lighting.

Where as a functional gun in the home increases the odds of suicide by DOUBLE. With a gun 80 times more likely to be used to in suicide than in killing an intruder. You're twice as likely to accidentally discharge the weapon and kill someone than you are to kill an intruder. If a gun is the home, women are 3 times more likely to be murdered. This without domestic violence. When domestic violence is factored in, that skyrockets to 5 times higher.

A functioning gun in your house does not make you safer. It does no make your family safer. It endangers your family.

 

[Ernie S.]

why are you anti gun extremists so pissy today? you should be very happy...your gun control laws actually worked....

1) The church was more than likely a gun free zone...congratulations...you won that one...

2) apparently not one peaceful, law abiding citizen in that church had a gun....congratulations....you win that one too


You should be celebrating the success of your anti gun extremist laws...

they worked...not one law abiding citizen had a gun in that gun free zone.....

Good job....

I own a bar. It is most definitely NOT a gun free zone. Had that kid come to my place and started shooting, there would have been a minimum of 4 guns with 29 rounds ready.
On certain nights, there are 2 or three more weapons on site.

 

[BluesLegend]

Weird, gun control liberals advocating the only people who should be armed with guns are the police, who they hate.

 

[Ernie S.]

Of course a gun makes suicide attempts more successful. Hammers make nail driving more successful.
A gun is a tool.

Its a tool that makes suicide much more likely. All you're doing is rephrasing my point and then agreeing with me.

As survival rates of suicide attempts plunge from 96% for suicide in general.....to far less than 10% for gun attempts. If you have one person taking pills (survival rate 97%) and another putting a gun to their head (survival rate far below 10%), you're more likely to see a 'successful' suicide with the gun. With no gun in the home, people tend toward far less effective methods of suicide. So they succeed far less often. And thus have lower suicides rates.

Do you even disagree?

Without intent, a gun is no more dangerous than a pillow.

Strawman. No one has argued that a gun has intentionality. What is being argued is that a gun makes suicide far more likely. With the presence of a gun in a US home doubling the odds of someone in that home committing suicide. With guns a method of suicide exceeding all other methods put together.

A gun in your home doesn't make you safer. It makes it far more likely that a litany of horrible outcomes will happen to you or your family

"What is being argued is that a gun makes suicide far more likely. "
I agree. What I'm saying is that the gun is not responsible for a suicide. It's merely a more efficient tool.

You are trying to blame aberrant behavior on an inanimate object.
Guns are no more to blame for suicide than wrenches are for automobiles.

 

[Skylar]

I notice you don't dispute my point that accidental shootings are a fraction of accidental drownings. Nor should you, as we both know I'm right.

Accidental drowings have nothing to do with gun deaths. Accidental shootings do. You have yet to refute my point that an accidental shooting is twice as likely as shooting an intruder.

A gun doesn't make you safer.

Second, what 'civil right' have I sought to deny others? Recognizing that I own two fire arms myself (well, technically 3) and target shoot regularly.

You argue against the most fundamental right of persons to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their family, and their property.

And where have I done this?

Quote me.

I understand, and armed populace cannot be ruled.

You clearly don't understand. As you're not quoting me. You're quoting an imaginary character inside your head that you're pretending is me.

And that's not 'understanding'. That's what we call 'delusion'.

You are in this thread arguing against the right of people to defend themselves. The opposition to civil rights is one of the most fundamental goals of the democrats and the left in general.

I've never argued you shouldn't be able to own a gun or use it. I've argued that a gun is far more likely to hurt you and your family than an intruder when kept in your home.

Again, you're scripting. Just reciting some prechewed, predigested, canned and mechanical argument. And it has nothing to do with me.

Show me. Don't tell me. As killing an intruder with a gun in self defense happens about 250 times a year. While suicide with a gun happens about 21,000 times a year. Making the latter an 80 times more likely use of a gun than the former.

You post that as if it has some sort of meaning.

It means guns are 80 times more likely to be used for suicide than in shooting an intruder.

Defense of home and person usually does not require the discharge of a firearm.

Which is why I've argued that a gun without a firing pin or ammunition is far more useful in increasing the safety of you family than an actual gun is. You get all the 'does not require the discharge of of a firearm' benefits with none of accompanying harm to your family or yourself.

As a functioning gun in your home doesn't make you safer. Quite the opposite. The presence of a functioning gun in the home endangers your family.

And where have I done this?

Quote me.

Which is why I've argued that a gun without a firing pin or ammunition is far more useful in increasing the safety of you family than an actual gun is.


A non functioning gun is not a firearm. It's a movie prop. The second amendment does not deal with movie props, you idiot.

And where, you silly soul, did I say that anyone has to take the firing pin out of their gun? Just because something is fucking stupid doesn't mean its illegal. I'm not denying you any right.

So I ask what right have I denied or advocated anyone lose?

Specifically.

 

[Ernie S.]

You seem to be advocating toy or inoperative guns. I'm only replying to your asinine comments.

 

[Skylar]

Of course a gun makes suicide attempts more successful. Hammers make nail driving more successful.
A gun is a tool.

Its a tool that makes suicide much more likely. All you're doing is rephrasing my point and then agreeing with me.

As survival rates of suicide attempts plunge from 96% for suicide in general.....to far less than 10% for gun attempts. If you have one person taking pills (survival rate 97%) and another putting a gun to their head (survival rate far below 10%), you're more likely to see a 'successful' suicide with the gun. With no gun in the home, people tend toward far less effective methods of suicide. So they succeed far less often. And thus have lower suicides rates.

Do you even disagree?

Without intent, a gun is no more dangerous than a pillow.

Strawman. No one has argued that a gun has intentionality. What is being argued is that a gun makes suicide far more likely. With the presence of a gun in a US home doubling the odds of someone in that home committing suicide. With guns a method of suicide exceeding all other methods put together.

A gun in your home doesn't make you safer. It makes it far more likely that a litany of horrible outcomes will happen to you or your family

"What is being argued is that a gun makes suicide far more likely. "
I agree. What I'm saying is that the gun is not responsible for a suicide. It's merely a more efficient tool.

The suicide attempt is responsible for the suicide. The gun merely makes it orders of magnitude more likely to succeed. Which is why a gun in the house doubles the chances of suicide.

You are trying to blame aberrant behavior on an inanimate object.

No, you're simply making the same 'intentionality' argument. Which is a strawman. I am arguing that having a gun in your home makes suicide more likely. And I've explained why:

As survival rates of suicide attempts plunge from 96% for suicide in general.....to far less than 10% for gun attempts. If you have one person taking pills (survival rate 97%) and another putting a gun to their head (survival rate far below 10%), you're more likely to see a 'successful' suicide with the gun. With no gun in the home, people tend toward far less effective methods of suicide. So they succeed far less often. And thus have lower suicides rates.

And instead of answering my simple question 'do you even disagree', you ignored everything I posted. And offered the same 'inanimate object' argument that has nothing to do with my argument. So I'll try again.

Do you disagree with anything in italics above?

Guns are no more to blame for suicide than wrenches are for automobiles.

By that logic, a gun in your home has no more to do with keeping your family safe than wrenches do automobiles.

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[2aguy]

When you use the you are 80 times more likely....you are not counting all,defensive gun uses in your number...you know that, so when you keep repeating that number you know is inaccurate you are lying...

So the 'lie' is an argument I'm not even making. That's called a strawman.

I'm comparing the number of justified homicides in self defense with the number of suicide gun deaths. My stat is dead on. In fact, if anything I've understimated how long the odds are. As its actually 84 suicides to every intruder killed in self defense. You neither refute my claims. Nor even disagree with them. Debunking your 'lie' claim.

We both know I'm right.

'Defensive uses of a gun' almost never involve discharging the weapon. Which is why a gun with the firing pin removed and no ammo is just as effective when the gun isn't discharged. Which is almost always. The odds of actually having to pull the trigger and kill an intruder with your gun is than HALF that of being struck by lighting.

Where as a functional gun in the home increases the odds of suicide by DOUBLE. With a gun 80 times more likely to be used to in suicide than in killing an intruder. You're twice as likely to accidentally discharge the weapon and kill someone than you are to kill an intruder. If a gun is the home, women are 3 times more likely to be murdered. This without domestic violence. When domestic violence is factored in, that skyrockets to 5 times higher.

A functioning gun in your house does not make you safer. It does no make your family safer. It endangers your family.

No...because there are 2 million defensive gun uses on average each year....far more than the suicide or justifiable homicide number.....victims don't have to kill every criminal...they wound them, drive them off or hold them for police......and not using that number and including it in the gun stats you use is a lie....

And the women murder number, again, not accurate...a gun in the home that does not have alcohol, drugs or crime problems is safe.....add in alcoholism, drugs, a history of abuse and criminal behavior and you can take the gun away and they will be in far more danger....