https://www.newscientist.com/articl...un-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
Before you buy and carry a gun, know that doing so makes you less safe.
Before you buy and carry a gun, know that doing so makes you less safe.
Carrying a gun quadruples your chance of being killed.
- Thread starter BrianNole09
- Start date
I'm at more of a risk of being killed by my own doctor during a medical procedure, than I am being shot because i own a gun.
Having a medical procedure offers a benefit. Owning a gun doesn't benefit you, most likely. You may think it does but you'd be wrong.
Your level of ignorance and denial in regard to the dangers of gun ownership is sad.
You don't know what I think. Let me see though...... 85,000,000+ legal gun owners vs 31,000 accidental deaths, suicides, and criminal deaths due to guns. Over 400,000 accidental deaths annually due to medical malpractice and doctor mistakes...........
As a gun owner........I like my chances. I like my Dr., but my FNS .40 Cal is less likely to hurt me in the long run.
I realize the article mentioned they tried to account for the neighborhood of the gun owners but I suspect people in scary areas are more likely to own a gun as well as more likely to get killed just based on where they live, having little to do with having a gun.
Without agreeing to your conjecture, I'm afraid it doesn't matter because the two are unrelated. Statistically, owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning a gun. This is not mitigated by any other potentially dangerous things in your life.
I'll take my chances. Where is the stat that you are more likely to be raped or robbed by not carrying a gun?
There isn't one.
Carrying a gun is dangerous on so many levels. Many gun owners don't understand this.
People who wear blue uniforms are far more likely to be shot than others, and people with gang-related tattoos are also far more likely to be shot than others. Most people in those groups carry guns.
Without controlling the study for factors like these, this "study" is pretty worthless. It's like the study that found a positive correlation between ice cream sales and rape.
Without controlling the study for factors like these, this "study" is pretty worthless. It's like the study that found a positive correlation between ice cream sales and rape.
Since the linked article doesn't say it, and I'm not about to pour through a bunch of links embedded in the article that require a fee to read, I'll ask you. How many of the deaths where the person was carrying were people commuting crimes and were shot by police, legally armed civilians or others commuting crimes (ie, gang members shooting other gang members). I'd think those numbers would skew the results and should probably be thrown out of the study.
This is so dumb. If you own a car in a rural area your chances of a car accident are less then driving in a city. Never drive in a city.
That study was based on 600 plus homicides in Philadelphia where gun possession likely means 1) you're in a gang or are a criminal, 2) you live in a high crime area, or 3) you carry or possess large amounts of cash (e.g. drug dealer, liquor store owner). More crap.
Why don't you post some studies that show guns cause people to commit suicide. It's the same methodology.
Having intercourse with a relative doesn't make you a man, just a sick sick person.
Riding one multiplies your chances for death too.
Shouldn't we protect people from owning them as well?
I have to agree that this is not a particularly meaningful study.
I believe the meaningful number would be the number of people who save somebody's life because they own a gun, versus the number of people killed in gun accidents. My personal guess is that a gun owner is far more likely to have a tragic accident than to save a life. Even that would have a big asterisk because gun owners range from highly-trained experts well versed in gun safety to complete numb nuts who I wouldn't trust with a butter knife. But it would be a meaningful statistic.
Perhaps someone should do research to gather a large representative data set that would potentially give insight about how to address the problem of the large number of gun-related deaths compared to other industrialized nations.
I don't think people need to be protected from riding a motorcycle. I don't believe you should be allowed to put a child on the back of a motorcycle and drive around on public streets and highways, but you certainly are free to put yourself at risk.
I also don't think anybody (other than criminals and crazy folks) should be prevented from owning a gun. I just think anybody who is considering the purchase of a gun for security ought to know the actual odds that it will serve its purpose compared to the odds that it will result in a tragic accident. If they did they might be more inclined to obtain proper training.
Google "Dr. John Lott". He's done several studies, which have led to books like his More Guns, Less Crime.
I'd like to know how we count all of the times where possessing a gun stopped a crime or made a situation safer than it was before the introduction of the gun? Pretty hard to count that, isn't it?
Also, if you own a car and drive it around, you are much more likely to die than if you just stay in your home all day. Just know that if you're going to be dumb enough to think of buying a car!
Also, if you own a car and drive it around, you are much more likely to die than if you just stay in your home all day. Just know that if you're going to be dumb enough to think of buying a car!
Owning a bathtub or a shower greatly increases your odds of death by falls/drowning.
Driving a car has obvious benefits for the car owner. Owning a gun doesn't benefit the average HROT poster that thinks it makes him safe. Huge difference.
Maybe people should look at their own personal situation.
I have never had an accidental discharge with one of my firearms. No one as been injured, killed, or harmed themselves with a firearm of mine.
On the flip side looking only at the times when I have been CC there have been twice that my weapon has ceased hostile aggressive behavior with no one getting injured or killed. Both times the situation justified my introduction of lethal force and in both situations I contacted law enforcement officers and informed them of the situation afterward. In 1 situation the other party was arrested (not me).
Once again.....nobody was injured or killed in either situation. How do you put metrics around that?
I have never had an accidental discharge with one of my firearms. No one as been injured, killed, or harmed themselves with a firearm of mine.
On the flip side looking only at the times when I have been CC there have been twice that my weapon has ceased hostile aggressive behavior with no one getting injured or killed. Both times the situation justified my introduction of lethal force and in both situations I contacted law enforcement officers and informed them of the situation afterward. In 1 situation the other party was arrested (not me).
Once again.....nobody was injured or killed in either situation. How do you put metrics around that?
Who are you to say how someone else values the benefits of gun ownership?
Gun ownership can yield recreational, nutritional, security, and social benefits. Just because you don't enjoy such things doesn't mean guns are without benefits to their owners.
Because the average donk that lives in suburbia and has guns for safety is misguided and wrong.
Of course, a hunter or police officer probably benefits from gun ownership. Not the average HROT paranoid gun owner though.
This could be the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Does it expect us to not realize that the reason people are carrying guns in those cases is that they live in areas that makes it 10 times likely to get shot?
An unarmed person living in Chicago is 1000 times more likely to get shot than an armed person living in Huntsvile Alabama. Therefore, cities run by Democrats are a thousand times more dangerous to live in than those not run by Democrats. This is the exact same logic used in the OP. Except for my example is much more true.
Does it expect us to not realize that the reason people are carrying guns in those cases is that they live in areas that makes it 10 times likely to get shot?
An unarmed person living in Chicago is 1000 times more likely to get shot than an armed person living in Huntsvile Alabama. Therefore, cities run by Democrats are a thousand times more dangerous to live in than those not run by Democrats. This is the exact same logic used in the OP. Except for my example is much more true.
"The dangers of ownership". Do you just not fathom the stupidity of that statement?
http://m.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
No I don't. Owning a gun makes one less safe.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/4/888.full
Your guns make your family less safe. It's just common sense yet some gun owners deny reality. It blows my mind
