Are Gun-Owners Delusional, Dishonest, Indifferent or Just Ignorant of the Evidence?

[Nous]

I am pretty sure one can produce consistent findings to support whatever position one chooses to take.

Is what you are "pretty sure" of based on evidence? If so, cite it.

 

[idav]

Referencing some different study findings than those noted in the OP article of another current thread, I wish to inquire about how to account for the contradiction between gun-owners' stated reasons for having guns and the facts showing the greater risks and lack of protection personal guns provide both inside and outside the home.

Surveys consistently find that the reason the majority of gun-owners give for owning a gun is for purposes of protection. E.g., America's Complex Relationship with Guns While this Pew survey found two-thirds of gun-owners asserting that protection is the primary reason for owning their guns, other surveys show as many as 88% of gun-owners giving this reason.

Yet, studies also consistently show that having a gun or guns in the home increases the risk that a family member or acquaintance will be killed or injured by firearm, either accidentally or intentionally, while providing no significant protection for persons in the home. E.g., from the review article, Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home, by David Hemenway:

The main reason people give for having a handgun in the home is protection, typically against stranger violence. However, it is important to recognize that the home is a relatively safe place, especially from strangers. For example, fewer than 30% of burglaries in the United States (2003-2007) occur when someone is at home. In the 7% of burglaries when violence does occur, the burglar is more likely to be an intimate (current or former) and also more likely to be a relative or known acquaintance than a stranger.[78] Although people typically spend most of their time at home, only 5% of all the crimes of violence perpetrated by strangers occur at home.[79]​

Hemenway goes on to cite data from the National Crime Victimization Surveys showing that in all confrontational incidents (not necessarily in the home) where a crime was threatened, attempted or completed, only 0.9% of victims reported using a gun for defensive purposes. Hemenway also gleans the findings of a 2004 study by Kleck involving 27,000 personal contact crimes, which found that the modes of resistance where the victim was least likely to be injured were running away/hiding, and calling the police (with injuries only 0.9% of the time in the case of the latter). In contrast, threatening the perpetrator with a gun was followed by an injury to the victim 2.5% of the time.

In the Chapter 1, Firearms and Violent Death in the United States, by Miller, et al., in Reducing Gun Violence in America, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013, the authors report:

Kellermann et al. examined approximately 400 homicide victims from three metropolitan areas who were killed in their homes (Kellermann et al. 1993). All died from gunshot wounds. In 83% of the homicides, the perpetrator was identified; among these cases, 95% of the time, the perpetrator was not a stranger. In only 14% of all the cases was there evidence of forced entry. After controlling for illicit drug use, fights, arrests, living alone, and whether the home was rented, the presence of a gun in the home remained strongly associated with an increased risk for homicide in the home. Gun ownership was most strongly associated with an increased risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.[5]

[. . . ]

Household firearm ownership has also been consistently found to be a strong predictor of suicide risk in studies that examined individual-level data. U.S. case-control studies find that the presence of a gun in the home or purchase from a licensed dealer is a risk factor for suicide (Bailey et al. 1997, Brent et al. 1993, Brent et al. 1994, Brent et al. 1991, Brent et al.1988, Conwell et al. 2002, Cummings et al. 1997, Kellermann et al. 1992, Grassel et al. 2003, Kung, Pearson, and Lui 2003, Wiebe 2003). The relative risk is large (two- to tenfold), depending on the age group and, for younger persons, how firearms in the home are stored (Miller and Hemenway 1999, Brent et al. 1991, Kellermann et al. 1992).​

Citing a study that examined all gunshot injuries (both fatal and non-fatal) in the home occurring in Memphis TN, Seattle WA, and Galveston TX from 1992-1994 in which the gun involved was known to be kept in the home, Hemenway reports the findings:

Home guns were 4 times more likely to be involved in an accident, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used in an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.[99]​

So how does one account for the contradiction between the primary reason that the majority of gun-owners assert for owning a gun and the findings showing that guns in the home increase the risk of death or injury to a family member or acquaintance while providing no significant protection to persons in the home, and the defensive use of guns outside of the home is extremely rare and more often results in injury to the victim than simply running away, hiding, and calling the police?

Analogously, if someone were to profess that he eats 4 tablespoons of salt every evening as a diuretic in order to lower his high blood pressure, most of us would recognize the (apparent) contradiction between his declared reason and the facts relating to consumption of that amount of salt. And there would seem to be limited ways to account for this contradiction: (a) the person is delusional, holding a false belief despite knowing the evidence to the contrary; (b) the person is merely ignorant of the evidence relating to salt; (c) the person is lying (there is some other reason he eats all that salt). At least, unlike the case with gun-owning, we cannot say that the person is knowledgeable of but indifferent to the risks to friends and/or family members due to his exorbitant consumption of salt.

It seems there are limited ways to account for the contradiction between gun-owners' declared reasons for gun-owning and the facts about gun-owning. How does one account for the contradiction?

It’s good old fashioned paranoia coupled with an insistence that the paranoia is justified which is more dangerous than the danger people want to protect themselves from. Let me give an example.

I live in a pretty quiet neighborhood. I have a neighbor who I am pretty good friends with who owns guns. Ok it’s his right etc. One time someone rings their doorbell at midnight he would have greeted them with a gun but nobody was there. He told me al about it wondering if people were going around houses bugging people. Ok great he is a neighborhood watch. So they have kids like me. I have also heard his elementary kid say “I’m gonna go get my dads gun” when arguing with neighbor kids. I will tell you what, that volatile situation scares me more than the chances some gangster will come try and ransack our houses. Makes me happy not to have any guns and I’m not going to go arming my elementary kids either. I’m also glad that my kids are nice to everyone my goodness.

 

[Nakosis]

One thing that I didn't make clear is that, except in the case of suicide, the risks of having guns in the home are not mostly risks to the gun-owner, but are greater for the intimate partner, children or others related to or known by the gun-owner.

I understood the safety risks.
My son plans on buying a gun. He has two small children and another one on the way.

He's very liberal, hates Trumps and voted for Bernie. Still feels gun ownership is a right. Plans to purchase a biometric gun safe as a responsible parent.

Me, I didn't want a gun in the house when my kids were here. They're moved out so now I'm thinking of purchasing one.

Why? Cause it's fun. Never owned a gun before but when I was 7, my uncle took me out to a hill, put a pistol in my hands and had me shoot at tin cans. ROTC I got some marksman medals. Went on a holiday trip were they had clay pigeons which I was pretty good at.

Shooting is a skill. Like other sports.

I have no good other reason, since I live in a city to possess a gun.

However, there are other folks who live in rural areas were there is no police presence. They cannot depend on law enforcement for protection. Even Calif, with it's strict gun laws recognizes this and allows open carry in these areas.

So there are folks with perhaps more justifiable reasons to own a gun than someone like me.

I doubt that I'll ever be using a gun for home protection or keeping keeping a tyrannical government at bay from my front door.

 

[Nakosis]

How about a titular option that you're wrong?
Your title screams out that anyone who'd disagree is just plain ignant & crazy.
Smells like sanctimony & hubris, rather than an invitation to discuss the issues.

Your cited statistics don't recognize differences among gun owners, eg,
race, family, mental health, training, location, gender, profession.
Nor do they take into account armed self defense outside the home.
(The reason my handgun is at home is because that's where I store it
when at home, not because I anticipate self defense there.)
I've been thru these statistical arguments on other threads, yet I
don't recall your challenging anything I've posted there.

Well, I'm generally ok with gun ownership.

So what's the main reason you want to be able to own a gun?

Do you feel your need it for self protection? Which maybe the case if you're one of those that live in a rural area.

 

[Father Heathen]

What are you saying is "low"?

From your own post: "The main reason people give for having a handgun in the home is protection, typically against stranger violence. However, it is important to recognize that the home is a relatively safe place, especially from strangers. For example, fewer than 30% of burglaries in the United States (2003-2007) occur when someone is at home. In the 7% of burglaries when violence does occur, the burglar is more likely to be an intimate (current or former) and also more likely to be a relative or known acquaintance than a stranger.[78] Although people typically spend most of their time at home, only 5% of all the crimes of violence perpetrated by strangers occur at home.[79]"

 

[Nous]

From your own post: "The main reason people give for having a handgun in the home is protection, typically against stranger violence. However, it is important to recognize that the home is a relatively safe place, especially from strangers. For example, fewer than 30% of burglaries in the United States (2003-2007) occur when someone is at home. In the 7% of burglaries when violence does occur, the burglar is more likely to be an intimate (current or former) and also more likely to be a relative or known acquaintance than a stranger.[78] Although people typically spend most of their time at home, only 5% of all the crimes of violence perpetrated by strangers occur at home.[79]"

So, what is it you're saying is "low" (which you seemed to indicate explains something)?

 

[David1967]

How about a titular option that you're wrong?
Your title screams out that anyone who'd disagree is just plain ignant & crazy.
Smells like sanctimony & hubris, rather than an invitation to discuss the issues.

Your cited statistics don't recognize differences among gun owners, eg,
race, family, mental health, training, location, gender, profession.
Nor do they take into account armed self defense outside the home.
(The reason my handgun is at home is because that's where I store it
when at home, not because I anticipate self defense there.)
I've been thru these statistical arguments on other threads, yet I
don't recall your challenging anything I've posted there.

Great answer Rev.

 

[suncowiam]

How do you account for the contradiction between gun-owners' stated reasons for having guns and the facts showing the greater risks and lack of protection personal guns provide both inside and outside the home?

You're talking about an assessment made by a professor of Harvard. So what we're really talking about is the conclusion made by a professional.

I have no professional credibility to refute his conclusion.

But Revoltingest did point out another professor from the university of Florida I believe. I forget his name, but his study suggested that there could be.

So I just agreed that I'm no professional and let the professionals duke it out.

All I'm saying that in today's climate, the worst case scenario that you are defending against is male criminal(s) with gun(s), legal or not.

It's the perfect NRA equation to proliferate gun ownership. It's a feedback loop to increase the amount of guns into the equation with every new generation/iteration.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[Nous]

Me, I didn't want a gun in the house when my kids were here. They're moved out so now I'm thinking of purchasing one.

Why? Cause it's fun.

Only 30% of the respondents on the Pew survey said that they have a gun for "sport shooting"--which I suppose would correspond to your claims about owning a gun would be "fun". So why do many gun-owners supposedly lie about their reasons for having a gun?

 

[suncowiam]

I understood the safety risks.
My son plans on buying a gun. He has two small children and another one on the way.

He's very liberal, hates Trumps and voted for Bernie. Still feels gun ownership is a right. Plans to purchase a biometric gun safe as a responsible parent.

Me, I didn't want a gun in the house when my kids were here. They're moved out so now I'm thinking of purchasing one.

Why? Cause it's fun. Never owned a gun before but when I was 7, my uncle took me out to a hill, put a pistol in my hands and had me shoot at tin cans. ROTC I got some marksman medals. Went on a holiday trip were they had clay pigeons which I was pretty good at.

Shooting is a skill. Like other sports.

I have no good other reason, since I live in a city to possess a gun.

However, there are other folks who live in rural areas were there is no police presence. They cannot depend on law enforcement for protection. Even Calif, with it's strict gun laws recognizes this and allows open carry in these areas.

So there are folks with perhaps more justifiable reasons to own a gun than someone like me.

I doubt that I'll ever be using a gun for home protection or keeping keeping a tyrannical government at bay from my front door.

I just want to point out one minor technicality.

Saying that you never cared about guns before the age of seven, doesn't really suggest that much.

I never cared about females or sex before the age of seven either. Look what I turned out to be... =P

 

[Nous]

But Revoltingest did point out another professor from the university of Florida I believe. I forget his name, but his study suggested that there could be.

A "study suggested that there could be" what? Cite whatever study you are referring to?

I cited a couple of review articles. Since you haven't responded to my question, I continue to ask: How do you account for the contradiction between the primary reason that the majority of gun-owners assert for owning a gun and the consistent findings of studies showing that guns in the home increase the risk of death or injury to a family member or acquaintance while providing no significant protection to persons in the home, and the defensive use of guns outside of the home is extremely rare and more often results in injury to the victim than simply running away, hiding, and calling the police?

 

[esmith]

How do you account for the contradiction between gun-owners' declared primary reason for having guns and the empirical facts?
I merely asked how you account for the contradiction between the majority of gun-owners' stated reasons for owning a gun and the findings of the studies relating to guns in the home and outside of the home.

You need to read the studies before you dismiss the findings. Be sure to cite any study whose methods you criticize.

Well maybe the question was stated wrong. I would like to see what they were asked....exact words, not guesses.
Once you provide that maybe you will get a answer you may or may not like. Until then continue to guess.

 

[Nous]

Great answer Rev.

So how do you account for the contradiction between gun-owners' declared reasons for gun-owning and the consistent findings of studies about gun-owning?

 

[Nous]

Well maybe the question was stated wrong. I would like to see what they were asked....exact words, not guesses.

All of the studies that I looked at that were cited in the review articles were available online. Google Scholar is your friend: https://scholar.google.com

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Go to twitter and look up just how many Leftists think that gun owners, Republicans, and pretty much everyone they disagree with should be shot.

 

[Father Heathen]

So, what is it you're saying is "low" (which you seemed to indicate explains something)?

You're not asking me to explain your own post to you, are you?

 

[David1967]

So how do you account for the contradiction between gun-owners' declared reasons for gun-owning and the consistent findings of studies about gun-owning?

I don't. Nor do I try. I complimented Revs answer because he gave a detailed common sense answer. (IMO of course) Why do I have a gun? Three reasons; One, for self defense. Two, Because it is fun to shoot. Three, for a duty weapon.

 

[suncowiam]

A "study suggested that there could be" what? Cite whatever study you are referring to?

I cited a couple of review articles. Since you haven't responded to my question, I continue to ask: How do you account for the contradiction between the primary reason that the majority of gun-owners assert for owning a gun and the consistent findings of studies showing that guns in the home increase the risk of death or injury to a family member or acquaintance while providing no significant protection to persons in the home, and the defensive use of guns outside of the home is extremely rare and more often results in injury to the victim than simply running away, hiding, and calling the police?

I told you. I cannot.

It's your assertion backed by the professor of Harvard and his studies.

What more do you want me to say?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If we got rid of stupid people, guns nor drugs would be the killers people make them out to be.

Indeed. We could also get rid of robbery and assault laws. But using historical precedent as a measure indicates this is unlikely...

 

[Audie]

Is what you are "pretty sure" of based on evidence? If so, cite it.

Are you pretty sure that all studies are done with
pure objectivity in mind? Nobody ever misleads with stat s for partisan purposes?

Your present basically that gun owners are morally weak or simply insane. Oddly, having know quite a few, they none of them struck me that way. But maybe you know better.

Back when I did own a gun, and my boyfriend instructed me in its use, he pointed out how the studies
or, "studies" that one sees cited are partisan and dishonest is ways such as, say, giving the number of people killed "by guns" in a year. All in one number, as if all were senseless tragedies.

Why dont you break it down for us yourself?

How many, say, are badguys killed by police, how
many are badguys killed by citizens in self defense?


Those are tossed in to the total, as if they are equivalent and as tragic / reprehensible etc, as
a negligent discharge in the home killing a toddler.

The lady instructor told of her one time, using a gun for self defense. Road rage; she pulled into a gas station.
The guy followed, got out, ran to her car. She
was pointing a pistol when he got there. He reversed course, and all was well. That was not in the news, it is not part of your stats.

What do you think she should have done?