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

[Nakosis]

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

Ok, you got me...

 

[Nakosis]

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?

While I can't read other people minds, I suspect because of the political pressure to ban gun in general.

I whish they separated out the rural areas in the studies. Their need for self protection maybe legitimate.

I suspect many though are like me. A little harder to justify gun ownership with all of the gun violence being reported by the media. So grasping at what seems to be a plausible argument even though the reality of their personal situation doesn't actually justify the argument.

I suppose it's really a strawman argument being employed. Tough for both sides to make headway since they are putting up and attacking a strawman and not the actual reasons.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The same arguement can be said of cars.

 

[idav]

The same arguement can be said of cars.

Like street legal cars?

 

[Mindmaster]

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?

Suicidal people will kill themselves with a kitchen knife if that's all they've got, including the stat in the mix for firearms is just misleading. Gun ownership is 1:1 citizen to firearm nationwide and barely any of those weapons ever harms a single soul. Anywhere you live in the USA nearly 50% of your neighbors own a weapon (more if you are in the south), so if it was such a problem you'd know about it.

The actual gun violence is in a mere five US cities, if you deleted them from the stats USA would be 189th in the world on gun violence. Most of those weapons are illegally purchased (either straw purchase or street purchase), and are not typical of the legal gun owner. Legal gun owners the stats are so low you can't even count them. These 4X or 7x more likely numbers for accidental wounding are statistically worthless, only because those numbers are so small to start with do they result in such a large increase. Just to give you an idea:

Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Accidental Gun Deaths and Injuries

Firearms are so low on the list, it's just silly to worry about. A person taking reasonable precautions is perfectly safe keeping a firearm in the home, provided they have a basic knowledge of gun safety.

As far as preventing crimes:

Gun Facts | Gun Control and Crime

Case closed. Most of the time the firearm isn't even fired and prevents the crime, and that's the best possible scenario.

There's plenty of more data on that site most of it is pulled from FBI or CDC databases.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

There are also studies (even by the fed) which show otherwise.
Have you been on the threads where we discussed them?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

I began concealed carry back in the 80s for business reasons.
Landlord...perception of being monied up...managing properties in a couple dangerous areas.
Few permits were issued in those days, & the licensing board agreed that I had a need.
But it wasn't for home defense. I never carried at home, so I kept it in a safe.
I do live in a rural area, but we have very little violent crime here.
But I've dealt with a few violent types, murderers, & one serial killer.
I managed to avoid physical assault except for one occasion, but
I fended the guy off without using my handgun. To shoot anyone
would be horrible all around, so it's best avoided if possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Here's a thread where it's discussed....
A collection of gun/gun control/ gun culture links for your research pleasure
Even professionals have their personal agendas, so it pays to become familiar
with their arguments. Even though I cite Kleck's work, I discount it by an order
of magnitude to bring it in line with the fed study. Both have their limitations, &
one needn't be an expert on statistics or guns to apply some skepticism.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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?

IMHO American gun culture is largely built on two points; misinformation, i.e. the myth of "the good guy with a gun" coupled with the myth that "random evildoers are just waiting for a chance to do you harm", both perpetuated by pop-culture and the 24 hour news cycle, and simple Freudian insecurity, i.e. guns make you feel big, tough and cool.

Now, like most things, in moderation these concepts are fairly benign. In the US, however, they are enabled by the culture and politics almost to the point of holy reverence.

I don't believe the types of gun owner who uses PRATTs as justification is necessarily willfully dishonest, or indifferent, more likely a victim of confirmation bias and a lack of critical thinking/evidence based practice skills.

(Written by long time and current gun owner and user)

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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

Which is why metastudies are important.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

To add some perspective here.....
I grew up with guns, & a father who didn't teach me much about safety.
He was a bad example when it came go gun responsibility.
I picked up more knowledge when joining my high school rifle team.
We formally competed against other schools around the state.
The rifle range was a very strict place, with a perfect safety record.
So the school had no problem with our bringing our target rifles to
school on the days we practiced. The school even had loaner rifles.
So I have pretty high expectations for safe gun handling....& I'm at
the ready to correct errors when I see them.

 

[blü 2]

The same arguement can be said of cars.

The death rate on the roads, they say, will fall dramatically when cars &c become autonomous and programmed to be safe.

Can we look forward to a time when guns will only discharge when aimed at bad guys?

 

[Audie]

I began concealed carry back in the 80s for business reasons.
Landlord...perception of being monied up...managing properties in a couple dangerous areas.
Few permits were issued in those days, & the licensing board agreed that I had a need.
But it wasn't for home defense. I never carried at home, so I kept it in a safe.
I do live in a rural area, but we have very little violent crime here.
But I've dealt with a few violent types, murderers, & one serial killer.
I managed to avoid physical assault except for one occasion, but
I fended the guy off without using my handgun. To shoot anyone
would be horrible all around, so it's best avoided if possible.

See-I did not manage to fend it off. All of my 5 ft, 100+ or - lbs wasnt,
inn't enough to scare anyone.

I dont have a gun now-totally iloegal here anyway- but I wish I'd
had one then.

The people who say "good guy (or gal) with a gun is a myth"
are not individuals who've been in the hands of someone who
wishes them harm.

 

[Revoltingest]

See-I did not manage to fend it off. All of my 5 ft, 100+ or - lbs wasnt,
inn't enough to scare anyone.

I dont have a gun now-totally iloegal here anyway- but I wish I'd
had one then.

The people who say "good guy (or gal) with a gun is a myth
are not individuals who've been in the hands of someone who
wishes them harm.

I'm glad you survived to post here.
(Selfish, ain't I?)
You prepare & take care now, ya hear.

Btw, you can say more about it, if that's appropriate.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The same arguement can be said of cars.

So we should regulate guns like we do cars?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The death rate on the roads, they say, will fall dramatically when cars &c become autonomous and programmed to be safe.

Can we look forward to a time when guns will only discharge when aimed at bad guys?

That's not a bad idea and probably not too far off in the future. I see smart locks on guns in the future as well by which the firearm can only be operated by its owner.

Still the argument is, the criminal world will find ways to get around that, but in general something like that could feasibly work in reducing accidents or a person just grabbing the weapon and using it illegally.

Smart gun - Wikipedia

 

[Twilight Hue]

So we should regulate guns like we do cars?

Well I don't think licensure is too bad as long as it isn't made so difficult that only a few will ever be authorized a gun license.

I think it should run along similar lines like a person would need to go about getting a car license, passing a written test and be permitted to test fire on a range to show/ demonstrate that you can handle and operate a firearm safely then you'll be issued a license to carry.

Like our driving licenses people should be allowed to apply for new testing in the event of a failure until they can pass the required tests.

 

[Nakosis]

I began concealed carry back in the 80s for business reasons.
Landlord...perception of being monied up...managing properties in a couple dangerous areas.
Few permits were issued in those days, & the licensing board agreed that I had a need.
But it wasn't for home defense. I never carried at home, so I kept it in a safe.
I do live in a rural area, but we have very little violent crime here.
But I've dealt with a few violent types, murderers, & one serial killer.
I managed to avoid physical assault except for one occasion, but
I fended the guy off without using my handgun. To shoot anyone
would be horrible all around, so it's best avoided if possible.

I agree that I would never desire to be in a position to actually shot someone.

The US has a gun culture, it is a cultural/social part of the US.

I do not want gun violence in any form. I support any reasonable steps to get guns out of the hands of those likely to abuse the right.

I don't think there is any reason for civilians to have assault or automatic weapons in their home. There's no skill or sport associated with these weapons. However perhaps a gun club or government regulated facility so the Rambo types can get their jollies.

I have a right to bear arms as long as it can be seen that I am a reasonable responsible person with regards to that right.

That right shouldn't be taken from me because of the actions of criminals. The ability of the government to take away that right should be specific to me. Either my failure to be responsible or proven inability to be responsible.

I don't think more guns will reduce gun violence, I don't think restricting guns from law abiding citizens will reduce gun violence. Banning and removing all guns from the US may have some effect on the ability of criminals to get guns but if they really want to get guns, I don't think there is any way to prevent that.

What I think is delusional is the belief that banning guns from law abiding citizens will have a major impact on actual gun violence.

Suicides, accidental shooting is a separate issue which should be addressed but needs to be addressed separately.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree that I would never desire to be in a position to actually shot someone.

The US has a gun culture, it is a cultural/social part of the US.

I do not want gun violence in any form. I support any reasonable steps to get guns out of the hands of those likely to abuse the right.

I don't think there is any reason for civilians to have assault or automatic weapons in their home. There's no skill or sport associated with these weapons. However perhaps a gun club or government regulated facility so the Rambo types can get their jollies.

I have a right to bear arms as long as it can be seen that I am a reasonable responsible person with regards to that right.

That right shouldn't be taken from me because of the actions of criminals. The ability of the government to take away that right should be specific to me. Either my failure to be responsible or proven inability to be responsible.

I don't think more guns will reduce gun violence, I don't think restricting guns from law abiding citizens will reduce gun violence. Banning and removing all guns from the US may have some effect on the ability of criminals to get guns but if they really want to get guns, I don't think there is any way to prevent that.

What I think is delusional is the belief that banning guns from law abiding citizens will have a major impact on actual gun violence.

Suicides, accidental shooting is a separate issue which should be addressed but needs to be addressed separately.

There is great sporting value to military style weapons.
But I understand that the appeal isn't universal.

 

[Nakosis]

There is great sporting value to military style weapons.
But I understand that the appeal isn't universal.

I'm just saying I don't think they need to be kept in the home.

Maybe special permits for collectors.

What kind of sporting event uses assault rifles?