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

[suncowiam]

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.

Skepticism is fine and dandy but it sure helps with a study of your own plus a life professional career to back it up like Kleck had.

Gary Kleck - Wikipedia

IMO, Kleck is credible.

I see many here also stated their skepticism but didn't offer much else outside of opinions still.

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

Target, plinking & even hunting.
A friend uses an M1A Supermatch I sold him to hunt deer & elk
It's a great long distance rifled (1 MOA @ 1000 yards).

 

[blü 2]

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

Not forgetting that about 60% of gun deaths are suicides. In countries where guns aren't freely available other forms of suicide aren't as successful, so the survival rate is noticeably higher.

(Which brings up the problem of mental health, disability, their very strong links to crime, and whether it's cheaper to spend on mental health and disability than on more and more jails.)

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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

What kind of self protection you taking about? I lived on a farm all my life and the only gun we ever had was dispatching suffering animals outside vet hours, and we later traded that in for a bolt gun.
Guard animals, cleared brush for visibility (And fire safety) was the best protection from human and non-human animal intruders.
(And yes, bear country and cougar country here.)

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The same arguement can be said of cars.

No it can't. Neverminding that it's already much harder to get a car and have all your legal paperwork in a row with it, and car usage is strictly regulated with both safety and competency training, their utility cannot be compared either.

Out infrstructure requires cars for the vast majority of Americans to have jobs, goods and service access. If we removed cars from civilian life it would cause tangible, immediate and widespread suffering. Guns simply wouldn't.

For the vast majority of gun owners, guns are toys.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

I never locked my doors, and my parents have went on vacation and left the main door open to so a swinging screen door could be open and closed by their dogs and cats to go outside and do their business. Crime isn't totally non-existant, but it's quite rare. And often it's one or a group of young men who are stealing things for very stupid reasons. Murder is very rare. Suicides and accidents happen though.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Out infrstructure requires cars for the vast majority of Americans to have jobs, goods and service access. If we removed cars from civilian life it would cause tangible, immediate and widespread suffering. Guns simply wouldn't.

Without a car, I wouldn't have a job. And I put a lot of miles on the car I have. But without guns, that's one less thing to be concerned about someone having in the house if they are present with suicidal or homicidal ideations. Guns just aren't doing well at protecting people, but they are very good at ruining and ending lives that otherwise wouldn't have ended. And not even always in a criminal manner.

No it can't. Neverminding that it's already much harder to get a car and have all your legal paperwork in a row with it, and car usage is strictly regulated with both safety and competency training, their utility cannot be compared either.

IMO, cars and guns are two things we must be much more strict with. For both, people should have to pass a competency test every few years, in the presence of another human being.

 

[esmith]

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)

and very biased obviously.

 

[Mister Emu]

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 is no contradiction between the facts you have presented and my position that if someone were to violently invade my home, I want(I have) a gun to fend them off.

All the platitudes and percentages in the world will do nothing for me if it happens. I simply and absolutely will not allow my life and the life of those around me to depend on the timeliness of police response or the mercies of the depraved.

 

[esmith]

So we should regulate guns like we do cars?

No we here in the States do not need Aussies regulating our firearms, you seem to have a very bad record down there.

 

[esmith]

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?

Look up 3 gun shooting event for your answer

Why shouldn't the .223 not be kept in the home.
Maybe you and others would learn something from the following:
About .223 Penetration

Note: the first round is from a .223 not the 9mm

 

[Deeje]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1744073248992726

This is pretty confronting. What kind of a country that claims to be a civilized nation, has to arm themselves against their own citizens? When did fighting violence with violence ever stop violence?

America’s unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and charts
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
Has it got something to do with brainwashing?

How do you explain why 7,000 children, who never got a chance to grow up, that guns are are good idea? I just don't get it.

 

[Deeje]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2004921723097716

The youth of America seem to have more wisdom than its leaders.

 

[Jesster]

I'm a gun owner, but I probably wouldn't be if I had a family. I've had plenty of gun safety training and I accept the responsibility and dangers of owning one. I wouldn't expect anyone else who would live with me to take on the same responsibilities though. Of course, I'm also in favor of much heavier gun regulation than we currently have here.

 

[Stanyon]

All sports have their risks, if you decide to indulge in a sport you accept the risks involved and take certain measures to insure your safety, guns don't load and shoot all by themselves.

 

[Nous]

The same arguement can be said of cars.

Cite the studies that show that owning a car increases the risk of death or injury for oneself, relatives and/or acquaintances.

 

[Nous]

There are also studies (even by the fed) which show otherwise.

Cite them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Cite them.

I have in the linked thread.
I wonder....
Does the thread's title still rule, or do you allow that
some portion of gun owners are informed & rational?

 

[Nous]

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.

The American Association of Suicidology consensus statement on youth suicide concludes:

“There is a positive association between the accessibility and availability of firearms in the home and the risk of youth suicide; guns in the home, particularly loaded guns, are associated with increased risk for suicide by youth, both with and without identifiable mental health problems or suicidal risk factors.”52​

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/84f2/a934b795bae86ec4c6dff842275ef1b25b66.pdf

And, as relevant to the topic of the thread, and as found by one of Kellerman's studies cited in the OP, a gun kept in the home is 11 times more likely to be used in an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to kill or injure in self-defense. Obviously kitchen knives are not more likely to be used in an attempted or completed suicide than for the purpose for which they were purchased--i.e., to slice and chop food items. Correct?

So how do you account for the contradiction between gun-owners' declared reasons for gun-owning and the consistent findings of studies showing increased risk of death or injury from firearms to acquaintances and family members? I didn't see where you answered that question. You diverted into irrelevancies.

 

[Nous]

I have in the linked thread.

There isn't a "linked thread" in the post of yours I responded to. What's your problem with simply citing that you claim are relevant to the topic here? (Or maybe you're not claiming that the studies you refer to are relevant to the topic here?)