Guns vs. the lottery

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A light bulb went off for me today.

For the average person, keeping guns for "self-defense" is foolish: just looking at the balance of probabilities, a gun in the home is many times more likely to be used against someone who lives in the home than against an intruder.

This is kind of like the lottery: just looking at the probabilities, trying to get rich by buying lottery tickets makes about as much sense as trying to kill yourself by flying on commercial airliners. The odds of "success" are roughly the same in both cases (with allowances for the fact that the odds of winning vary from lottery to lottery).

When I was younger and more of a know-it-all, I asked my mom why she would buy lottery tickets, considering she has a math degree and ought to fully understand the odds and the expected value of a ticket.

She told me that the odds of winning were secondary; what she was doing by buying her one lottery ticket a week was a psychological trick on herself: it gave her "permission" to dream about winning, and that experience was worth the $2 or whatever the price of a ticket was at the time.

So... today's light bulb: it seems to me that guns bought for "defensive" use serve a similar purpose: while the math shows that the cost-benefit ratio is generally negative, never mind poor, the act of purchasing a gun can give someone "permission" to engage in fantasies about being a protector or the like, which would be appealing to certain personality types.

The main difference between these things, of course, is that keeping a gun in the house has a significant chance of killing a loved one and spending a few bucks on a weekly lottery ticket doesn't.

Thoughts?

 

[Alien826]

I think gun supporters will say that a "responsible" gun owner will, by following certain guidelines, have a much lower chance of his gun being misused than the average gun owner. It's like the careful driver who has a lot less chance of being killed or injured on the road than the overall statistics suggest.

I welcome correction, but I can't see how a gun locked away in a safe, with ammunition stored separately, can be much use when an intruder appears in your house, with his own gun loaded and ready.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A light bulb went off for me today.

For the average person, keeping guns for "self-defense" is foolish: just looking at the balance of probabilities, a gun in the home is many times more likely to be used against someone who lives in the home than against an intruder.

This is kind of like the lottery: just looking at the probabilities, trying to get rich by buying lottery tickets makes about as much sense as trying to kill yourself by flying on commercial airliners. The odds of "success" are roughly the same in both cases (with allowances for the fact that the odds of winning vary from lottery to lottery).

When I was younger and more of a know-it-all, I asked my mom why she would buy lottery tickets, considering she has a math degree and ought to fully understand the odds and the expected value of a ticket.

She told me that the odds of winning were secondary; what she was doing by buying her one lottery ticket a week was a psychological trick on herself: it gave her "permission" to dream about winning, and that experience was worth the $2 or whatever the price of a ticket was at the time.

So... today's light bulb: it seems to me that guns bought for "defensive" use serve a similar purpose: while the math shows that the cost-benefit ratio is generally negative, never mind poor, the act of purchasing a gun can give someone "permission" to engage in fantasies about being a protector or the like, which would be appealing to certain personality types.

The main difference between these things, of course, is that keeping a gun in the house has a significant chance of killing a loved one and spending a few bucks on a weekly lottery ticket doesn't.

Thoughts?

Well, to be honest, it sounds eerily like an argument for religious belief, too.

 

[Revoltingest]

A light bulb went off for me today.

For the average person, keeping guns for "self-defense" is foolish: just looking at the balance of probabilities, a gun in the home is many times more likely to be used against someone who lives in the home than against an intruder.

Your statistics are general, & don't apply to the segment
of the gun owning population who are properly trained,
& use secure storage.
This points to the usefulness of requiring both training
& secure storage. This would have positive results, &
it wouldn't violate the 2nd Amendment.
There would be some yelling from the right, but I have
ear protection.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think gun supporters will say that a "responsible" gun owner will, by following certain guidelines, have a much lower chance of his gun being misused than the average gun owner. It's like the careful driver who has a lot less chance of being killed or injured on the road than the overall statistics suggest.

I welcome correction, but I can't see how a gun locked away in a safe, with ammunition stored separately, can be much use when an intruder appears in your house, with his own gun loaded and ready.

I store mine in a rapid access safe, with the magazine already in place.
It seems an optimum balance between safety & ability to use quickly.
But I always keep it chamber-empty. The process of racking the slide
to chamber a round is a conscious step that takes little time, yet it
avoids accidental discharge.

 

[Alien826]

I store mine in a rapid access safe, with the magazine already in place.
It seems an optimum balance between safety & ability to use quickly.
But I always keep it chamber-empty. The process of racking the slide
to chamber a round is a conscious step that takes little time, yet it
avoids accidental discharge.

Walk me through it. (Just for my interest).

You are in bed asleep and a suspicious noise wakes you. Is your kilt handy or are you more scary without it? Where is the gun safe? How long to get to it? How long to get the gun out? Do you need to put the light on to open the safe?

IRL, does the sound of someone "racking" the bullet really strike fear into the hearts of miscreants, or is that just in movies?

 

[Revoltingest]

Walk me through it. (Just for my interest).

You are in bed asleep and a suspicious noise wakes you. Is your kilt handy or are you more scary without it?

First, I'd listen to the noise for a bit to discern what it might be.
It would have to be out of the ordinary in a house filled with 2
other people & 2 cats to seem dangerous. (Supicious noises
abound.)
But if deemed a threat, I might go down the hall to a closet
where my Glock is in a safe. It could be useful if investigation
revealed a real threat.

IRL, does the sound of someone "racking" the bullet really strike fear into the hearts of miscreants, or is that just in movies?

One "racks the slide".
It's possible that might send a useful message.
But I'd also initiate a discussion.

 

[Alien826]

First, I'd listen to the noise for a bit to discern what it might be.
It would have to be out of the ordinary in a house filled with 2
other people & 2 cats to seem dangerous. (Supicious noises
abound.)
But if deemed a threat, I might go down the hall to a closet
where my Glock is in a safe. It could be useful if investigation
revealed a real threat.

I was trying to find out how long it would take and how easy it would be to get the gun out of the safe. I guess "down the hall" (from the bedroom?) is easy enough, but how quickly can the safe be opened?

 

[Revoltingest]

I was trying to find out how long it would take and how easy it would be to get the gun out of the safe. I guess "down the hall" (from the bedroom?) is easy enough, but how quickly can the safe be opened?

I've never timed this scenario.
My philosophy is to allow for time to consider
a decision with grave consequences.
Estimating....
5 seconds to go to the closet down the hall.
3 seconds to open the safe.
(It's a rapid access safe with pushbuttons
that one feels rather than sees.)

I know one guy who feels that being able
to shoot as quickly as possible is important.
I find that attitude dangerous, given that
we're not old west gunslingers.
I'm more concerned with taking time to
grok the situation (before acting).

 

[Twilight Hue]

A light bulb went off for me today.

For the average person, keeping guns for "self-defense" is foolish: just looking at the balance of probabilities, a gun in the home is many times more likely to be used against someone who lives in the home than against an intruder.

This is kind of like the lottery: just looking at the probabilities, trying to get rich by buying lottery tickets makes about as much sense as trying to kill yourself by flying on commercial airliners. The odds of "success" are roughly the same in both cases (with allowances for the fact that the odds of winning vary from lottery to lottery).

When I was younger and more of a know-it-all, I asked my mom why she would buy lottery tickets, considering she has a math degree and ought to fully understand the odds and the expected value of a ticket.

She told me that the odds of winning were secondary; what she was doing by buying her one lottery ticket a week was a psychological trick on herself: it gave her "permission" to dream about winning, and that experience was worth the $2 or whatever the price of a ticket was at the time.

So... today's light bulb: it seems to me that guns bought for "defensive" use serve a similar purpose: while the math shows that the cost-benefit ratio is generally negative, never mind poor, the act of purchasing a gun can give someone "permission" to engage in fantasies about being a protector or the like, which would be appealing to certain personality types.

The main difference between these things, of course, is that keeping a gun in the house has a significant chance of killing a loved one and spending a few bucks on a weekly lottery ticket doesn't.

Thoughts?

Keeping a car has a significant chance someone might be killed too.

 

[Curious George]

A light bulb went off for me today.

For the average person, keeping guns for "self-defense" is foolish: just looking at the balance of probabilities, a gun in the home is many times more likely to be used against someone who lives in the home than against an intruder.

This is kind of like the lottery: just looking at the probabilities, trying to get rich by buying lottery tickets makes about as much sense as trying to kill yourself by flying on commercial airliners. The odds of "success" are roughly the same in both cases (with allowances for the fact that the odds of winning vary from lottery to lottery).

When I was younger and more of a know-it-all, I asked my mom why she would buy lottery tickets, considering she has a math degree and ought to fully understand the odds and the expected value of a ticket.

She told me that the odds of winning were secondary; what she was doing by buying her one lottery ticket a week was a psychological trick on herself: it gave her "permission" to dream about winning, and that experience was worth the $2 or whatever the price of a ticket was at the time.

So... today's light bulb: it seems to me that guns bought for "defensive" use serve a similar purpose: while the math shows that the cost-benefit ratio is generally negative, never mind poor, the act of purchasing a gun can give someone "permission" to engage in fantasies about being a protector or the like, which would be appealing to certain personality types.

The main difference between these things, of course, is that keeping a gun in the house has a significant chance of killing a loved one and spending a few bucks on a weekly lottery ticket doesn't.

Thoughts?

Several thoughts. Why lottery? Why not say making it into the NBA. Both are unlikely. However, you must admit that with the proper training and genetics, LeBron had a pretty good chance of making it.

Now the “odds” you are discussing are certainly not as slim as a person making the NBA or winning the lotto. In fact, the odds of a gun in the home being used against you or harming a family member are much more akin to those odds.

But, the point here is that certain conditions which are in the gun owners control are likely to turn your ratio on its head. So, if a person properly stores a gun, if a person doesn’t have others in their home to access the gun, if a person has proper training, if a person educates their children about gun safety… and the list goes on…

The risk you are trying to convey can be mitigated by many factors. Yet, you choose an analogy that doesn’t really comport? Why?

To your overall theme, yeah, I suppose some do derive a good feeling based on fantasizing that they are protecting or could protect their family or home. I think you may need to survey people who actually carry guns or have them in their home, but I can certainly see how your suggestion could be true for some.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Keeping a car has a significant chance someone might be killed too.

Yes, but that gets into a value judgment: how much is personal mobility worth vs. how much is the risk of killing someone with my car worth?

I agree that people make similar math errors when it comes to the risks associated with driving, but driving at least really is an apples-to-oranges question that can vary based on a person's own values even if all the math is correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A light bulb went off for me today.

For the average person, keeping guns for "self-defense" is foolish: just looking at the balance of probabilities, a gun in the home is many times more likely to be used against someone who lives in the home than against an intruder.

This is kind of like the lottery: just looking at the probabilities, trying to get rich by buying lottery tickets makes about as much sense as trying to kill yourself by flying on commercial airliners. The odds of "success" are roughly the same in both cases (with allowances for the fact that the odds of winning vary from lottery to lottery).

When I was younger and more of a know-it-all, I asked my mom why she would buy lottery tickets, considering she has a math degree and ought to fully understand the odds and the expected value of a ticket.

She told me that the odds of winning were secondary; what she was doing by buying her one lottery ticket a week was a psychological trick on herself: it gave her "permission" to dream about winning, and that experience was worth the $2 or whatever the price of a ticket was at the time.

So... today's light bulb: it seems to me that guns bought for "defensive" use serve a similar purpose: while the math shows that the cost-benefit ratio is generally negative, never mind poor, the act of purchasing a gun can give someone "permission" to engage in fantasies about being a protector or the like, which would be appealing to certain personality types.

The main difference between these things, of course, is that keeping a gun in the house has a significant chance of killing a loved one and spending a few bucks on a weekly lottery ticket doesn't.

Thoughts?

I have to agree with @Revoltingest , statistics like the one that you mentioned usually only count the times that a gun is fired. But most cases of self defenses with a gun is merely brandishing it.

One biased study deserves another. This article claims that guns were used in self defense 1.7 million times a year. 82% of the time no shotts are fired. So not even warning shots. If your source only counts the times that the weapon was actually fired, or even worse fired at someone, that would make it very very wrong:

The largest-ever survey of American gun owners finds that defensive use of firearms is common

A large survey of American gun owners suggests that they use firearms for self-defense about 1.7 million times a year.

reason.com

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have to agree with @Revoltingest ,

I have him on ignore, so I didn't see whatever he posted.

statistics like the one that you mentioned usually only count the times that a gun is fired.

Yes, of course. I said that a gun kept in the house for "defense" is more likely to kill someone living in the house than an intruder.

I suppose there might be some edge cases involving bludgeoning a person to death with a gun, but virtually all firearm deaths will involve firing the firearm.

But most cases of self defenses with a gun is merely brandishing it.

Of course, if we're counting those as "self defense," then we should also be counting times brandishing without firing in domestic violence stats, too.

One biased study deserves another. This article claims that guns were used in self defense 1.7 million times a year. 82% of the time no shotts are fired. So not even warning shots. If your source only counts the times that the weapon was actually fired, or even worse fired at someone, that would make it very very wrong:

The largest-ever survey of American gun owners finds that defensive use of firearms is common

A large survey of American gun owners suggests that they use firearms for self-defense about 1.7 million times a year.

reason.com

No, not wrong. I gave the framing when I gave the stats: if you look at the cases where a gun in the home killed someone, it's more often someone who lived in the home than an intruder.

Those self-reported stats you're citing seem to me pretty well useless. Not only do we have all the reliability problems associated with self-reported data, we would need to be clairvoyant to tell whether any case of brandishing a firearm actually saved a life.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have him on ignore, so I didn't see whatever he posted.

That's why you don't understand the issues,
ie, you don't listen to opposing views.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have to agree with @Revoltingest , statistics like the one that you mentioned usually only count the times that a gun is fired. But most cases of self defenses with a gun is merely brandishing it.

One biased study deserves another. This article claims that guns were used in self defense 1.7 million times a year. 82% of the time no shotts are fired. So not even warning shots. If your source only counts the times that the weapon was actually fired, or even worse fired at someone, that would make it very very wrong:

The largest-ever survey of American gun owners finds that defensive use of firearms is common

A large survey of American gun owners suggests that they use firearms for self-defense about 1.7 million times a year.

reason.com

This also comports with experience of 2 posters on RF.
(No names, but we've discussed it.)
Such cases never made the news.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have him on ignore, so I didn't see whatever he posted.


Yes, of course. I said that a gun kept in the house for "defense" is more likely to kill someone living in the house than an intruder.

I suppose there might be some edge cases involving bludgeoning a person to death with a gun, but virtually all firearm deaths will involve firing the firearm.


Of course, if we're counting those as "self defense," then we should also be counting times brandishing without firing in domestic violence stats, too.

No, not wrong. I gave the framing when I gave the stats: if you look at the cases where a gun in the home killed someone, it's more often someone who lived in the home than an intruder.

Those self-reported stats you're citing seem to me pretty well useless. Not only do we have all the reliability problems associated with self-reported data, we would need to be clairvoyant to tell whether any case of brandishing a firearm actually saved a life.

The claim was never that it "saved a life" brandishing merely ends the attack or robbery or whatever. It is unrealistic to make it all about "kill or be killed".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The claim was never that it "saved a life" brandishing merely ends the attack or robbery or whatever. It is unrealistic to make it all about "kill or be killed".

Focusing on the death toll is a valid perspective about the issue of "defensive" firearm use.

And if we're going to expand the scope to look at "defensive" brandishing of weapons in response to property crimes, then other measures have to be brought into the discussion for a full picture (e.g. insurance or non-lethal physical security measures).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Focusing on the death toll is a valid perspective about the issue of "defensive" firearm use.

And if we're going to expand the scope to look at "defensive" brandishing of weapons in response to property crimes, then other measures have to be brought into the discussion for a full picture (e.g. insurance or non-lethal physical security measures).

I would disagree with that. Quite often the threat might result in serious bodily harm. If one has a reasonable fear of either death or bodily harm and brandishing a weapon ends the threat that is a valid self defense use of a weapon. It is not wise to push for an unreasonable argument. The goal has to be reasonable gun control. You won't pass gun control if you are unreasonable no matter how you feel.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would disagree with that. Quite often the threat might result in serious bodily harm.

Depends on the threat, of course.

If one has a reasonable fear of either death or bodily harm and brandishing a weapon ends the threat that is a valid self defense use of a weapon.

Are your "defensive" gun use stats only for cases where the person had a reasonable fear of death, or do they also include cases where, say, a homeowner grabbed a gun to try to stop an unarmed burglar from stealing their insured lawn mower from the garage?

Edit: do they also take into account cases where someone could have taken more basic security measures to prevent the situation from occurring? I mean, if an armed intruder got in because a door was left unlocked overnight, then the solution is to lock the door, not to get a gun.

It is not wise to push for an unreasonable argument. The goal has to be reasonable gun control. You won't pass gun control if you are unreasonable no matter how you feel.

What implementable gun control looks like can be seen in the spectrum of gun control laws enacted around the world. The only real issue is political will.