Guns vs. the lottery

[Subduction Zone]

Depends on the threat, of course.

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?


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.

I have no idea on what the various threats were. But now you are grasping at straws because some of them probably were protecting material goods. That is still a valid use of a firearm. Insured or not, it does not matter. A person can throw away his life.

The question is what problems would you be interested in fixing? Limiting high velocity rifles would be aa good start. Limiting magazine capacity would be very useful too. The stats on how often one needs a gun with a near unlimited capacity are greatly in your favor. My problem is that a blanket ban will not occur until things get even worse. I would rather fix the problems before they became even worse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Depends on the threat, of course.

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.


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.

Sorry but you need to make better arguments. You are now grasping at hypotheticals. And you also do not seem to understand the belief of the sanctity of one's home that many legally have. I am not for wanton shooting of criminals, but if one puts oneself into such a position by breaking the law one does not have very strong grounds for complaint if one is shot.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no idea on what the various threats were.

Right. That's my point.

But now you are grasping at straws because some of them probably were protecting material goods.

As it stands right now, I'm just trying to tease a coherent argument out of you and figure out how you think the stats you cited are relevant to it.

That is still a valid use of a firearm. Insured or not, it does not matter. A person can throw away his life.

That's a value judgment on your part. There's no contradiction in rejecting it or taking a different perspective.

The question is what problems would you be interested in fixing?

Firearm deaths.

Limiting high velocity rifles would be aa good start. Limiting magazine capacity would be very useful too. The stats on how often one needs a gun with a near unlimited capacity are greatly in your favor. My problem is that a blanket ban will not occur until things get even worse. I would rather fix the problems before they became even worse.

You do realize that you've been all over the map here, right?

This all started with you objecting to my pretty straightforward point: firearm death stats show that a gun in the home is more likely to kill someone who lives in the home than an intruder.

You've never actually even made an attempt to counter this claim, but you pulled out some inherently-unreliable stats to argue that sometimes just brandishing a firearm saves lives without shots being fired.

Fair enough; I'm sure some of that happens (though I'm also sure that there are also domestic violence cases that involved brandished firearms, too)... but I pointed out that your stats would include firearm use that has nothing to do with saving a life.

At this point, you've now pivoted first to value claims about the sanctity of a person's property (implying, but not coming out and explicitly saying, that it's worth killing someone over) for about half a minute, and now you're going on about how difficult it would be to implement gun control in the US.

I think now is the time for you to stop, take a deep breath, and decide whether you actually have anything to say about my original statement that you took on this tangent: firearm death stats show that a gun in the home is more likely to kill someone who lives in the home than an intruder.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why?

 

[Koldo]

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.

Don't let your cultural lens cloud your judgment though. Thinking of gun ownership as a right is essentially an US perspective. Elsewhere it is just a privilege.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry but you need to make better arguments. You are now grasping at hypotheticals. And you also do not seem to understand the belief of the sanctity of one's home that many legally have. I am not for wanton shooting of criminals, but if one puts oneself into such a position by breaking the law one does not have very strong grounds for complaint if one is shot.

You keep talking past me, so it doesn't seem like you're even hearing my arguments.

I've been saying that guns in the home make a person less safe. You've said nothing to suggest otherwise; if you're now conceding the point but arguing that "the sanctity of one's home" is more important, well, you go right ahead... but let's make it clear that this is what you're doing.

... but if you think that a family losing a child or parent to suicide wouldn't impact "the sanctity of one's home," I suggest you give your head a shake.

 

[Curious George]

I've been saying that guns in the home make a person less safe. You've said nothing to suggest otherwise

Perhaps because this error in logic has already been addressed in this thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps because this error in logic has already been addressed in this thread.

No, it really hasn't.

We've had a few people argue, effectively, that other things that they value are worth the cost of decreased safety, but none who have actually challenged the factual claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right. That's my point.

That was not a point. That was grasping at straws.

As it stands right now, I'm just trying to tease a coherent argument out of you and figure out how you think the stats you cited are relevant to it.

wow! A rare case of projection. You are not approaching this topic rationally you used a failed argument.

Try to make a coherent argument where you do not ignore the evidence against you. Trying to add all sorts of "maybes" to the evidence against you does not help. Adding maybes without evidence is what creationists do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep talking past me, so it doesn't seem like you're even hearing my arguments.

I've been saying that guns in the home make a person less safe. You've said nothing to suggest otherwise; if you're now conceding the point but arguing that "the sanctity of one's home" is more important, well, you go right ahead... but let's make it clear that this is what you're doing.

... but if you think that a family losing a child or parent to suicide wouldn't impact "the sanctity of one's home," I suggest you give your head a shake.

No, you are not listening tot the problems with your claims. And guns in a home may make a person less safe. But you cannot base your statistics just on the times when someone was shot with a gun, whether attacker or defender. That is an abuse of statistics. You would need to take into account that just brandishing a weapon is using it too. You used a bad argument earlier, that is all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That was not a point. That was grasping at straws.

wow! A rare case of projection. You are not approaching this topic rationally you used a failed argument.

Try to make a coherent argument where you do not ignore the evidence against you. Trying to add all sorts of "maybes" to the evidence against you does not help. Adding maybes without evidence is what creationists do.

I give up. Let me know when you're ready to actually listen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't let your cultural lens cloud your judgment though. Thinking of gun ownership as a right is essentially an US perspective. Elsewhere it is just a privilege.

I know. I just do not like it when poor arguments against gun ownership are used. That actually helps the pro-gun crowd. A poor definition of gun usage was employed and that was what I was responding to. Having a gun in the house probably does increase the risks to the homeowner and his family. But trying to claim that when a gun is used that the odds are anywhere near 50/50 is wrong. Most of the cases of gun use do not involve the gun being fired. A better argument would have been to show the death rates in house with guns to some sort of violence, whether caused by guns or not to those in houses without guns. I would think that the rates of violent deaths in gun houses is still higher.

My pointing out when poor arguments are used is not me agreeing with gun rights. It is just a case of my disagreement with using an argument that backfires.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I give up. Let me know when you're ready to actually listen.

Oh my! You are not arguing rationally here. We essentially agree, I was merely correcting a bad argument of yours. When you started to flail around for excuses you showed that you were the one that was not listening. Don't use bad arguments for your cause.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh my! You are not arguing rationally here. We essentially agree, I was merely correcting a bad argument of yours. When you started to flail around for excuses you showed that you were the one that was not listening. Don't use bad arguments for your cause.

Save it. Your replies made it clear that you took some bad assumptions about the argument you thought I was making and just ran with it.

Read more carefully.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Save it. Your replies made it clear that you took some bad assumptions about the argument you thought I was making and just ran with it.

Read more carefully.

I did. You first sentence was demonstrably false because you used an incorrect definition of "use":

"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."

Merely brandishing a gun is using it. In fact improper brandishing of a gun is a felony. A person that brandishes a gun at someone on the street can be charged with a felony. Of the 1.7 million times a year that a gun is used 82% of the times they are never fired, or just brandished. That is a use of a gun. When you brought up the weak excuse of 'maybe it was just someone after a lawn mower' that would not change the fact that it was still a successful use of a gun to brandish it in that instance.

You should have argued that the odds of a violent death to the home owner or family are much higher in a house with a firearm. That is an argument that would include suicide.

Your claim in your opening sentence was false and easily refuted. That helps those on the pro-gun side.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

Seems like if we are going to have a 2nd amendment we ought invest in government required training of gun ownership.
I was 5 or 6 first time I shot a pistol under adult supervision of course. Still I'd recommend training of anyone in a household with children at an early age.

That's what ought to be looked at IMO, households which take gun training/safety seriously and those that don't and legislate accordingly.
Then we can continue to support the 2nd amendment and reduce accidental fire arm deaths.

As far as self-defense, I say that depends on what area you live in. If you think you can rely on your police force to protect you great. If not, you got to decide individually what is best for you.

 

[Curious George]

For the average person, keeping guns for "self-defense" is foolish

This is not true. There are obviously ways to mitigate any risk. Therefore keeping a gun in the home and failing to mitigate that risk is what is foolish.

a gun in the home is many times more likely to be used against someone who lives in the home than against an intruder

And the only way to mitigate this is to not keep a gun in the home?

keeping a gun in the house has a significant chance of killing a loved

Non sequitur. But while we are here, what do you suggest constitutes a “significant chance”. I hope you would agree that there is a much, much, much larger chance that absolutely nothing will come of it.

guns in the home make a person less safe.

Simply not true on an individual level. You cannot make conclusions on an individual level based on statistics, especially when those statistics do not and never were intended to account for variation amongst gun owners in family make-up, mental health, training, safe storage practices, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is not true. There are obviously ways to mitigate any risk. Therefore keeping a gun in the home and failing to mitigate that risk is what is foolish.

What way would you mitigate the risk of, say, just suicide associated with keeping a gun - especially a handgun - in the home that's so effective it fully mitigates the risk?

And the only way to mitigate this is to not keep a gun in the home?

The risks of gun ownership can be mitigated somewhat, but not fully. Most of the mitigation measures are things that the fans of "defensive" gun use often object to:

- don't keep a handgun specifically. Suicide risk is higher for handguns than for long guns.

- secure storage. Keep the gun in a gun safe with a trigger lock. This reduces - but doesn't eliminate - the potential for theft and for household members getting access who shouldn't. "Defensive" gun use fans often object to this measure because it would mean they'd take longer to have their weapon ready when they feel it's needed.

- store weapons unloaded, with the ammo stored securely in its own locked container. Again, "defensive" gun use fans often object to this because this would slow down getting their gun ready to fire.

Non sequitur. But while we are here, what do you suggest constitutes a “significant chance”. I hope you would agree that there is a much, much, much larger chance that absolutely nothing will come of it.

"Significant chance" does not need to mean "more than 50% chance"

A handgun in the home increases suicide risk by a factor of 4, on average. The increase is even higher for women.

Handgun ownership associated with much higher suicide risk

Men who own handguns are eight times more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don’t own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35 times more likely than women who don’t.

med.stanford.edu

Simply not true on an individual level. You cannot make conclusions on an individual level based on statistics, especially when those statistics do not and never were intended to account for variation amongst gun owners in family make-up, mental health, training, safe storage practices, etc.

There's variation from person to person within a range, but there's a limit to how much suicide risk (i.e. the main risk of keeping a gun in the home) can be mitigated even with all the secure storage in the world, and there's a limit to how much risk a law-abiding person* has of a violent intruder in their home.

Recognizing these limits, it's safe to say that the odds are negligible that a given civilian living in the US today who wants to keep a "defensive" firearm would actually be safer with one.

(*since most home invasions are associated with illegal activity... e.g. trying to rob a drug dealer of their illegal drugs)

 

[Curious George]

What way would you mitigate the risk of, say, just suicide associated with keeping a gun - especially a handgun - in the home that's so effective it fully mitigates the risk?

We needn’t “fully” mitigate the risk to turn your assertion on its head such that some individuals are more likely to use their firearm defensively than the firearm is to cause injury or death to a member of the household which it is intended to protect. But to mitigate risks, regular access to mental health care, increasing socio economic conditions and other major stressors which are associated with suicide, depressed and despair. Safe storage. Training and education.

The risks of gun ownership can be mitigated somewhat, but not fully. Most of the mitigation measures are things that the fans of "defensive" gun use often object to:

- don't keep a handgun specifically. Suicide risk is higher for handguns than for long guns.

- secure storage. Keep the gun in a gun safe with a trigger lock. This reduces - but doesn't eliminate - the potential for theft and for household members getting access who shouldn't. "Defensive" gun use fans often object to this measure because it would mean they'd take longer to have their weapon ready when they feel it's needed.

- store weapons unloaded, with the ammo stored securely in its own locked container. Again, "defensive" gun use fans often object to this because this would slow down getting their gun ready to fire.


"Significant chance" does not need to mean "more than 50% chance"

A handgun in the home increases suicide risk by a factor of 4, on average. The increase is even higher for women.

Handgun ownership associated with much higher suicide risk

Men who own handguns are eight times more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don’t own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35 times more likely than women who don’t.

med.stanford.edu

I think this is pretty narrow thinking without giving more consideration to the other factors involved.

I don’t really see you addressing what that “Significant risk” is. Can you please tell me what the average risk of a person committing suicide is without a gun so I can multiply that by four?

There's variation from person to person within a range, but there's a limit to how much suicide risk (i.e. the main risk of keeping a gun in the home) can be mitigated even with all the secure storage in the world, and there's a limit to how much risk a law-abiding person* has of a violent intruder in their home.

Recognizing these limits, it's safe to say that the odds are negligible that a given civilian living in the US today who wants to keep a "defensive" firearm would actually be safer with one.

That is a leap in logic. Does that conclusion just fit your narrative or is there reasoning behind it?

(*since most home invasions are associated with illegal activity... e.g. trying to rob a drug dealer of their illegal drugs)

 

[anna.]

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?

Can you provide the particular study you're referring to? I'd like to see how it parses out homicide, suicide, and accidents, and whether it studies handguns and long guns or just hand guns.