docbrown
Member
Of course, you are welcome to your personal view, however facts are simply not on your side. For instance:
Depending on methodology, the Kleck study indicates that anywhere between 250,000 to 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms occur each and every year. Even assuming the LOW end, that means that firearms are used about 25 times more to defend a life than to take one - at a MINIMUM. (source information below). Most of the time a shot is not fired. At the high number, that is 250 times more often.
FBI 2018, Extended data table 8 statistics indicate 10,265 firearms murders in 2018 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls)
That alone indicates that firearms are indeed a valid self-defense mechanism.
Another factual reason that shows that your argument is lacking is the percentage of firearms each year that are NOT involved in a murder. According to the 2018 Small Arms Survey, there are 393,347,000 firearms in the U.S. Assuming 10,265 firearms murders, that means that 99.997% of firearms are NOT used to commit murder each and every year.
If firearms, as you say:
"Guns in the home for self defence makes the gun owner a dangerous person."
"A gun in the home makes home owners and criminals more prone to violence."
How is it that such a tiny (statistically insignificant) number of firearms are used to commit murder? Similar numbers apply to violent crime committed with firearms, not just murders.
Finally, in my experience, a gun in the home does not make anyone dangerous. I would like you to elaborate on this and provide scientific references supporting your point. In the end, there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people - and those people are dangerous with or without a firearm.
A gun in the home does not make home owners more prone to violence any more than a match in the home makes homeowners more prone to be arsonists. Again, where is the data to back up your assertion? The only way I can possibly your statement having even a passing application is if there is a home invasion, and a home owner defends themselves with a firearm, then, yes, there would be more violence (in the strictest definition of the word) with the homeowner as the cause. However, given a home invasion, it seems more advantageous for the homeowner to be working violence on the criminal rather than the other way around. (Of course, it would be best for the criminals never to have initiated the home invasion in the first place)
In the end, it is your home and your choice what you do as regards firearms. No one here will try to enforce their views on you - we simply request the same courtesy from you and lawmakers who hold you opinion. If your choices are based on emotion, then there is no point in continuing the conversation as in my experience, no one ever "wins" an emotional argument.
Respectfully,
Doc
Depending on methodology, the Kleck study indicates that anywhere between 250,000 to 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms occur each and every year. Even assuming the LOW end, that means that firearms are used about 25 times more to defend a life than to take one - at a MINIMUM. (source information below). Most of the time a shot is not fired. At the high number, that is 250 times more often.
FBI 2018, Extended data table 8 statistics indicate 10,265 firearms murders in 2018 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls)
That alone indicates that firearms are indeed a valid self-defense mechanism.
Another factual reason that shows that your argument is lacking is the percentage of firearms each year that are NOT involved in a murder. According to the 2018 Small Arms Survey, there are 393,347,000 firearms in the U.S. Assuming 10,265 firearms murders, that means that 99.997% of firearms are NOT used to commit murder each and every year.
If firearms, as you say:
"Guns in the home for self defence makes the gun owner a dangerous person."
"A gun in the home makes home owners and criminals more prone to violence."
How is it that such a tiny (statistically insignificant) number of firearms are used to commit murder? Similar numbers apply to violent crime committed with firearms, not just murders.
Finally, in my experience, a gun in the home does not make anyone dangerous. I would like you to elaborate on this and provide scientific references supporting your point. In the end, there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people - and those people are dangerous with or without a firearm.
A gun in the home does not make home owners more prone to violence any more than a match in the home makes homeowners more prone to be arsonists. Again, where is the data to back up your assertion? The only way I can possibly your statement having even a passing application is if there is a home invasion, and a home owner defends themselves with a firearm, then, yes, there would be more violence (in the strictest definition of the word) with the homeowner as the cause. However, given a home invasion, it seems more advantageous for the homeowner to be working violence on the criminal rather than the other way around. (Of course, it would be best for the criminals never to have initiated the home invasion in the first place)
In the end, it is your home and your choice what you do as regards firearms. No one here will try to enforce their views on you - we simply request the same courtesy from you and lawmakers who hold you opinion. If your choices are based on emotion, then there is no point in continuing the conversation as in my experience, no one ever "wins" an emotional argument.
Respectfully,
Doc
