Your statement is a dissociated comment that has nothing to do with the previous chain of exchanges and is prefaced with agreement with something I neither posted nor was your post a logical response to my post. Interesting... who were you responding to?
I went to high school with a guy who killed a guy by driving his car into the victim's living room. He didn't bleed his brakes. Seriously, criminals do all kinds of stuff with stolen cars.
Exactly. The only thing that stopped one lunatic with a knife and a car from killing parliament in London was a guy with a gun. It's like protecting people from rain by banning umbrellas.
People are careless, edna. Are you careless? Are the people in your home careless? If not, then you are safe having a weapon in your home.
What about owning a hedge clipper, a lawn mower, a car, a jet ski, motorcycle, a bathtub, a dog, or one of a million other things that kills thousands of people a year?
"Research suggests". There is one large factor that cannot be accounted for. No one knows how many households have guns since there is no registry of guns. Some of the other issues with studies like this is that sometimes the 'gun in home' counts gang related violence in a house. There are so many other relevant issues as one of the commentators said the study lacked.
[ And like most GCAs, you simply accept those portions of an article that confirm your biased narrative as fact rather than examining the validity of the implied causality, drawn from specious conclusion from a correlation little better than those with penises tend to perpetuate more rapes. BTW, having a swimming pool increases the odds of a child drowning on your property. Owning a pool means you don’t care about children’s lives. As for “self protection” excuse being bogus, I have been hang gliding for nearly 2 1/2 decades I have hundreds of flights logged, certainly have surpassed the 560 flights mark (see article), I have a greater chance of dying in a hang gliding accident than some one that does’t fly. I also fly private aircraft, sky dive, do extreme outback skiing, do solo wilderness minimalist backpacking, fish frequently in AK in bear country and cycle between 6-7,000 miles a year. All high risk activities, https://www.besthealthdegrees.com/health-risks/ but I am alive to enjoy ‘living’ and experience these and more activities considered high risk because gun ownership enabled me to survive being a potential victim of potentially fatal violence on three occasions in my 66 years. So, in examining the odds... I own several guns. Will I reach 67? Maybe, maybe not. But, I have ‘Lived’ and have few regrets. BTW, I have been married twice... never laid a hand on a woman in my life... certainly, was never induced by one of my guns to shoot one. Then too, my current interest owns her own guns and is well trained in their use.
Thanks for the bio. As I've stated before life's decisions are series of cost/benefit estimates. You jump out of an airplane because you think the benefits outweigh the potential costs. When figuring in family, friends, the public in the estimate the calculation changes. What I presented was the poo-pooed scientific evidence that demonstrates keeping a weapon designed to kill other human beings in proximity to other human beings presents greater costs to those humans than its potential benefits. In other words a bad decision. I would be happy to review any scientific evidence to the contrary. The subjective evidence of you and your friends means little in the real world.
You must have been responding to someone other than me, considering my post was a rejection of the narrative being proffered by the Newsweek article.
All of those studies are almost or more than 20 years old. Not sure the value in discussing it if there is no new data that supports or disputes it. Then again, most gun grabbers are just looking for some way to disparage the free exercise of our 2nd Amendment rights...
Oh, you want more studies to poo-poo? I wonder why science is not on your side? Can ideology overcome reason? More than half of gun owners do not safely store all their guns, according to a new survey of 1,444 U.S. gun owners. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180225184123.htm One third of United States armed forces veterans store at least one firearm loaded with ammunition and unlocked, according to a new study https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180827080906.htm High rates of gun ownership and dementia risk among baby boomers https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181126093156.htm A new study has reveals a unique and strong association between firearm ownership and the risk of domestic homicides. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190722085828.htm In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists have found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm Children who participate in gun safety programs often ignore what they learned when encountering a real firearm, according to a Rutgers School of Nursing study. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180515113601.htm Compared with US states with the strictest gun control legislation, gun deaths among children and teenagers are twice as common in states with the most lax gun laws, a study has found. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181102083435.htm A new study has found that higher levels of racism in white Americans is associated with having a gun in the home and greater opposition to gun control policies https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131031175441.htm Okay, this one may not have a direct bearing on the subject but it demonstrates a strong ideological factor in gun possession.
What's the point of having a gun if you are incapable of using it? I can see 'safely' storing a gun if and when kids are around, along with teaching them the importance of gun safety, but otherwise many of those studies are totally meaningless because gun storage isn't even a tertiary issue in regards to the 2nd Amendment. The dementia issue is a family issue, not a government issue. US citizens do not lose their rights because of the actions or conditions of others, that would be contrary to the very notions of individual freedom. Many of these so-called studies really don't reflect what they are claiming, because they do not account for the massive population disparities, as per the strict/lax gun control study. Using California as a baseline is simply ludicrous, especially when compared to states with a fraction of the population. In such cases the 'rate' in California will always be low, whereas the volume would be immense. At the same time in a small population state like Utah or Wyoming, every single death is weighted by magnitudes of ten or more in comparison. Yet the core volume would be miniscule. That's the level of intellectual dishonesty I've come to expect from gun grabbing commies. I'm not sure I'm going to waste my time discussing anything else with you. Clearly you support unconstitutional and totalitarian measure that simply have no place in America...
There is no science to be found in various firearm-related restrictions. This matter has been researched for quite some time, and no matter what the proposed piece of legislation is, it is always lacking in logic, coherency, and incapable of functioning outside of a vacuum. The definition used for qualifying something as "safe storage of a firearm" involves the firearms being locked in one safe in one part of a home, while the ammunition is locked in another safe in another part of the home. Such is an entirely unreasonable standard to demand legal firearm owners abide by. The united state supreme court ruled in Heller that individuals cannot be legally compelled to store their firearms in a manner that renders them inaccessible and/or useless for the purpose of self defense. And yet no evidence that the two are in any way linked. Only amongst those who are already predisposed to engaging in illegal activity, such as convicted criminals who cannot legally possess a firearm under any circumstances. Once again, only amongst those who are already predisposed to engaging in illegal activity. The above does not apply to private individuals who are not committing crimes. Then ultimately what is being proposed on the part of yourself? That minors should be kept ignorant of firearms, and not taught anything about the subject simply because they may not pay attention? Except for the simple fact that such is not the case. Except for the fact that such is not the case. Firearms ownership is not an indicator of racism. Nor does the report even bother attempting to explain just what constitutes examples of racism.
States with higher estimated rates of gun ownership experience a higher incidence of non-stranger firearms homicides -- disputing the claim that gun ownership deters violent crime, authors of a new study say. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140929180304.htm Researchers looked at the associations between firearm-related laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries and deaths. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160308132924.htm A new study finds that states with higher levels of household gun ownership also have higher overall youth suicide rates https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190117090446.htm Why, with study after study, none of your claims are supported by science? Could it be someone's wrong?
Having used a gun to keep 3 (at once) from assaulting me, I'd say the pluses outweigh the negatives. Call me biased, shame on me, not taking one for the team!
Edna, there are two reasons why all these studies show that guns in the home puts you in more danger than not having one in the home. 1) These statistics rely on crimes committed with guns that are reported by local law enforcement to the FBI. The FBI quantifies all these statistics. The problem isn't the statistics that are reported. The problem is with the statistics that are not reported. For example, if someone breaks into someone else's house and the homeowner shoots him in legitimate defense, the crime that's reported may be "burglary" or "attempted robbery", but the shooting itself is not a crime. And so, it is not reported as a crime. The shooting event goes unreported to the FBI because it was not a crime. If a gun is displayed to ward off or prevent a crime, the display of that gun is not reported as a crime. 2) The other thing that cannot be quantified is all of the crimes that are not committed against homes or people because the criminal doesn't know whether or not the victim is armed. We also do not know how many criminals are deterred because, through one way or the other, they know the planned victim is armed. One thing we do see is that criminals select victims who they believe are unarmed, or they commit gun crimes in "gun free" zones. Another interesting statistic is Australian murder statistics. Australia has less gun crime than the U.S. owing to the fact of very strict gun control laws. But they also have a much higher rate of murder by knife than the U.S. does. It is a dramatic difference. What this tells us is that if a person is bent upon murder, they can and will commit murder by means other than by the use of a gun. Seth
Study after study has confirmed that the use of tobacco-related products produces no positive benefits or outcomes. To the contrary, every use of tobacco-related products does nothing but put others at risk of cancer and death, even if the one who is exposed to such is not the end user. There is no conceivable way any individual anywhere cannot be painfully aware of such facts. Despite the overwhelming evidence, however, it has done nothing to discourage anyone from engaging in the use of tobacco-related products. If anything the number of individuals engaging in such only seems to increase every single year. The only reason tobacco-related products have not been prohibited outright in the united states, is due to the fact the united states government collects a tax on their purchase. Ultimately meaning the government cares more about the tax it collects on said products, than it does on protecting the lives of those that will be affected by such.
More denial, rationalizations and subjective evidence. "You don't need antibiotics my pneumonia went away on it's own!" There is the strange use of statistics. Australia does have higher murder percentage by knife (25%) than the US (10%) but Australia's murder rate by no weapon is even higher (37%) than stabbings, while 50% of homicides in US were by handgun. Also not stated the homicide rate in the US is 5.3 per 100k and Australia's is 1 per 100k, 5xs lower. That only proves the easier it is to kill someone the more it is done. And there is the wacky. Tobacco use in the 60's was 40% today it is 14% and dropping. There is no government conspiracy and off topic unless you are saying handguns are addictive. I am still waiting for any objective evidence you have to prove me wrong.
The nation of California also possesses a far smaller population than the entire united states. Approximately twenty four million individuals in the nation of Australia, compared to approximately three hundred and thirty million for the united states. The population of the nation of Australia is more than thirteen times smaller than the population of the united states.