No words can express

[Dallas Tex]

Actually the statistics don't back you on this at all. Having a firearm in the house makes you less safe. More risk of beak-in/theft, more risk of domestic violence, more risk of children gaining access to the weapon, more risk of suicide.

It might make you feel better, but it is placebo. Take the sugar pill (brush your teeth afterwards...) Much safer.

Not true.

[Cookietruck]

If the goal is to reduce your chances of dying, it makes much more sense to mitigate the larger risks first, like staying fit and healthy and avoiding activities like driving a car or riding in traffic. Lugging a few pounds of pistol around on your hip every day for that one in a million chance you'll be in a mass shooting with a clear shot of the shooter is the definition of poor risk assessment and management.

i thought this same thing earlier. so true...

[fiveller]

Not true.

2012 in US: 259 justifiable homicides 548 fatal unintentional shootings.

"survey in the Annals of Internal Medicine narrows down some of the causal relationship between guns and death by finding conclusively that having a gun in your home makes you more likely to successfully attempt suicide."

Gun and self-defense statistics that might surprise you -- and the NRA - LA Times

50 state study: stricter gun laws = lower deaths

5-state study: More gun laws, fewer deaths - CBS News

google is pretty handy

somehow the second link isn't being displayed correctly but does work. It is, indeed, a 50 state study

[jclay]

Do you have life insurance to protect your family if you die? Do you lock the door of your house at night? Do you listen to the flight attendants safety speech on airplane flights? All low probability events that most people want to be prepared for if they occur.

Participation in which carries zero risk for others.

[spopepro]

2012 in US: 259 justifiable homicides 548 fatal unintentional shootings.

"survey in the Annals of Internal Medicine narrows down some of the causal relationship between guns and death by finding conclusively that having a gun in your home makes you more likely to successfully attempt suicide."

Gun and self-defense statistics that might surprise you -- and the NRA - LA Times

50 state study: stricter gun laws = lower deaths

5-state study: More gun laws, fewer deaths - CBS News

google is pretty handy

somehow the second link isn't being displayed correctly but does work. It is, indeed, a 50 state study

These aren't the studies that I would necessarily link, but it is true that the literature consistently shows a correlative effect between firearm possession and being a victim of firearm violence. That is the strongest statement I am willing to make based on available data.

One problem is that research these days is strictly driven by grants and funding. Something that congress has done, and could easily undo, is put restrictions on federal funding making it so that NIH grants (~27 Billion in funds granted annually) and the CDC are not allowed to spend a single cent on researching the effects of firearm ownership and public health and safety. More than any sort of control or restriction legislation having real data with large sets and good experimental design, and having enough of it to provide for a literature base to perform metaanalysis, which is often where the real findings are for complex social systems, so that we can talk from position of fact as opposed to feelings and belief systems would be the best thing that congress could do for everyone at this point. But the lobby is powerful, and we are in a period of insisting on not knowing because too many are afraid of what the answers might be. So our own Air Force uses Great Brittan's weather and climate models instead of our own because NOAA models have fallen woefully behind due to the fact that they aren't allowed to do certain types of research (might find out things about climate change) and we are forced to fly blind in trying to make the right kind of laws that hit the sweet spot of appropriate liberty and safety. The saddest thing is that we not only choose not to know, but will make laws to keep everyone from knowing.

[jclay]

It wasn't a homophobic attack nor a a consequence of laxed gun ownership laws; it was a massacre conducted and oriented by a muslim fundamentalist terror organization.
And the europeans should get down their high horse on this thread and stop pretending being more civilized: America has way more freedom of speech just to begin with. Not to mention how easily their states roll over personal rights when declares an "exceptional state of affairs". Just check what went on in France after the latest massacre. Or even England where they shot a brazilian immigrant, a bystander by mistake and moved on. The european nations have all sorts of triggers to remove personal freedoms and give carte blanche to their police.
The Balkans had more brutality in the 90s than all the US history.

It's clear that it WAS a homophobic attack.
It's clear that the weapon was easy to obtain which equals lax ownership laws.
I've seen nothing to suggest that the USA has more freedom of speech than the Western European countries, and functionally it's probably the other way around.
A person was mistakenly shot by police in the UK! That happens here too and no doubt with with far greater frequency. Though here it's sometimes the result of an intentional abuse of power.
The Balkans had more brutality than in all of US history? Really? Tell that to the Native Americans, those who fought in the Civil War and our African American population.

[colker]

It's clear that it WAS a homophobic attack.
It's clear that the weapon was easy to obtain which equals lax ownership laws.
I've seen nothing to suggest that the USA has more freedom of speech than the Western European countries, and functionally it's probably the other way around.
A person was mistakenly shot by police in the UK! That happens here too and no doubt with with far greater frequency. Though here it's sometimes the result of an intentional abuse of power.
The Balkans had more brutality than in all of US history? Really? Tell that to the Native Americans, those who fought in the Civil War and our African American population.

The perpretator justified his actions quoting Islam. Fact.
The weapon will be obtained no matter what as it was obtained in Belgium. Fact.
There are way more limits to individual freedoms (not only) of speech in England, France and Germany. Fact.
I give you the police wrongdoings in the US can be horrible but it is no picnic when the state revokes freedoms as it happened in France.

although it's impossible to compare evil or suffering when mass rape, murder and planned ethnic genocide happens in Balkans which happens to be just a few miles southeast of educated Germany, in the late 20th century and pretend europeans are more civilized when compared to weapon buying americans.. if you buy that, i can sell you a bridge.

[Dallas Tex]

These aren't the studies that I would necessarily link, but it is true that the literature consistently shows a correlative effect between firearm possession and being a victim of firearm violence.

So, you're saying that someone that works at a liquor store in Chicago's south side, and is required to own a gun for work, might have a higher chance of being shot than a non-gun-owner that lives in Burlington Vermont ?

These studies can't possibly control for all variables and will most likely represent the view of the folks that paid for it. If this study said the opposite, you'd pick it apart and I'd swear by its accuracy.

This has been a good thread without too many links to studies and lots of concepts & ideas. And little to no bickering. FWIW I'm sure with a little effort we could find a study that says the opposite.

[MarkC]

These aren't the studies that I would necessarily link, but it is true that the literature consistently shows a correlative effect between firearm possession and being a victim of firearm violence. That is the strongest statement I am willing to make based on available data.

Yes.

Would add it is usually a mistake to equate association with causation. These gun stats are similar to saying 90% of auto accidents occur within 10 miles of one's home. The implication being that people are less careful when driving near their homes and should pay more attention to their driving. A more likely explanation (Occam's razor) is that 90% of driving occurs within 10 miles of one's home. That doesn't mean being extra careful would be a bad thing. (I didn't look up the precise car accident statistics so take the example as its intended).

It could very well be that the people buying guns for protection are doing so because they live where there is a high incidence of gun violence or other threats. One could argue it becomes a feedback loop: more fear = more guns = more gun violence and accidents. But that is not what the simple analysis is being used to suggest. The simple analysis is merely more "guns bad" being fed to folks.

Also, while one can come up with a million scenarios where having a gun doesn't provide the chance to fight back (if needed) one can also find examples where availability does. This is a zero sum game of confirmation bias depending on which side you are on.

Anyway, I'm a shooter (target only) and former range officer for bullseye matches. I'm not afraid of guns nor is my wife. We do not keep guns in the home for protection and are very much in favor of stricter gun control and restricting access. So the above is not political, just how one should take data types and biases into account when looking at such.

BTW, to everyone on the internet arguing the AR-15 is a good weapon for home protection, it is a very bad choice of weapon for that purpose. Apologies to VS for the non-sequitur on that one.

-Mark

[StR]

It's clear that it WAS a homophobic attack.
It's clear that the weapon was easy to obtain which equals lax ownership laws.
I've seen nothing to suggest that the USA has more freedom of speech than the Western European countries, and functionally it's probably the other way around.
A person was mistakenly shot by police in the UK! That happens here too and no doubt with with far greater frequency. Though here it's sometimes the result of an intentional abuse of power.
The Balkans had more brutality than in all of US history? Really? Tell that to the Native Americans, those who fought in the Civil War and our African American population.

very well said.

[colker]

very well said.

If only reality would agree w/ ideology and censorship, this would be a perfect leftist world.

[roseyscot]

If only reality would agree w/ ideology and censorship, this would be a perfect leftist world.

Just stop. Your hole is already deep enough to be buried in. You need dig no further.

[Dallas Tex]

If only reality would agree w/ ideology and censorship, this would be a perfect leftist world.

I think The Onion sums it up nicely with this headline: "College Encourages Lively Exchange Of Idea: we want to create an atmosphere where both students and faculty feel comfortable voicing a single homogeneous opinion"

[colker]

Just stop. Your hole is already deep enough to be buried in. You need dig no further.

i am giving you facts. You may fight the NRA, homophobia and the right wing but you were attacked by something entirely different.

[murphy]

I think The Onion sums it up nicely with this headline: "College Encourages Lively Exchange Of Idea: we want to create an atmosphere where both students and faculty feel comfortable voicing a single homogeneous opinion"

I personally like The Onion's article "'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" more.

[monadnocky]

I think The Onion sums it up nicely with this headline: "College Encourages Lively Exchange Of Idea: we want to create an atmosphere where both students and faculty feel comfortable voicing a single homogeneous opinion"

Perhaps not relevant to the current debate, but I teach at what many consider to be one of the most left-leaning university systems in the country, and I am regularly (pleasantly) surprised by the diversity of political ideas and positions held by students, as well as by faculty. The notion that the country's colleges and universities encourage a monolithic, leftist-bordering-on-communist ideology is, I believe, an idea propagated by certain right-wing ideologies in order to foment distrust of an independent faculty and the liberal (note the small-l "liberal") spirit that runs through higher education.

[Dallas Tex]

Perhaps not relevant to the current debate, but I teach at what many consider to be one of the most left-leaning university systems in the country, and I am regularly (pleasantly) surprised by the diversity of political ideas and positions held by students, as well as by faculty. The notion that the country's colleges and universities encourage a monolithic, leftist-bordering-on-communist ideology is, I believe, an idea propagated by certain right-wing ideologies in order to foment distrust of an independent faculty and the liberal (note the small-l "liberal") spirit that runs through higher education.

I knew you were a smart guy.

Just some honest questions, are there sanctioned safe-places for students with conservative ideas? Would a faculty member have school support if he personally did not agree with affirmative action programs? Is there any faculty encouragement of non-liberal ideas to be discussed? Truly not trying to be snarky, just curious.

[fiveller]

Edit: Sorry this is so long. I didn't realize it until after posting. But this is a complex topic and we need to quit thinking the answer is in 144 characters.

Yes.

Would add it is usually a mistake to equate association with causation. These gun stats are similar to saying 90% of auto accidents occur within 10 miles of one's home. The implication being that people are less careful when driving near their homes and should pay more attention to their driving. A more likely explanation (Occam's razor) is that 90% of driving occurs within 10 miles of one's home. That doesn't mean being extra careful would be a bad thing. (I didn't look up the precise car accident statistics so take the example as its intended).
(snippage)

-Mark

Are all the unintentional fatal shootings because people live in bad neighborhoods? This is simply math. More people are dying from guns unintentionally than justifiable homicide. It's like selling people alarm systems that may protect them by killing a threatening intruder but are more likely to kill someone inside the home - who would buy something like that? Would you own a watchdog that was more likely to maul your child than attack a burglar?

IIRC, most of the "mass events" have happened in middle class neighborhoods or suburbia. Columbine, Sandy Hook, San Diego, Va Tech. Charleston was a suburban kid who travelled to the nice part of Charleston. Oddly where you rarely see these things is in the inner city. These types of tragedies keep happening over and over. Weapons that have very little application either for home security, marksmanship or hunting keep getting into the hands of people - for whatever reason - who see the need to kill as many as possible.

The "gun lobby" fights any measure that make sure that only qualified and competent people own a firearm. They refuse to limit weapons that have zero practical use in everyday life yet have killed over and over. The cynic in me says they scream so loudly because they've conditioned their clientele to rush out and buy more every time someone even makes a common sense proposal. Wall Street knows this - gun maker stocks surged the Monday after Orlando.

And, this still doesn't account for the findings that states with stricter gun control laws have fewer gun deaths. I'm not sure how the "close to home" analogy applies there and Occam's Razor cuts the other way here - fewer guns in the wrong hands equals fewer deaths really is the simplest explanation.

Lastly (not pertaining to the quote above), the 2nd amendment isn't sacrosanct. It did not come written on tablets from Mt. Sinai. Let's take an analogy: how many NRA members drink any form of alchohol? A glass of beer, wine or cocktail? It was overturning a bad amendment, the 21st, that allows this. Why did we overturn it? Partly because a lot of people wanted a drink. Even more was because it ushered in a period of violence and crime. It made the country a less safe place. The 21st amendment wasn't working and neither is the contemporary interpretation of the 2nd.

And we have to get rid of the silly notion that having a gun in the house will prevent a tyrannical government from taking over. Firearms - or grenade launchers for that matter - in someone's home haven't stopping Assad, ISIS or the Russian army. An AR-15 will be about as useful as a flintlock if, somehow, our government turned on us.

I guess that's what I'm asking of my country - stop the rhetoric and start using some common sense. We're the only developed country where this happens over and over and over. The rest of the world keeps looking at us and asking: wtf?

* Disclaimer - we have several firearms in our home all for sporting purposes.

[colker]

Perhaps not relevant to the current debate, but I teach at what many consider to be one of the most left-leaning university systems in the country, and I am regularly (pleasantly) surprised by the diversity of political ideas and positions held by students, as well as by faculty. The notion that the country's colleges and universities encourage a monolithic, leftist-bordering-on-communist ideology is, I believe, an idea propagated by certain right-wing ideologies in order to foment distrust of an independent faculty and the liberal (note the small-l "liberal") spirit that runs through higher education.

Do they hire conservative teachers or let students promote seminars around conservative views? I am living in a country which elected the left for 12 conscutive yrs. and where conservative teachers and students find huge difficulties to promote their views. There is veiled censorship disguised under the appearance of democracy. You stiil can get loud and say what you want BUT ... try to find support to conduct a seminar, a scholarship to research or even a job as a professor and you face the wall.

[Dallas Tex]

More people are dying from guns unintentionally than justifiable homicide. It's like selling people alarm systems that may protect them by killing a threatening intruder but are more likely to kill someone inside the home - who would buy something like that? Would you own a watchdog that was more likely to maul your child than attack a burglar?

This isn't exactly accurate. There are no reliable statistics gathered or kept on successful defensive use of firearms mostly due to reporting problems and a clear definition of successful use. Someone murdered by a gun is a 0/1 type statistic: Is the victim dead? Was it a gun?

While someone that defended his home with a gun may have not hit his target or even fired his gun. Every police department in the US could have a unique way of reporting this.