Does having a gun in the home make you safer?

[jclalor 12]

Feeling safe and feeling secure are two different questions.

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

Same situation here. Data shows that adding a gun to your household increases the risk of a household member dying a violent death. You know the risks, you take your chances.

If we were all one generic household, perhaps. We're not.

I'm white, do not engage in drug trade, and did not purchase my weapons in response to a direct threat. My probability of being murdered is pretty minute as a result.

No one in my household has a history of mental health issues or takes psychiatric drugs (or other mind fucking ones), and the guns were purchased long ago, so the risk of suicide is also far lower than any average would imply.

[kelpdiver 2]

Andy9o8

***
I wonder how many of the people shot dead by their partners and/or with their own guns felt exactly the same way.

A timely question, as it happens:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/man-shoots-himself_n_4853983.html


"Three children ages 7, 10, and 12 were in the home, but did not witness the shooting, according to reports. The man's girlfriend told authorities he had been drinking most of the day before the incident took place."

Hopefully those weren't his children.

In any event, the event seems to prove what we already know - alcohol is dangerous for idiots and should be banned (at least for idiots).

[billvon 3,058]

>No. YOUR parter would shoot you with it. Your argument is so stupid its funny.
>I'm very sure my wife can shoot circles around YOU.

And yet even trained gun safety instructors sometimes accidentally shoot the people they are training.

The above reminds me of "I don't need an AAD; I'm not so stupid that I would forget to pull."

[champu 1]

billvon

>No. YOUR parter would shoot you with it. Your argument is so stupid its funny.
>I'm very sure my wife can shoot circles around YOU.

And yet even trained gun safety instructors sometimes accidentally shoot the people they are training.

The above reminds me of "I don't need an AAD; I'm not so stupid that I would forget to pull."

Much of this thread actually reminds me of "Whuffo you bring a firearm into a perfectly safe home?"

[Boogers 0]

billvon

>No. YOUR parter would shoot you with it. Your argument is so stupid its funny.
>I'm very sure my wife can shoot circles around YOU.

And yet even trained gun safety instructors sometimes accidentally shoot the people they are training.

The above reminds me of "I don't need an AAD; I'm not so stupid that I would forget to pull."

Just because some people do stupid things, does not mean that all people do stupid things.
That's true with both guns and parachutes.

[kallend 2,099]

Boogers

***>No. YOUR parter would shoot you with it. Your argument is so stupid its funny.
>I'm very sure my wife can shoot circles around YOU.

And yet even trained gun safety instructors sometimes accidentally shoot the people they are training.

The above reminds me of "I don't need an AAD; I'm not so stupid that I would forget to pull."

Just because some people do stupid things, does not mean that all people do stupid things.
That's true with both guns and parachutes.

Based on what I have read in the incidents forum and elsewhere, I am inclined to believe that Dunning-Kruger applies to both gun owners and downsizing skydivers; the ones most sure that they won't fuck up are the ones most likely to.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,058]

>Just because some people do stupid things, does not mean that all people do
>stupid things. That's true with both guns and parachutes.

Definitely true. And like parachutes, the stupid things one person does with a gun just might kill someone else. And like parachutes, being skilled does not eliminate that risk.

[kelpdiver 2]

billvon

Definitely true. And like parachutes, the stupid things one person does with a gun just might kill someone else. And like parachutes, being skilled does not eliminate that risk.

You've been using a very loose definition of skilled.

Skilled instructors don't shoot others in a safety demonstration. They don't even shoot themselves, but it's pretty much unfathomable to see a skilled person aiming their gun at a living person, let alone pulling the trigger. This is on par with the jumping out the plane chuteless or doing a Mr Bill.

[rwieder 0]

Quote

"Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."

We say around my ol' stomping grounds: Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be beaten to death.

Best-
Richard

[billvon 3,058]

>You've been using a very loose definition of skilled. Skilled instructors don't shoot
>others in a safety demonstration.

That's akin to saying that skilled skydivers don't cut other people off, or forget to pull, or collide with other people in freefall. They do; the best in the business have done those things.

[kelpdiver 2]

billvon

>You've been using a very loose definition of skilled. Skilled instructors don't shoot
>others in a safety demonstration.

That's akin to saying that skilled skydivers don't cut other people off, or forget to pull, or collide with other people in freefall. They do; the best in the business have done those things.

No, it's not. Your failure or refusal to see this suggest your understanding of gun handling is poor.

Gun safety demonstrations don't have the concern of a ground rush clock, or turbulence, or a twin otter full of other high performance fliers in the same small airspace in 3 dimensions.

Guns fire in a single dimension - a line more or less (in a long shot, gravity matters). In order to "accidentally" shoot someone, you have to make 3 violations of basic rules:
1) presuming the gun isn't loaded
2) pointing it at something you don't want dead
3) pulling the trigger.

When a supposedly experience person does all 3 of these, I conclude: 1) they were drunk as hell (usually the case), 2) it was homicide, or 3) they weren't remotely experienced. Even a class of kids getting a 30 minute lesson from the scary NRA would know better.

Experienced skydivers have made one basic error, like not securing their chest strap or leg straps properly, or not activating their AAD correctly, or not pulling on time. But they have to do all 3 to come close to the shooting scenario, one that didn't have any of the pressures of ground impact.

Did you actually supply an example, btw? We've seen stories of 'expert FBI guys' doing demonstrations but shooting themselves in the ass/leg mishandling their holster, but that's really one critical error, akin to screwing up a 270.

[billvon 3,058]

> In order to "accidentally" shoot someone, you have to make 3 violations of basic
>rules:
>1) presuming the gun isn't loaded
>2) pointing it at something you don't want dead
>3) pulling the trigger.

Or just one of the above.

=============
Man Shoots Off Gun In Pants During Hug, Accidentally Kills Girlfriend

Updated: 10/02/2013 1:49 pm EDT
An Arizona woman died after her boyfriend accidentally shot off a handgun he had tucked into his waistband Tuesday morning.

The 18-year-old man had been hugging his 24-year-old girlfriend when she complained that the weapon was making her uncomfortable, according to KTVK.

The man discharged the gun while attempting to remove it, shooting the woman, according to police.
=============

>Gun safety demonstrations don't have the concern of a ground rush clock, or
>turbulence, or a twin otter full of other high performance fliers in the same small
>airspace in 3 dimensions.

Right. Thus it should be easier to not make mistakes (like say shooting your students.) Nevertheless it still happens.

>When a supposedly experience person does all 3 of these, I conclude: 1) they
>were drunk as hell (usually the case), 2) it was homicide, or 3) they weren't
>remotely experienced. Even a class of kids getting a 30 minute lesson from the
>scary NRA would know better.

Sounds like a whuffo describing Sandy Wambach. How stupid do you have to be to just plain run into someone AND forget to pull AND not use an AAD?

>Did you actually supply an example, btw?

===========
Ohio instructor shoots student in gun-safety class
Published August 13, 2013
Associated Press

LANCASTER, Ohio – Police say an instructor of a gun-safety class in central Ohio accidentally shot a student during the weekend.

The Columbus Dispatch reports 73-year-old Terry J. Dunlap Sr. was demonstrating a hand gun on Saturday at a training facility when he fired a bullet that bounced off a desk and into the right arm of Michael Piemonte.
============

Looks like this fails your "he must be drunk/a murderer/inexperienced" test as well since he was not aiming it at the student.

[Boogers 0]

billvon

>You've been using a very loose definition of skilled. Skilled instructors don't shoot
>others in a safety demonstration.

That's akin to saying that skilled skydivers don't cut other people off, or forget to pull, or collide with other people in freefall. They do; the best in the business have done those things.

So, are you and kallend saying that people should not be trusted with either guns or parachutes? And that we shouldn't allow people to own either?

[kelpdiver 2]

billvon

> In order to "accidentally" shoot someone, you have to make 3 violations of basic
>rules:
>1) presuming the gun isn't loaded
>2) pointing it at something you don't want dead
>3) pulling the trigger.

Or just one of the above.

The 18-year-old man had been hugging his 24-year-old girlfriend when she complained that the weapon was making her uncomfortable, according to KTVK.

The man discharged the gun while attempting to remove it, shooting the woman, according to police.

That's still 2 of the 3.

I'll also note the obvious - this 18 year old isn't a skilled instructor. Good luck finding one advocating stuffing the pistol down the pants rather than using a real holster. At his age, he's not even eligible to purchase a handgun from an FFL or to obtain a CCW permit.

Quote

===========
Ohio instructor shoots student in gun-safety class
Published August 13, 2013
Associated Press

LANCASTER, Ohio – Police say an instructor of a gun-safety class in central Ohio accidentally shot a student during the weekend.

The Columbus Dispatch reports 73-year-old Terry J. Dunlap Sr. was demonstrating a hand gun on Saturday at a training facility when he fired a bullet that bounced off a desk and into the right arm of Michael Piemonte.
============

Looks like this fails your "he must be drunk/a murderer/inexperienced" test as well since he was not aiming it at the student.

"After first aid by nurses who were also attending the course, Piemonte was taken to a hospital and released a few hours later."

I will suggest that you're being a bit dramatic here. The AD reflects badly on the instructor (age?), but he did not aim it at the person; it was an unlucky ricochet. The kinetic energy was low and resulted in a minor injury to the arm. If that's your best example, I'll suggest that the hearing loss potential with an AD is a much more tangible injury to discuss.

[craddock 0]

billvon

The above reminds me of "I don't need an AAD; I'm not so stupid that I would forget to pull."

And that reminds me of thinking "Those $#@$ were right! They are going to be saying I told you so at the clubhouse sitting around playing cards when they hear about this" But really it was just "Damn it. They were right! I should have listened" as I was approaching 500 AGL trying to save my life with nothing out after violent cutaway and my reserve Pillow not where it should have been as a result of the former.

Of course I turned it all around that it was a good thing I didn't have an AAD and we convinced my Fiance it could have killed me firing at the wrong time.



Guns in the home are much safer!

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[billvon 3,058]

>So, are you and kallend saying that people should not be trusted with either
>guns or parachutes? And that we shouldn't allow people to own either?

Not at all. Here's what I am saying:

You are not good enough, nor will you ever be good enough, to be immune to being killed by your parachute or your gun. If you can accept that, it will go a long way towards making you less likely to suffer either one of those fates.

[FastRon 0]

Quote- "Apples and oranges comparison. The weasel word is "acquaintenances". An acquantenance is just somebody you happen to know. Could be someone from work, someone from the drop zone, someone from school, someone from social circles, at the bar stool next to you, heck, just anyone you happen to know somehow. The vast majority of those people shot by acquantenances were not shot in their homes, or with their own gun. So that's really not the equivalent counterpart to a gun being used in a home for self defense. Most all that acquantenance crime stuff is outside the home with the perpetrator's own weapon. So having a gun in your home is irrelevant to acquaintenance crime." Quote

Well said! "Acquaintances' include but are certainly not limited to rival gang members, competing dope dealers, dope rip-offs and a litany of other 'relationships'...

FWIW- If the presence of guns doesn't discourage at least some attacks, why do the cops carry them? It really isn't there just to balance the portable radio :-)

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Blah blah blah

FACT - the gun most likely to kill you is the gun you own.

FACT - women in particular are far more likely to be shot and killed by a partner or friend than by a home invader.

FACT - carrying a gun increases your chance of being shot dead.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

FACT - every gun owner I know claims to be immune from such problems. Lake Wobegon effect.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Cajundude 0]

Absolutely a gun makes me feel safer in the home and on my person. I pity the robber or the home invader that comes in my direction.

BTW, how are all those gun laws in Chicago working out for you and your city? It really does keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals doesn't it?

[craddock 0]

kallend

Quote

Blah blah blah

FACT - carrying a gun increases your chance of being shot dead.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

FACT - every gun owner I know claims to be immune from such problems. Lake Wobegon effect.

wth Kallend? Can you try and actually be serious for once?
So if your a gangbanger in Philly and you get shot and have a gun on you(which you most likely would if you were a gangbanger), It means that everyone that carries is at a similar risk? OMG

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[kallend 2,099]

Cajundude

Absolutely a gun makes me feel safer in the home and on my person. I pity the robber or the home invader that comes in my direction.

BTW, how are all those gun laws in Chicago working out for you and your city? It really does keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals doesn't it?

Lake Wobegon effect in action.

Or Dunning-Kruger.

Maybe both.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

kallend

FACT - carrying a gun increases your chance of being shot dead.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

I'll bet you'd rate yourself as above average in critical reading comprehension.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

champu

***FACT - carrying a gun increases your chance of being shot dead.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

I'll bet you'd rate yourself as above average in critical reading comprehension.

Meh. We've seen that so-called study before.

What it says is that shooting victims are more likely to be armed than not.

It in no way addresses people who didn't get shot.

A bad analogy would be to say that because people not wearing seatbelts are more likely to be killed if they are in an accident, that not wearing a seatbelt increases your chance of being in an accident.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[craddock 0]

Correct. It only counts samples a group of those that are shot in one town including many gang memnbers and Drug dealers, who guess what...were carrying a gun!. And it also counted guns not on the person. In the car, in their house. Most people who carry are never around an assault and most instances of an armed defense are done without ever firing a shot. Many of these go unreported in any study but in the case of this one unless someone is actually shot they never made it in the study.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.