“We found zero evidence of any kind of protective effects” from living in a home with a handgun, said David Studdert, a Stanford University researcher who was the lead author of the Annals of Internal Medicine study.
It is quite literally more likely that:
(1) You’ll use that firearm on yourself.
(2) You’ll use that firearm illegally on somebody else, homicidally.
(3) The firearm will be stolen and drop into the hands of a criminal
(4) The firearm will be accidentally discharged by your kids or yourself, either maiming or killing.
(5) The firearm will be wrongly used to harm someone in perceived but wrongful self-defense.
… By the way. America has by far the highest firearms per capita and yet still has some of the worst statistics. They are not deterrents. They do not make people safer. Neither was the Wild West a utopia — in fact Tombstone and Dodge City implemented gun control laws near the end of the era and reduced homicides. Neither are inner-cities when gangs know other gangs are armed.
Statistics don’t lie. Every single person who had these things happen to them thought they were more responsible and wise, etc.
I’m not a child or mentally challenged. I don’t require every tiny minute thing around me to be idiot proof.
If you were, would you know? I’ve known so many people who claimed they were good drivers but were absolutely horrible. False confidence runs rampant in America.
Sorry brother, but this reads like you want the world to be this perfect safe space. And it never will be. Work with what you got, and do what you can. I would much rather have some “statistical risk” in my home, than face a situation where I had no tools to protect myself because I was relying on an organization to do that for me.
The math doesn’t lie. You aren’t safer. Even in an emergency, there are a range of options that don’t involve cops that improve your odds of surviving, including fleeing, hiding, and even cooperating. Funnily-enough, all lead to a better outcome than thinking you’re some kind of badass hero.
You want to protect yourself? Get good locks, some cameras, and a large dog or two. Convicted burglars note they were deterred more from a large dog.
Change can come, but we need to advocate for what other countries already have: A reduction of firearms on the streets. Reducing supply increases cost. Reducing firearm concentration means the effective lethality of the average criminal drops. Simple economics.
By the way: Offensive Gun Uses ALWAYS have the advantage over Defensive Gun Uses.
Let’s pretend we’re in a game and all armed with squirt-guns and I just so happen to be playing the ““bad guy with a squirt-gun.”” At any given moment, it’s my interest to (a) rob you, or (b) squirt you in cold blood. Now maybe…Maybe 1 in 100 or 1,000 times I’d fumble somehow. But seeing how I have the element of surprise (and determination to use) at any given moment of any given day of any given year, and (2) you more or less must wait for me to be a threat in the first place means the defender is always at a MAJOR disadvantage. Which means it’s a losing race no matter how much you saturate the market.
Even if you got the drop on me in that 1 in 100 times, it doesn’t matter because it still benefits the offensive individual an order-of-magnitude. I mean if I’m being mugged with or without my family, I’m just going to give them my stuff. It’s meaningless compared to my life or loved ones and now I run the risk of making myself a target as opposed to my property. Do I really think I can react even if I have my firearm holstered on my side while someone else already has the draw on me? If you feel this confident, I’d love to play that game with you and and make a betting-game out of it.
If I am a mass-squirter (don’t.), then a weapon with greater range of spray, more water in the reservoir, and a squeeze-and-hold would amplify my capacity to spray others. (Case-in-point: see the 1997 North Hollywood shootout)
Now you understand why our firearm-related homicides are higher than any other Western OECD nation.
Now you understand why our total homicides are an outlier among Western OECD nations.
There is no correlation with reducing homicides and firearm possession / ownership
By mitigating the proliferation of firearms in society, you’re addressing the problem from the opposite side. This has the added benefit of lowering impulse-related rage-induced homicides (e.g., bar fights, domestic disputes), reducing child-safety accidents, and suicides. It also has the added benefit of moving the illegality to a precursor to homicide and be proactive about stopping a bad guy before they harm someone, as opposed to having to wait reactively.
I said not one word about cops, buddy.
When those tools predispose you to a greater risk than the thing it’s alleged to resolve, then you’re quite literally shooting yourself in the foot.
I’d rather use science and statistics as opposed to these heroic fairy tales not grounded in reality.
deleted by creator
You are actually in more danger.
It is quite literally more likely that:
… By the way. America has by far the highest firearms per capita and yet still has some of the worst statistics. They are not deterrents. They do not make people safer. Neither was the Wild West a utopia — in fact Tombstone and Dodge City implemented gun control laws near the end of the era and reduced homicides. Neither are inner-cities when gangs know other gangs are armed.
Statistics don’t lie. Every single person who had these things happen to them thought they were more responsible and wise, etc.
If you were, would you know? I’ve known so many people who claimed they were good drivers but were absolutely horrible. False confidence runs rampant in America.
The math doesn’t lie. You aren’t safer. Even in an emergency, there are a range of options that don’t involve cops that improve your odds of surviving, including fleeing, hiding, and even cooperating. Funnily-enough, all lead to a better outcome than thinking you’re some kind of badass hero.
You want to protect yourself? Get good locks, some cameras, and a large dog or two. Convicted burglars note they were deterred more from a large dog.
Change can come, but we need to advocate for what other countries already have: A reduction of firearms on the streets. Reducing supply increases cost. Reducing firearm concentration means the effective lethality of the average criminal drops. Simple economics.
By the way: Offensive Gun Uses ALWAYS have the advantage over Defensive Gun Uses.
Let’s pretend we’re in a game and all armed with squirt-guns and I just so happen to be playing the ““bad guy with a squirt-gun.”” At any given moment, it’s my interest to (a) rob you, or (b) squirt you in cold blood. Now maybe…Maybe 1 in 100 or 1,000 times I’d fumble somehow. But seeing how I have the element of surprise (and determination to use) at any given moment of any given day of any given year, and (2) you more or less must wait for me to be a threat in the first place means the defender is always at a MAJOR disadvantage. Which means it’s a losing race no matter how much you saturate the market.
If I am a mass-squirter (don’t.), then a weapon with greater range of spray, more water in the reservoir, and a squeeze-and-hold would amplify my capacity to spray others. (Case-in-point: see the 1997 North Hollywood shootout)
By mitigating the proliferation of firearms in society, you’re addressing the problem from the opposite side. This has the added benefit of lowering impulse-related rage-induced homicides (e.g., bar fights, domestic disputes), reducing child-safety accidents, and suicides. It also has the added benefit of moving the illegality to a precursor to homicide and be proactive about stopping a bad guy before they harm someone, as opposed to having to wait reactively.