CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

[Seli]

...

Even if they were facing the U.S. military, it's also an assumption that the military would not be divided over whatever issue led to people taking arms against the government.

Meh, either they have the military on their side (they don't need own weapons), or they don't (weapons don't matter), or the military splits (full blown civil war).

[MisterOJ]

Americans are dying every day because of this "fundamental right."

Lives could be saved if enough people would just agree that people are dying because of the second amendment and it was repealed. It saddens me that this will never happen because so many people are ruled by their selfishness because they love their gun collection so much or ruled by fear because they are afraid of change.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mr.OJ,

More lives could be saved if we outlawed pools as well or personal automobiles than banning personal firearms. Should cars and pools be banned too as they kill more people than firearms? People don't want to ban cars and pools because they love them and are more ruled by selfishness than care for their fellow people.

[Seli]

Americans are dying every day because of this "fundamental right."

Lives could be saved if enough people would just agree that people are dying because of the second amendment and it was repealed. It saddens me that this will never happen because so many people are ruled by their selfishness because they love their gun collection so much or ruled by fear because they are afraid of change.

You don't even need to repeal the second amendment. There are bound to be measures that are a lot more efficient. Which is what the CDC wants to look at.

eta: or as Scott reminds us, perhaps introducing equivalents of driving licenses and swimming pool fences will solve a lot of issues already.

[MisterOJ]

If destruction was the primary function of a pool or automobile, then yes. However, that's not their primary function. Firearms primary function is to destroy life. And that makes firearms quite different than pools or cars.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MrOJ, Seli,

But even with existing regulations more people are killed by pools and cars each year than by firearms. If pools and cars were not owned by individuals more people would be saved than by a firearms ban. Why the focus on the lesser problem of firearms simply because people, selfishly, enjoy pools and cars?

MrOJ,

You are making the ultilitarian argument that gun bans save lives yet when a broader ban on personal property, property that is already heavily regulated and yet that kills even more people each year than firearms, you balk?

[MisterOJ]

Scot,

I notice you chose not to address my point that the primary function of a gun is to harm or take life, whereas that is not the case with pools and cars.

ETA: Also, I would add that the vast majority of deaths that involve pools and cars are accidental, yes? Do you think the same can be said for gun deaths?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MrOJ,

So, a firearm can't be used for target shooting or just to have in the unlikely event it is needed? You say its only purpose is to kill yet how many people who own firearms have actually killed someone? A fraction of a fraction I suspect. Yet cars and pools, which people doen't expect to kill anyone, kill many more people each year than firearms whose purpose, you claim, is solely to take life. If firearms are so much more deadly that they need to be banned because of their "purpose" why are cars and pools empirically more dangerous than firearms? And why do you, with your utilitarian argument, want to ignore the empirically more dangerous personal property?

[Seli]

MrOJ, Seli,

But even with existing regulations more people are killed by pools and cars each year than by firearms. If pools and cars were not owned by individuals more people would be saved than by a firearms ban. Why the focus on the lesser problem of firearms simply because people, selfishly, enjoy pools and cars?

...

For me it is not a utilitarian argument, but a pragmatic one. We cannot forbid everything that has associated risks, but we would be stupid and negligent not to introduce enough regulation to make sure that if practical people choosing to take the risks mostly endanger themselves and not others.

I am all or a pool ban :)

With cars you might have noticed that deaths have been dropping steadily and are now in the same ballpark as gun deaths. Probably mostly a result of improvements to cars and regulation (I am sure we had this, perhaps slightly optimistic, picture in one of he previous threads http://www.bloomberg...3cs6F7hTHkc.jpg ).

And that is before we even consider hours of use and prevalence of cars vs guns.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Seli,

Yet, again, what is the percentage of firearms that have actually been used for violence? Compaired with fhe number of cars that have "potentially" killed or injured someone?

[MisterOJ]

So, a firearm can't be used for target shooting or just to have in the unlikely event it is needed? You say its only purpose is to kill yet how many people who own firearms have actually killed someone? A fraction of a fraction I suspect. Yet cars and pools, which people doen't expect to kill anyone, kill many more people each year than firearms whose purpose, you claim, is solely to take life. If firearms are so much more deadly that they need to be banned because of their "purpose" why are cars and pools empirically more dangerous than firearms? And why do you, with your utilitarian argument, want to ignore the empirically more dangerous personal property?

I didn't say that a firearm's "only" purpose is to kill (or injure). I said that to kill is its primary function is to kill. Do you disagree with that?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MrOJ,

That a total dodge of the primary point of the post you quote. My answer is that it depends on why the weapon was purchased. If not to be carried on your person and if the owner dosn't believe in killing bu enjoys target shooting then I would say the weapons primary pupose is not to kill. That said I will concede that for most killing or stoping potential violence against them with the threat of deadly force is the primary purpose.

Now, with that being the primary purpose why aren't more people being killed with firearma than with cars and pools and why are you unwilling to advocate a car and pool ban when they are objectively more dangerous than firearma based on the deaths caused by their use or presence?

[Seli]

Seli,

Yet, again, what is the percentage of firearms that have actually been used for violence? Compaired with fhe number of cars that have "potentially" killed or injured someone?

How many defensive uses were there again? Because by some definitions any of those is violence to some extent :)

But the number of vehicles seems to be in the same ballpark as the number of guns.

What point are you trying to make?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Seli,

My point is that something with a "deadly purpose" can apparently be as safe as or safer than something with a bengin purpose.

[MisterOJ]

Now, with that being the primary purpose why aren't more people being killed with firearma than with cars and pools and why are you unwilling to advocate a car and pool ban when they are objectively more dangerous than firearma based on the deaths caused by their use or presence?

Because their primary use is for killing and more care is taken with guns than with pools and cars. It is very, very easy to kill someone with a gun, so people are (for the most part) careful with them and around them.

That isn't the case with pools (which are primarily used for recreation) and cars (which are used for transportation). So, people get careless with and around pools and cars. Accidents happen and loss of life occurs. With guns, while there are undoubtedly some accidental deaths, most of them are intentional acts of violence.

Yes?

[Seli]

Seli,

My point is that something with a "deadly purpose" can apparently be as safe as or safer than something with a bengin purpose.

Yes of course. That does not mean it should not be examined whether they can be made even safer, without people losing access. And in my eyes too many people are so scared of losing their guns that they don't even want to consider examining if that is possible.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mr.OJ,

Then in my view you are more concerned with potential harm than actual harm.

Seli,

I'm willing to discuss resonable regulations. What I do not agree with is an absolute ban.

[Ser Greguh]

Not the "right to own guns" metric, which is the one under discussion.

I wish I could say it surprising that you dogmatically reject as "incorrect and empirically disproven" something that the Supreme Court has confirmed, but it's not. That's your style of debate -- your opinion is indistinguishable from inarguable fact, and anyone who disagrees is a moron.

Like when you called me the "king of confirmation bias" just prior to my going 51 for 51 in electoral college predictions last election? That's your style of debate: pretend that empirical facts simply don't exist, and that anyone that attempts to bring them up is just being too forceful with their opinions.

Here's a quote from the majority opinion in Heller, "

"It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

A right that appears directly in the Constitution, has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as "fundamental", and you say that someone claiming it is a fundamental right is "incorrect and empirically disproving." Amazing, really. The quote you belittled is almost verbatim from the Supreme Court opinion.

Yes. I'm saying the framers were wrong, just as they were wrong about slavery, women's rights, and quantum mechanics for that matter. I understand why they were of that opinion at the time - having just fought a war of independence where an armed civilian militia played a crucial role in the victory, while facing the prospect of expanding into a hostile wilderness. They were geniuses, and the US Constitution remains as one of the most nuanced and meaningful documents ever written, but time marches on, and some of us have moved past the 18th Century. "Fundamental" is such a loaded word. Its use implies that without that right, no other rights can exist, and this is an argument that you hear from the NRA nuts all the time: "All other rights flow from the 2nd Amendment", etc.

Except, as I pointed out, that's simply not the case. That experiment has already been conducted, and in multiple sovereign nations throughout the world, wher it is not legal for a civilian to own a firearm, and amazingly, they fail time and time again to descend into tyrannical dictatorship, as the elimination of a "Fundamental" right would imply must necessarily follow. In fact, many of them regularly stomp the shit out of us when it comes to other metrics to gauge our "freedom". If the right to have a gun is a "Fundamental" freedom, than such countries could not exist. They do, so the hypothesis that gun ownership is "Fundamental" is empirically disproven. See how empiricism works? Isn't it fun?

[MisterOJ]

Mr.OJ,

Then in my view you are more concerned with potential harm than actual harm.

Guns cause actual harm. Every day. Thousands die each year. That's actual, deliberate harm. Not accidental harm as caused by drowning deaths in pools or automobile crashes. Deliberate deaths that could be avoided if folks would simply agree that we have moved beyond the need for an armed citizen population.

[thecryptile]

Cryptile,

I must say the the CDC's findings are making me itchy to buy another gun. I'm justifying it by the additional years of safety and longevity I may enjoy.

I'm worried about the shotgun as my dog is my first line of defense. He and my crowbar have been serving me pretty well for years. On the other hand, I don't want to accidentally shoot my neighbors by firing a bullet through my wood-tent-of-a-house. Ideas?

I also rely on my dogs. Dogs are better than any high dollar alarm system, and they don't need to be mean to deter crooks.

You need to do some location specific training, for sure. This is a must for any gun-owner who plans to use their weapon for self defense. If the intruder is in the kitchen, will an over penetration go into the kids' room? You need to have a personalized strategy ready for a home invasion.

Ammunition selection is key as well- depending on the type of weapon you are using i.e. shotgun, rifle, or handgun.

With shotguns, hunting shells like buckshot are less likely to over penetrate. That's one reason they are recommended for home-defense. [stay away from slugs.]

With rifles, go with a .223 or less. An AR-15 has fewer risks of over penetration than a traditional deer rifle. This is one reason they are so popular with police.

Both rifles and shotguns are bulky, and take two hands to use.

Handguns are a different story, caliber size is less important than ammunition selection. You want hollow point or other frangible ammunition. Hollow point ammunition is designed to be safer than the ball ammo used by the military. Ball ammo, even in pea shooters like a .380, can easily over penetrate.

There are a number of factory loaded cartridges designed specifically for use inside a typical American home. I have used and can recommend ammunition from the Winchester PD-X series and the Remington Home Defense/Ultimate defense lines.