Does carrying a gun actually make you safer?
I went searching for some scientifically rigorous data on this question today, after being bombarded by conservative relations, friends, acquaintances and SLOG readers today regarding a gentleman who defended his garage (undoubtedly filled with mountains of useless junk that should be thrown out) from two burglars, by killing one and seriously injuring another human being with his vaunted handgun.
Citing this gun owners’ actions—right now costing state and federal taxpayers tens if not hundreds of thousands in medical bills for his victim, but saving that junk in his garage—as proof that guns make you, me and everyone safer is a bit like saying, “I totally know this guy who smoked until he was ninety, and then died of a broken hip. Smoking is totes safe, man.”
I’d feel better with some data—pointing us in one direction or another. Here’s what I found.
1. Gun ownership is intrinsically dangerous—particularly to children and abused spouses in the household.
2. People who own guns for personal protection are the least likely to practice safe gun ownership. They are the least likely to store their guns locked up, their ammo locked up and the guns and ammo stored separately.
3. In a case control study—comparing gun owners to non-gun owners—gun owners were more likely to be shot fatally (intentionally or unintentionally) than non-gun owners.
4. Guns in the home for personal protection were frequently used to threaten or intimidate other family members. This most often was done by a male gun-owning family member, to a female member of the household. This family-on-family threatening of gun violence occurred roughly ten times more often than the gun being used to threaten or intimidate an intruder.
5. Fear drives gun ownership for protection. Being a Southerner and male also increases the odds that one will carry a gun for ‘protection.’
6. From a systematic review, How Well Does The Handgun Protect You and Your Family:
Statistics are reviewed which show that a gun in the home is far more likely to lead to the death or injury of a family member or friend than to the death of an intruder. Data on victimizations and the use of firearms for self defense are then examined for the crimes of burglary, robbery, assault, and rape. In each case the effectiveness of guns in preventing or deterring the crime is analyzed, and compared to the effectiveness of other self defense methods. The data presented in this report indicate that private handgun ownership provides no significant deterrent to burglary and violent crime. It may, in fact, escalate the severity of the violence if offenders believe they must be more heavily armed than the citizenry. The statistics also showed that the use of a weapon in resistance to a criminal attack usually results in greater probability of bodily injury or death to the victim. Other methods of resistance, such as flight or verbal resistance, were found to be more effective in aborting the crime while having less probability of causing harm or death to the victim. In circumstances where the offender is armed, non-resistance most likely resulted in the minimum amount of harm to the victim. The authors conclude that because of the surprise nature of most violent crime and the fact that it is likely to occur between strangers, it is improbable that the victim would have time to use the handgun in any event. They argue that in light of the risks of handgun ownership – the possibility of escalating the violence of the crime, and the risk of accidents and suicides among family members – other safer methods of crime prevention must be adopted.
Among pro-gun advocates, the idea carrying a gun makes one safer is pretty much sacrosanct—the cornerstone of the Second Amendment religion that dominates our country. Per the available data, it’s totally and completely wrong; carrying a gun, objectively, make one less safe.
Updated:
One last point: I’m a civil libertarian, and believe all of the rights extended in the Bill of Rights (and more) should be defended—including gun ownership. To state something that should be obvious to everyone, but apparently isn’t: Pointing out the statistically demonstrated risks of exercising those rights isn’t the same as stating they aren’t or shouldn’t be rights. Be noted.
And for the TL;DR crowd:
The firearm fetishist fantasy. The reality.
I can only speak for myself, of course. But I would somehow figure out a way to injure myself. Oh, I know I seem graceful as all get-out, what with my immaculate hair and stylish clothes, but it’s all smoke and mirrors. I am a klutz. For instance, I have had the same ovens for ten years, and I still manage to burn myself, pretty much in the same location, on a regular basis.
I shudder to think what would happen if I had a firearm, or even had to just occasionally dust around some.
.
gun owners have small T.M.I.’s
The 2nd Amendment was meant to allow citizens to arm themselves with enough means to overthrow the government if need be. Really, the entire Bill of Rights was designed to safeguard any future revolution.
“Being a Southerner and male also increases the odds that one will carry a gun for ‘protection.”
BS! It is completely coincidental that I have a Concealed Pistol License and my Avatar is a painting of ‘Bo Over the Top.’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDeAWbxgT…
As to the topic in general, at first glance most of the studies appear to suffer from selection bias. For example including all handgun carriers instead of LEGAL ones, or by not controlling for the fact that handgun owners are disproportionately poor and minority and thus automatically more likely to suffer from violent crime to begin with, etc. etc. But it’s 9:40 this side of the country and I’ve got better things to do before bed so we’ll have to see if I have time to go study by study some other time.
Dear lord, I love you, Jonathan Golob.
My favorites are the boobs who (as in your last point) are convinced that carrying a gun on their person will protect them from stickups — situations where in every case the bad guy has the drop on you, and the adrenaline rush to use it. Instead of being the hero, the gun owners just add more weapons to the criminal underground.
Which is where almost all guns in the criminal underground come from — stolen from legal gun owners (mostly at home, not in stickups).
I chalk the whole thing up to a movie-and-fantasy-led hero complex. In reality what most people, even big tough guys, do when confronted with real guns in real situations is crap themselves. And cry.
Nothing from 5280 yet? He must be passed out in his La Z Boy already, with some form of weapon cradled in his gun loving arms.
@5, Does carrying a weapon guarantee safety? Of course not. Can having a weapon on hand combined with proper situational awareness help prevent you and those you love from becoming victims… Yes it can, happens all the time.
@Anc. I’m being sincere here, not rhetorical: Provide me with some data to back up your claim that having a firearm ‘prevent you and those you love from becoming victims… all the time.”
I’ll read it, and put it in the main post–provided it has any rigor at all. I looked really hard, and couldn’t find anything to back up that claim; you might do better than I.
therefore, what?
if you are enlightened enough not to want to carry a gun,
don’t.
Here is a recent story from the Portland Mercury about a tragic and savage unprovoked attack on two gay people in public. If they had a firearm, or the multiple bystanders who witnessed the beating and did nothing to stop it had a firearm, this probably would have been prevented.
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blog…
@8:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/05/24…
@10: As a neutral third party, would you say this outcome in Tacoma was a good one? A desirable outcome?
Remember, you and I are now paying for this burglar’s medical bills–bills that will easily enter five digits. Another person–even if he was a useless fuck of a burglar–is dead. The big payoff? A garage of shit.
I don’t like the idea of random people brandishing weapons–with variable degrees of inebriation, training, wits and aim. It’s ugly enough when police–with all of those details and more accounted for–brandish deadly force. Civilians? Almost always, invariably, worse outcomes.
But, that’s my bias here–as someone responsible for patching all those holes.
@Anc. An anecdote does not make data. Anything else?
@12 Cute, but stupid. And you probably know that.
@12, you’re stupid, aren’t you? That’s the same story he started his piece off with.
The stats for gun safety look even worse if you include suicides.
@5 Dear lord, I love you, Jonathan Golob.
Oh dear lord Fnarf, we all already know Golob is head and shoulders above the rest of the Slog writers.
“movie-and-fantasy-led hero complex” — exactly. the kind of crap Constant gets off on, with his comic book Super tweet/amazon/iPad to save the day complex. I’d like to raygun his ass (not really).
8
So the rational conclusion is not to own a gun?
Dr Golob,
please compare and contrast the safety of
owning a handgun
and
engaging in homosexual behavior.
According to the CDC 20% of sexually active homosexuals have HIV.
And,
as you know,
the infection rates for other STDs among homosexuals are much higher.
How much of a risk is engaging in homosexual behavior to oneself?
How much of a risk is engaging in homosexual behavior to one’s partner(s)?
What percentage of gun owners injure them self or a loved one?
What percentage of gun owners kill them self or a loved one?
How many homosexuals die each year from AIDS they contracted from a loved one through homosexual behavior?
Clearly engaging in homosexual behavior is a much riskier,
much less safe,
much deadlier to self and loved ones
than packing heat.
Obviously the rigorous rational conclusion is not to engage in homosexual behavior.
Do you advocate to your patients that they refrain from engaging in homosexual behavior,
for their own and their families’ safety, Dr Golob?
http://villagethinker.files.wordpress.co…
If you want to feel safer at home, keeping a baseball bat in the corner of your bedroom will work for most of us. If your apartment is really small, get one of the shorter, souvenir-type bats.
I’m not against guns—think they’re fun to shoot at target and everything, but few of us are likely to be in a situation where a gun aid in our protection. For the most part, they significantly increase your propinquity to danger.
Totally agreed, Golob. Thank you for this. And of course there’s one of those “exception that proves the rule” new stories from last week, on the street where Dan and his family live:
http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2011/0…
13
How much public health care resources are wasted treating STDs contracted through homosexual behavior?
For every burglar shot and treated with public dollars how many homosexuals are being treated for STDs they contracted through homosexual behavior?
You say “carrying a gun, objectively, makes one less safe.” But that’s not true for criminals, they are probably more safe with a gun in hand.
@14, considering my comment contained such scientific statements as ‘can’ and ‘all the time’ what kind of data exactly are you looking for to prove/disprove that?
@12 This is your “all the time” data? you understand how science works, right?
@16 Damn! Nothing gets by you! 😀
I feel safer with a weapon in my hands. In fact, some days I feel naked without one, especially if I’m in a high threat environment.
But I don’t own a handgun. In fact, the only civilian weapon I own is a .22 rifle that I bought to teach my niece how to shoot.
I’m a combat veteran with eight confirmed kills. I’m not boasting; it’s just a fact. A weapon is part of my (near) daily life, and Im at least familiar with a dozen of different small arm systems.
But I don’t carry one with me, or even have one in my home. And I don’t have children or anything like that – I just don’t think it would make me any safer in a civilian environment. As has been mentioned before, the risks – even for someone who knows how to handle a weapon – outweigh the benefits, at least in my view.
Not only that, but I feel like carrying a weapon for personal defense is often a crutch, or excuse not to maintain one’s own physical fitness. I don’t need to work out, or learn basic self defense techniques, because I carry a handgun.
There’s also reliability; even the best maintained weapon can jam or misfire; a round can have a bad primer; etc. No system, no matter how expensive or well made, is 100% effective.
I’m rambling. Guess I just think it’s a cloudy issue, at best.
28
get a revolver…..
@10 Nope. Your better burglars are wary and sneaky, and prefer to burgle houses where the residents are out. So, the only correlation you’ll find in those cases, is that where there are guns in the home, they stand a chance of getting burgled.
Cat burglars who sneak into occupied houses where the residents are asleep are much rarer, and there a good perimeter alarm system, or even some motion-activated lighting, would probably serve you better than a gun.
Oh my God, I just found out that the Oprah Funeral continues this evening (some of you may remember that I was coerced into watching it last night in the name of “being present in our relationship”, or something like that).
It really IS a blessing that there are no firearms at Chez Vel-DuRay. And that our ovens are electric……
Guns are a serious concern where children are concerned, but if we’re talking about domestic violence, things like men threatening their partner with a gun, then we’re discussing an issue of fear and violence. The solution is not to get rid of the guns (sure, get rid of the guns that aren’t maintained safely if you want to prevent kids shooting each other, but it won’t prevent domestic violence). You need to address the fear, insecurity, and violence at the root of it. Because if they don’t have a gun handy, they will have a knife, or they’ll have fists. Abusers are going to abuse, and the lack of a gun may make it a bit less likely to be fatal, but ti won’t fix the problem. Same with suicide. People who try to commit suicide using a gun are more likely to succeed, so if you want to increase the rate of failed attempts and increase the odds of being helped people who attempt suicide, sure, getting rid of guns will help. But ti won’t cure depression or anxiety; you still need to work on the underlying problems that cause people to want to commit suicide if you want to decrease suicide.
@24 the fellas in Tacoma didn’t wind up very safe. I wouldn’t call prison for the significant number who are caught is a very desirable outcome, either.
The unspoken backdrop for Dr. Golob’s excellent post is, essentially, that all the data is on the side of gun control advocates. Not but a very fringe few argue for a repeal of the second amendment, however a large group of Americans support reasonable gun control measures and are typically thwarted by folks who become very passionate about their safety, despite the fact that the numbers prove them wrong.
As for those who argue that the intent of the framers was to protect the right of revolution, I don’t think anyone can say with a straight face that today’s military resembles anything close to the muskets of 1776. I would be curious to hear when the last successful armed civilian revolution took place, and stack that against the numerous peaceful political upheavals in modern times.
I think, armed with facts, as Mr. Golob is attempting to help us with here, most reasonable and patriotic Americans would be on the same side of smart gun control policy with the exception of a chunk of paranoiacs and the stone-hearted misanthropes who would just as soon see a human bleed to death on the sidewalk in the name of protecting property rights as exemplified by a junk-filled East Tacoma garage.
I’ll stick with the telescoping baton. Guns give me the willies.
Living in an urban area or city, objectively makes one less safe. http://oregonexplorer.info/rural/RuralIs…
Why would anyone live in a city?
Oh, hell, lets’ really get the right-wing screech machine going:
Israel is a major force for evil & violence in the world, government spending on social programs improves everyone’s lives & Christianity is a black-magic cult.
Now– let’s hear some blood-vessel popping anger from you!
@13 You convinced me. Criminals shouldn’t get free medical treatment. All injuries incurred while incarcerated or while committing a crime must be paid in advance through their bank accounts or by their families. If they can’t pay, they get no treatment.
Also, without gun ownership, would the criminal have been caught, or would he still be committing crimes on the street? Which is worse: having to pay for his medical treatment or allowing him to get away and commit more crimes?
The gentleman’s house had been burglarized a few weeks before.
If the garage was presumed to have junk in it, burglars shouldn’t have been working to break in.
The burglars were said to have charged the man, who had a gun.
I can’t really get into the heads of American males who claim shooting their partners or celebrities or ten-year-old girls off on a visit to their Congressmembers is their unalienable right as part of a “well-armed militia”, but I say social Darwinism resulted in the death of one of these “I break in garages for junk!” twits.
The only way I would consider getting a gun would be to bring it home and bury it immediately in a watertight container in the backyard, only to be dug up in case of societal collapse or a zombie apocalypse.
Thank you Dr. Golob for stopping the pretence that you care about your patients in ‘advising’ them on guns. This is all about you grinding a political axe, and nothing to do with the welfare of your patients ‘Doctor.’
Whether for self protection, a well regulated militia, or simply the desire to collect guns, we have the individual right to bear arms in this country, no matter your pathetic little rants.
This right gauranteed means the right of left wing morons like you to moralize about others decisions that have nothing to do with you. It gaurantees that you and your effete little liberal buddies can mock others faith, or adopt your own watered down version. It means that when you’re arrested you have basic criminal rights. Once this right is taken extra-Constitutionally, so can any one of the others you enjoy.
Now, why don’t you, Goldy and Savage get the hell out of my country and go somewhere your pathetic liberal beliefs are valued?
@40
You know, it can be argued that the Israelis are the thieves in your scenario, bub. Palestinians were there first.
I’m willing to admit that guns don’t make you safer. Hell, I’ll even admit they make things more dangerous, especially for households with children. But here’s the thing, YOU STILL CAN’T HAVE MY GUN. I support responsible gun ownership and gun control laws, I think the NRA are a bunch of lunatics for opposing these laws. However, if I have to join the NRA to ensure that I can keep my shotgun, I WILL. Please don’t make me do that.
Jeepers, somehow #37’s rant actually made #43’s blood vessels start a-poppin’, instead!
PS It’s my country too, Seattleblues. I’ll leave when I feel like it, not because you think I should.
I think I’ll just electrify my windows and doors with 240s and then carry a katana.
@36
You dont have a choice of living near a gun owner. However you always have the choice of living where you would like.
@Seattleblues
Why don’t you get the hell off of their blog?
@46
Yes, and left wing deluded people like you have the right of free speech, just as rational people do. You know why? Because of the rule of Constitutional law. Golob, Goldy and you want that rule abrogated for rights you don’t care to exercise? Who will defend your right to be stupid publicy then? Who will protect your right to an attorney in criminal matters? How about your right to jeer at churches?
All those rights hang together or we lose all of them one by one.
I agree with The Stranger on everything except this issue. I like owning guns too much to give it up because some people can’t handle them properly. I think it’s awesome that we live in a country willing to trust its citizens with weapons that are traditionally only available to the government and the well connected. It shows, if only symbolically, that America is a place where the people have power.
@43, But SB, if we leave the country, it’ll be that much harder to destroy the country we so vehemently hate. We want to take you’re country away from you and convert it into a gulag. A gulag for Christians. And people with small businesses.
A gun is a tool. A gun has it’s purposes. I’d love to shoot the raccoons who raid my compost bin (but I live in the city and it’s illegal). A gun will never de-escalate a tense situation. A gun in an urban area is often used as a tool of intimidation. It incites fear.
And really, if someone’s trying to break into your garage, a nice loud dog, a baseball bat, and a phone will do the trick. Nobody has to go to the hospital.
Wow. I am truly surprised by the gun advocates’ inability to parse data. Or even understand the basic tenants of science.
How is it possible we’ve survived as a species for so long?
Toasting in a delectable roll bread.
@43: *guarantee
“get the hell out of my country”
Not so much your country anymore, boss. Fewer and fewer of us here in the States are crusty old xenophobic asswipes.
Or are you talking about Italy?
Now to your main point:
Touchy, touchy! At no point in this post does Dr. Golob suggest that gun ownership should be banned. All he’s doing is pointing out that owning a gun appears to make you LESS safe, judging by the available statistics. And it’s entirely a doctor’s place to advise his patients as to what makes them more or less safe.
Now, normally, you keep a strict composure up, maintaining an air of smug superiority and typing in a calm and organized manner. Here, you’ve just gone on an angry and paranoid rant. Do you always get this way when the evidence goes against your preconceived notions of the order of things? Do you get mad at the numbers for not backing up what you have chosen to believe, all evidence to the contrary be damned? You tout your ability (as a conservative, you claim) to think and reason properly, and yet you never seem willing to address any facts that don’t click with what you want to think. You make me sick.
@49 I think the 1million+ people who were kicked out of their ancestral homeland in 1948 would disagree with you. Now zip it, I’m going to bed.
@47: My girlfriend’s parents have a katana, a functional Ringwraith sword, and, like, two or three other decorative but sharp bladed weapons. I want to be like that when i have my own place.
@53: *your
@54: Excuse me, but if I pick up a baseball bat or similar blunt object to rebuff an intruder, somebody will have to go to the hospital.
@55: *tenets
@55 – “tenets”, not “tenants”. Sorry, I’ve just been seeing that one a lot lately.
Do guns work during a zombie apocalypse?
The article in the Times regarding this incident did say, to be fair, that the intruders rushed the home owner when he confronted them. The takeaway, I would think, is to stay in the house and let the cops confront them. But that said, he chose to do so and subsequently protected himself from a possible assault.
This doesn’t detract from the good Dr’s point, however. Guns are a escalation. The first thing I was taught about gun safety was don’t point one at anyone. The second thing was don’t pull it unless you are going to use it.
Bringing up the fact that the burglar will now require medical care that the state presumably will pay for is a extraneous point, and one better suited to a argument on health care policy, IMHO,
@58, Ugh, that’s one of my most hated errors, too (up there with the conflation of ‘there’, ‘their’ and ‘they’re’, ‘its’ and ‘it’s’ as well as ‘to’ and ‘too’). It would seem grammar fails me at 5 AM.
@51 How’s your 4th Amendment rights since passage of The Patriot Act by a pro-gun White House and Congress, moron?
Thanks Jonathan, and please, gun owners, forward him some conflicting data-he’s rigorous, even if the commenters aren’t.
But, Dr Golob, leave the shots at the Second Admendent and gun rights bills alone. I do not hope for nor believe for a second that people should be banned from owning guns, just as they shouldn’t be banned from smoking where it doesn’t affect others. Data allows those who don’t want guns around them to encourage people to not own or carry guns as a choice, and as it appears to be a legit safety hazard, have their doctors recommend a change just as they may advise dropping that third burger from lunch or that bottle a day Jack Daniels habit.
Vl Ravings,
I’m 40 this year, which is hardly old. As for crusty asswipes I’ll leave that to the Schultzes and Thom Hartmanns of the world. And zenophobic is beneath even you, lacking any supporting rationale at all.
You’re hanging out with college kids too much if you think the United States anything other than fundamentally center right in majoriity.
Golob presented no evidence affecting the 2nd Amendment. He made this comment- “Among pro-gun advocates, the idea carrying a gun makes one safer is pretty much sacrosanct—the cornerstone of the Second Amendment religion that dominates our country.” Which of course is patently false. The 2nd Amendment never mentions personal protection. All of his anti-gun ranting entirely misses his point, which is his desire to remove that amendment.
But I am appreciative that Golob stopped pretending he gives a tinkers dam about his patients safety with guns. He wants guns gone, and will use his patients as a tool to do this. Before he acted like he cared about, well, them personally, which is of course laughable.
Now, if all you libs can get a petition drive up, mobilize Congress or 3/4 of the States and nullify or alter the 2nd, that’s one thing. But that isn’t what you want. You want to abridge it without alteration, and that simply is illegal.
@63
Which is why I’ve consistently opposed the Patriot Act, idiot.
Unlike liberals I don’t have to blindly support whatever anyone whose party affiliation I share says or does. It’s called independent thinking, but liberal drones wouldn’t understand that.
And how about the provisions you’re liberal buddies advocated for that will sunset without that support dimwit?
@64
We’ve been through this before. Dr. Golob and any other physicians need to mind their own business. If I come into the office with a broken arm caused by skiing, there might be some reason to bring skiing safety up. If I show signs of alchoholism or drug addiction that conversation might be appropriate. If I’m putting on weight, or my cholesterol numbers are jumping, diet and exercise might be valid discussions. Otherwise it is quite simply not his business as a doctor. Period. Ever.
I don’t ask for a nanny in my physician. I ask for someone to monitor my health and advise me of risks that my physical condition indicate. I’m quite capable of assessing the risks in my life choices all by myself.
@Golob. I don’t think any reasonable person would claim that gun ownership makes them safer. The reason gun ownership is lauded by the right is not for safety reasons, but for reasons of personal control. Gun ownership (and use) puts the power in the hands of the gun owner rather than the hands of chance. Although gun owners as a population may be more prone to doing themselves violence than non-gun owners, it is still something that is under their control. Its similar to having a fear of flying. While its much more likely that you will be killed while you drive a car, as opposed to being killed as a passenger on a flight, people are, on average, much more scared of flying. They have no control when not at the wheel.
I have no reason to doubt the data you refer to, but I also don’t think its unreasonable to forgo odds in favor of the ability to effect the outcome personally.
@69:So tell your physician to butt out. S/he will be able to deal with it. Physicians’ feelings aren’t easily hurt. I’m happy to get some evidence-based lifestyle advice from my physician, and I’ll handle it as I like, weigh it against considerations other than safety as I choose. You don’t want the advice, that’s cool too. You seem like the sort of person who can hold your own in a conversation here on SLOG. Somehow it’s hard for me to believe that your doctor offering a few statistics about what might make you live longer is somehow going to cause you serious psychic trauma. Like the bumpersticker says: “Advice doesn’t kill people, but getting your panties all in a bundlewhen soeon gives you advice just might give you a stroke that will kill you.” Statistically, having a gun doesn’t make you safer. But, yep, you can have a gun anyway, if you want to, because that’s your right. Hearing someone tell you statistics about it makes you less safe is not infringing on your second amendment rights.
I will (again) state this explicitly: I am not opposed to gun ownership. I am a civil libertarian, and believe all of the right established in the Bill of Rights should be defended vigorously.
Presenting data about risks and benefits of exercising these rights is not the same as opposing these rights. Equating one (pointing out carrying a gun doesn’t really make you safer, by the data) with the other (claiming that I have a secret agenda against private gun ownership) is both hysterical and paranoid.
Seattleblues, when you express a desire for your fellow Americans to just go away, you expose yourself as a real Unamerican. If you were such a patriot, your response to such a reasonable opposing viewpoint would be love of a country that allows such things to happen. You don’t love that, so you’re an authoritarian, not an American. And that makes this country great.
Both sides of this argument seem to always get emotional about it, just like abortion. Neither side likes to feel like they are wrong. So here’s my 2 cents. First off Jonathan, cop to your spin here. Read the article: “He told police the men charged him and he shot them”. He wasn’t defending his junk in the garage, he was defending HIMSELF, at least that’s the claim. This guy sounds like he did everything right, called 911, held them at gunpoint and even gave one of the burglars first aid after he shot him. You conveniently leave all those facts out. Now, having said that, in my opinion gun ownership isn’t for everyone. But this guy sounds like he had a level head and didn’t just shoot at noises in the dark. Now I know there’s also trigger happy people out there or just plain old skittish people who shouldn’t have a gun but do. As a gun owner myself, I’m all for things like mandatory training and licensing which might help prevent people from panic shooting. Here’s the other side of things though. When someone breaks into your house, you don’t know that it’s a burglar. By breaking into someone’s house, that is an act of brazen aggression. Maybe it’s a crack head looking to steal a TV for his next fix. Or maybe it’s someone like Isaiah M.K. Kalebu, a mental nutcase hellbent on raping and torturing his victims and could care less about stealing property. Had one of the victims had a gun, Teresa Butz might still be alive today. Or it could be someone like Michael LaRosa, another mentally unbalanced person who killed someone with a hatchet in broad daylight on the street. If someone with a concealed carry permit had been at 15th and Union that day, Joseph LaMagno might be alive today. It’s easy to play the what if game. So trying to take the emotion out of the argument, one has to weigh the risks. If someone breaks into your house, there’s a risk it’s just some crack head who will be easily scared off, or it’s a hatchet killer. I keep a gun in my house because if it’s the hatchet killer, I’d rather take my chances with a gun. But I will certainly try and escape before confronting someone. Because yes, there’s a risk I could get disarmed or someone could shoot at me in my house. I have a CPL but choose NOT to carry a gun in public because the risks outweigh the benefit. That’s my choice, others may see it differently. The point is, it’s not a black and white issue, it involves a lot of calculated risks and unknowns. When an intruder is in your house, you don’t have the luxury of knowing if it’s a burglar or a psycho. Maybe someone who doesn’t own a gun will just get tied up and robbed and be OK. Who knows, it’s a risk. I think common sense should probably fall somewhere in the middle. There is a place for guns for some people in this world and for others, they may be better off without guns. I will never ridicule a responsible person for owning gun. But likewise I will NEVER ridicule for someone who chooses NOT to own a gun. The only people I would ridicule are the ones who get all emotional about the subject and who act without putting a lot of lucid forethought into their decision to own or not own a gun.
@67: I see you continue your usual pattern of avoiding any questions raised by people who disagree with you. And you’re wrong again, by the way. He doesn’t say that the Second Amendment is about personal protection; he says that the cult of it, if you will, those people often known as gun nuts, form their beliefs with regard to this issue around the premise that gun-owning makes one safer. Golob’s cited evidence suggests that this is false. Please read the arguments of one’s adversaries before attempting to debunk them.
When I mention your xenophobia (that’s xenophobia, with an ‘x’), I refer to your tendency to dismiss homosexuals of any stripe as amoral deviants who have intentionally chosen a life of depravity. If THAT’s not irrational fear or hatred of a group you perceive as “other” to you, I don’t know what is.
@69: Last time I went in for a physical, my doctor asked me if I was sexually active. I wasn’t displaying the symptoms of any STDs, nor did I have any hickeys on me. My doctor asked because doctors are supposed to ask questions like this. A doctor who waits until he suspects that a certain behavior is a serious problem to ask his patient about it is a bad doctor. You’re welcome to patronize his practice, but I’ll stick with a doctor who has the good sense to ask questions HE thinks are relevant. (Remember: second-guessing a highly-trained professional in their field of expertise is somewhat pointless unless you are also a highly-trained professional in that field of expertise.) Sorry if that hurt your delicate feelings.
Or you could just decline to answer, like #70 says.
(Oh, and Seattleblues? I’m waiting on your response to me in this thread. Now I’m sure you’re a busy guy, based on the amount of time you spend coming up with mean things to say about liberals, but I’d still appreciate any rebuttal you might have.)
Hmm. 46 states now allow concealed carry of weapons by citizens, up from about 25 15 years ago. I heard just today that violent crime was down substantially yet again last year, and is down about 50% over 10 years. Experts say they are at a loss to explain why, especially in a time of economic hardship and a shrinking prison population. Perhaps there is a connection? Criminals prefer unarmed victims.
@ 75, No! You don’t mean to tell me SB left a reasonable question unanswered? Why, that’s hardly like the guy at all!
Carrying a gun to make you feel safe is sort of like driving and SUV because it feels safer: Both are an illusion.
SUVs are higher off the ground. The driver sits higher, and it feels safer. But the higher center of gravity makes them more likely to roll over than a sedan. SUVs are bigger and heavier, which makes drivers feel more invulnerable. But the extra weight = longer stopping distances = higher chance of getting in a collision in the first place.
Likewise, carrying a gun makes you feel less vulnerable, but the statistical odds are that you are not.
And, no, Seattleblues, I’m not trying to cancel out the 2nd
Amendment. I did two enlistments, and have had plenty of time around weapons. I have not carried since I got out of the service 20 years ago.
@68 You were stating in #51 that gun rights need to be protected to in order for us to protect all our other rights. I brought up how legal and illegal use of The Patriot Act has greatly abridged our 4th Amendment rights, while the great gun owning public of America (like the rest of our country) didn’t really give a fuck. Having gun rights clearly does not mean keeping all your other rights. Also, many democracies have much stricter gun laws than us, while being much better at not eroding their citizens non-gun related rights.
Mr. Golob- if this shit in the man’s garage was so worthless, why were these two men trying to steal it?
And who are you, or I, or those two men to judge its value? Neither you nor I nor they worked 40 hours a week to accumulate the cash to pay for whatever it was.
Will you post your address so that I, or anyone else, can come over and make a determination of your possessions value and whether or not we would care to take it from you? Will you do that?
And, if you would, would you seriously decide at the door that you wouldn’t resist me, or whomever?
What if, once I were inside, I decided that I wanted more than your belongings but, also, wanted to amuse myself with the pain and suffering of you or your loved ones?
These things happen and you have no right to determine whether or not any other person has the right to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property. None. Whatsoever. You have no right to abrogate my right to defend my loved ones.
And your data, while voluminous, is meaningless. All that data means nothing when the one time happens that my girlfriend and her children are in danger and I find that I have to key in the combination to my lock-box and retrieve my firearm to protect them from whoever is coming through my door or window in my shitty neighborhood.
If my partner or I are ever killed by an intruder, will you help to raise her children? Will you offset the loss of income that would pay our mortgage? Would you come over and babysit while the one of us is working at our shitty jobs? Will you cook or bring groceries?
No. You won’t, will you?
Instead, you’ll sit in your office and take smug, superior philosophical viewpoints while penning your hyperbolic articles, won’t you?
Dave Brown. Former Marine, retired Guardsman, Federal employee, home-owner, partner, step-dad, member of both the NRA and the ACLU. Oh, and a fairly liberal guy, too…
Beyond the ‘it’s a free country’ libertarian bullshit introducing a gun into an already heated situation will make things worse (sometimes it’s gotta get worse before it gets better ya?). It would be stupid to say that in all situations all the time a gun would be counter productive, but I think it should be expressed by a math equation. The likelihood of you getting hurt increases with each gun, but each gun has it’s own chance to both help and hurt the situation. Too many variables for me, but I wouldn’t necessarily stop anyone from walking down the street with a open gun on their side. Maybe if there was a school, it’s always about respect. There’s a really great simpsons episode that brings up some amazing points, it ends with Homer losing his family because he opens his beer and turns off (read: explodes) the light with his gun, and him coming around to the conclusion that suburb life isn’t really built with guns in mind. At some point in time guns we necessary for survival, but now with science we’ve come to learn that there’s so much more to it. They used to speak of freedom and liberty but what that means now is an education that will allow you to be competitive in a marketplace, it used to mean protection from the animals that would likely eat one of your young. So when we talk about “the right to bear arms” I think it’s important to note both why that was necessary for human survival, and the laughable idea that any armed militia is ever going to storm the white house. However unlikely though, if that was the original intent of the ‘founding fathers’, to spark a rebellion, we’re going to have to make a whole lot of changes before it becomes realistic, if even possible at all.
Being taught how to properly handle a gun… how to load, how to fire, and how to *respect* a firearm is very important. Not everyone needs to OWN one, but it’s important to not to fetishize them either, Hollywood, or otherwise…
I grew up around lots of guns – rifles, handguns… my family hunted on our property in Northern Michigan. Then I moved to Detroit. There, I saw guns, as weapons, as threats – as power… Honestly, threats didn’t work with me… (almost mugged, never mugged) because I knew how to look at a gun – see if it was loaded… (usually wasn’t)…. I could also judge, better, I think, if the person ever intended to actually fire…
People love to flash guns around… as “prop”… Hollywood FTW. Gun fetish is wrong. Knowledge is power.
Good article. You can’t reason with someone who won’t wear a seatbelt because it makes the pistol he carries for protection dig into his side. I wish I was exaggerating, but that guy somehow managed to get a concealed pistol license in a state that’s a lot more rigorous than WA. People are terrible at assessing risk.
Unfortunately, there are still some bad suggestions for gun safety floating around, chief among them that you should store ammo separately from guns. It’s advice that dates back to a time when safes were incredibly expensive, nobody locked up their guns, and the average 8-year-old knew how to use a rifle. Ammo by itself is dangerous only because it usually contains lead. Guns are what needs to be locked up. Storing ammo separately isn’t a safety suggestion, because it doesn’t make anyone safer. If you really don’t have access to a safe, the safe thing to do is to remove the bolt, slide, cylinder, or firing pin of the firearm and store *it* separately.
I love the arrogance in this thread: If you don’t agree with my then you are anti-science. Guns, drugs, prostitution its all the same, if you ban them the criminals control them.
*me
Honest experienced gun owners or firearms experts will readily admit that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to both practice safe gun storage in the home and keep a gun ready on a moment’s notice for self defense against an intruder. Parents of children who keep firearms absolutely should consciously confront this issue, as should those with many other categories of households.
The stories I read said he was being attacked when he shot. If that was the case, he didn’t shoot them to protect his worthless junk. He shot them to protect his own life.
@39
What about your precious 6th amendment right to a trial before incarceration? Also, our nation (God’s Greatest!) was founded on Judeo-Christian Values: we don’t just leave the poor to die at home without health care.
@84
You’re not required to accede to scientific findings, but if you don’t want your refuted beliefs to be labeled “anti-science”, you have to play the game, so to speak, and abide by the rules.
Otherwise, just ignore them. You don’t have to play the “I’m just a victim of the left-wing mobs, herp me!” card.
@ Golob,
You can be a civil libertarian and disagree that the 2nd Amendment protects private gun ownership. (You probably draw some lines already, right? Like RPGs and AK-47s aren’t protected? States can restrict gun sales to the inebriated, minors, and ex-felons?)
Just saw this thread. Posted too late in the day for me to respond yesterday, and now I don’t have time to followup today. Dr. Golob I appreciate you attempting to come at this from a scientific numbers perspective, but you as a scientist fail to take into account something that cannot necessarily be quantatively measured in a study. That detail I’m referring to is how many times crimes are prevented because of the perception that a potential victim is armed, causing the criminal to move on to a more vulnerable target.
To say it is more likely that being armed instantly equates to a higher likelihood of accidents is ridiculous on its face. You DO realize how many homes in this country outside of your Seattle/Washington bubble OWN firearms correct? With the numbers of guns in homes with kids and/or idiot adults, why don’t we hear dozens or hundreds of incidents EVERY WEEK of accidents?
Another interesting statistic is the number of crimes in urban dense city areas being higher than out in the rural hinterlands. Is this simply a matter of increasing odds of being the victim of violent crime due to living denser? Or is it that those who want to live in a denser environment are urban grown types who have never handled weapons as much? You do agree that rural households are likely less targeted for in-home invasion, as thugs realize rural/farmer types have and know how to use guns EVERY time, thus likely reducing the probability of armed confrontation in the first place? How do you measure a “non event”? Do you (as a scientist) just guess? Assume they never happened? Ignore the statistics that don’t fit neatly into your hypothesis?
Btw… @74, 80 and 82 FTW! Those responses have been spot on accurate regarding the “other” factors you so conveniently dismiss.
Ohhh and Dr. Golob, here are a couple of articles that refute some of your “learned” logic:
http://s14929.gridserver.com/issues/2.26…
Go read the book “More Guns, Less Crime” by Yale Law scholar John Lott: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/…
and then go read the study that refutes some of Lott’s logic: http://tinyurl.com/3l2vl26
and you begin to see that even scientists can’t agree on variables used to account for some of the very data you posted initially.
@91
And as we know, if ever scientists disagree, the whole debate is a wash.
Gun deaths in the USA 2007 (CDC)
21.5 per 100,000 for African-American males
9.4 per 100,000 for white males
2.7 per 100,000 for white females
African-American children and teens are almost five times as likely as their white peers to be killed by firearms.
African-American males ages 15 to 19 are almost 5 times as likely as their white peers and more than twice as likely as their Hispanic or American-Indian/Alaska Native peers to be killed by firearm.
In 2008, in addition to fatalities, 30,984 African-Americans (13% of the population) were treated for firearm injuries in emergency rooms, followed with 19,338 Whites (70% of population), and 16,903 Hispanics.
African-Americans represented 13 percent of the population yet accounted for 49 percent of all homicide victims and 84 percent of African-American gun deaths were from homicide.
From 1999 to 2005, while the national homicide rate was stable, the firearm homicide rate for African-American men ages 25-44 increased by a third in large cities and suburbs
So yet again, the problem doesn’t seem to be guns, but rather young black males (and Mexicans) and guns.
So question is, since young black males are by far the highest number of gun killings and injuries in the USA, when has the Stranger ever condemned gun glorifying rappers?
Guns aren’t the problem.
@ 91, back in the late 80s TIME magazine published a cover story in which they showed every single gun-related death in America in a week. It was all-inclusive: murder, suicide, accidents, police shootings. It numbered in the thousands. There might have one or two instances of some private citizen defending his home, but no more than that.
You don’t hear about it for the same reason you don’t hear about every car crash – it’s not news.
I, too, didn’t see this until this morning. My initial reaction is that this post is comparable to a Southerner writing a post entitled “The Civil War: Was The North Justified in Invading the South?”
1) It’s inflammatory for the sole purpose of being inflammatory.
2) The facts are all wrong, as Reality Check nicely pointed out.
And perhaps more importantly,
3) It’s a moot point.
Gun ownership is a fact of life in this country. You can like it or not – that’s your choice – but you’re never going to change that, and arguing about it is a waste of time at this point. I’m certainly not going to. Only losers argue about a fight after it’s over. This one’s over. The gun owners won.
@59: You know what, I thought that was so! I was tired and didn’t check, though. Thanks for the correction. You can rest assured I’ll never, ever make that mistake again.
One down, fifty jillion to go, eh?
@95 This article isn’t inflammatory. Saying all gun owners are hillbilly assholes is inflammatory, but that’s true as well.
@96 What makes the problem worse is your culture of paranoid dumbasses who think their right to a security blanket overrides their neighbours’ rights to not get shot while the gun fetishist is playing with his toy.
Also, while you guys are at it, ruin your own country and shoot at each other all you like, but if you could please do a better job of keeping your guns inside your own country, we’d all really appreciate it. So many American guns are being funnelled up into Canada now that it’s ridiculous. We’re trying to run a civilized country up here. Thanks in advance.
if you don’t have a gun what are you going to do when you know where the terrorists are keeping the president but the police don’t believe your testimony — and someone has to act to save the day. good luck.
@76: That’s meaningless unless you can come up with data indicating that the decrease in crime was disproportionately in those 21 or so states that passed concealed-carry laws in the intervening time. Is that the case, or is the decrease in crime simply due to other factors besides gun ownership? I’m genuinely curious.
@91: Did you know that the National Academy of Sciences, upon reviewing quite a few studies on the topic, including Lott’s, found no credible evidence linking crime rates decisively to concealed-carry laws?
@93: Well, guns are a problem, but they aren’t THE problem. Poverty is THE problem.
@95: Sure, gun ownership is a fact of life. You know what shouldn’t be a fact of life? That people on the terrorist watch list, who are judged too dangerous to fly on airplanes, are allowed to purchase firearms, and whatever firearms are legal for law-abiding citizens to own. (Remember that Al Qaeda manual they found talking about how easy it is to get a gun legally in this country even if one IS under scrutiny?) Shouldn’t all gun sales require a background check? Or should we keep the gun show loophole open in perpetuity, allowing convicted felons to get their hands on dangerous weapons? You seem like a reasonable person, 5280. What do you think?
Hey, I have an idea! Let’s ask the guy who got shot if he’ll ever break into that man’s home again. Let’s go down to that neighborhood and ask any thugs and punks hanging out on street corners and in taverns if they’ve heard of this incident and whether they would try and steal his things or go into his home while he and his wife are asleep.
Let’s ask THAT question, because I’m pretty sure that the answer would be no.
Then, I think, we’ll have the answer to whether having a firearm makes one safer…
“Saying all gun owners are hillbilly assholes is inflammatory, but that’s true as well.”
But it’s not the hillbillies killing each other willy nilly. It’s blacks, a mere 13% of the population, who are 50% of all gun murders and injuries. I’m pretty sure that as a white, married, sensible middle class trained and LEGAL gun owner with a safe, my chances of being injured by that gun are next to zero.
How about mandatory 5 yr sentences of hard labor for anyone with an illegal hand gun?
“paranoid dumbasses who think their right to a security blanket overrides their neighbours’ rights to not get shot while the gun fetishist is playing with his toy.”
But they’re not the problem. It’s the street thugs with illegal, unlicensed weapons who are the problem. Blacks are 50% of all gun killings and injuries in the US, not the ‘paranoid white guy’ next door.
Dr Golob,
How does the safety risk posed by gun ownership compare to the safety risk imposed by homosexual behavior?
Which is a greater risk to the individuals involved?
What does a rigorous analysis of the Science tell us?
Huh. I laid out some good bait for the wingnuts (37), and the only thing they ate was the stuff about Israel.
Interesting….
What do I think, VL? I think that this page is very nearly too large to load on my BlackBerry, so this will be the last you hear from me here. But to answer your question, if you’re OK with some nameless, faceless bureaucrat with no accountability to anyone depriving people of their constitutional rights, without due process and with no appeal, then you’re no liberal, sir.
@91 & 95 –
You are both speaking past Golob’s data… Golob’s studies address ‘safety’ from a medical standpoint for the most part. The book that 91 offers shifts the metrics to violent crime based metrics.
It is entirely possible that both sets of data are correct. Gun ownership may decrease crime rates, but represent an overall setback in safety to gun owners & families due to the hazards associated with ownership.
Jesus buttfucking Christ. As usual the gun nuts are either unable or unwilling to read.
Golob has offered facts that show through peer reviewed studies that owning a gun makes you less safe, not more safe. He has requested that anyone show a peer reviewed study showing otherwise and so far I haven’t seen a single post with that info. If you have that info please share it. Saying “there was once this guy who was safer because of a gun” is not a counter argument to “studies clearly show that you are 20% more likely to be shot to death if you own a gun”.
He clearly stated that he is not trying to make it illegal for you to own a gun. He does not want to revoke the 2nd Amendment, even if that were an option on the table. He is offering you information. Information you should consider when deciding whether to own/carry a gun. The decision on whether to own/carry a gun is yours but you should consider all of the facts when making that decision.
To those idiots who are comparing the dangers of gun ownership to the dangers of being gay. Gun ownership is a choice numbnuts.
@95 actually the word is informative, not inflammatory. He is giving you information you should consider when deciding whether to own a gun. Use that information as you see fit.
@39 do you think maybe we should at least keep them alive long enough to have a trial to see if they’re guilty? Maybe at least prove whether the homeowner shot an burglar or a Jehovah’s Witness?
@101, I have another idea. Why don’t we ask that burglar’s gang whether they’re likely to drive by and riddle his home with bullets. We could both just ask ignorant questions, ignore the facts presented to us and choose anecdotal evidence over peer reviewed studies. That would be fun.
@106: Nameless, faceless, bureaucrats, eh? I assume you are referring to the no-fly list bit and not the part about the gun show loophole.
So you believe that even if our intelligence agencies have a wealth of evidence tying an individual directly to terrorism, this individual should be allowed to buy whatever deadly weapons are otherwise legal?
If someone is deemed mentally disturbed to the point that they pose a threat to society, they are generally not allowed to purchase a gun. If someone has a history of serious crimes, they are generally not allowed to purchase a gun. These decisions are made by elected or appointed government officials, and usually there’s not much recourse but to appeal to the agency that classified them thus. By your logic, we should allow felons and dangerous psychotics to buy guns just like the rest of us.
“To those idiots who are comparing the dangers of gun ownership to the dangers of being gay. Gun ownership is a choice numbnuts. “
Sure, being gay isn’t a choice, sticking your unsheathed cock up a different anonymous asshole every week most certainly is a choice.
Again, break those gun stats down by race and class and you’ll see owning a gun is no less dangerous than owning a car. It’s thug culture that’s the problem. The Swiss are heavily armed but unfailingly polite.
@112: Huh?
If, for every given race-class combination, owning a gun is no more dangerous than owning a car, than that condition must be also true FOR THE POPULATION AS A WHOLE. Someone here clearly doesn’t understand the laws of statistics!
But you are right that irresponsible promiscuity is the problem, not homosexuality.
You could ask this woman. Oh wait, no you can’t – she (and a lot of others like her) is dead.
Also an excellent reason to oppose mandatory waiting periods for a handgun purchase.
http://www.saveservices.org/2011/03/can-…
@113 owning a gun and bring married, white and middle class is as safe as driving.
Gun violence in America is predominantly a black, urban problem. Every stat shows that. I know you all think it’s a white redneck problem, but stats don’t show rednecks shooting each other up anywhere near the rates as blacks.
Maybe it’s time to start condemning thug culture and gangsta rap instead if being dumb white liberals and pretending that’s not a problem?
All of you naive white Libtards like Golob who hate guns and self-defense so much need to put up a sign in your front windows that says:
PROUD TO BE A GUN-FREE HOME
@ 117, how is stuff like that to be measured? If it can’t be defined, it doesn’t have a true place in the discussion.
@115, Are you suggesting we only allow married, white middle class people buy guns? That’s a new argument to me.
@115: But that’s not even what you said previously. And do you even have statistics to back up what you’re saying? Or do you just make bullshit up off the top of your head, and then claim you were saying something else when you’re called on it?
@116: Way to make rap music and “thug culture” scapegoats while avoiding the real cause of the problem: poverty.
Sorry to be terribly insensitive here, but I wanted to point out that the four Lakewood police officers who were killed recently were all carrying guns in good working order, in public, within easy reach, and they were all trained to use them very effectively. Did their being armed prevent gun violence against them? Well, sort of, one of them got a shot off into the assailant, but that did not stop the murders from happening.
@120 Nope, just telling that living in Seattle’s great White North and owning a gun, I have no worries about them and the stats back me up.
Ahhh, ahhh ‘poverty’. How come when people were much poorer in the past, they didn’t shoot up their ghettos and neighbors?
@19, @52, @70 This, this and this.
It’s not the data so much, as the conclusions one arrives at from the data. Just because carrying a gun does not statistically make you safer doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate reason’s to carry a gun.
Put it this way: Drunk people drive cars and get in accidents. Does that mean that sober people shouldn’t drive cars? If a technology is dangerous, impaired people will cause harm to themselves and others.
Analogy the second: Cocaine use is intrinsically dangerous. Particularly to children and abused spouses in the household. (source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art&hellip😉 Given this, should cocaine be illegal, or should we legalize it and spend money on treatment and education? The Stranger’s editorial stance looks to me to fall in line with the latter, and I agree. How is this different from guns? I know you’ll say that guns can be lethal. So can cocaine. And domestic abuse is something that affects generations. Break the cycle and all that.
Please respond, sloggers. I’m interested in a ration discussion of this issue. Am I too optimistic?
” Did their being armed prevent gun violence against them”
So cops should unilaterally disarm and let thugs roam free?
Of course, if one of those fine Lakewood officers had beaten that piece of shit and gunned him down, you’d all be screaming ‘racism’ and police brutality. It’s why the far left can’t win elections above dog catcher and Mayor of Seattle.
“Gun owners are more likely to be shot”
No shit. Car drivers are more likely to be in car accidents.
Knife jugglers are more likely to get cut
Herion users are more likely to overdose
I don’t own a gun but I shoot them fairly
frequently and don’t find them unsafe. You just have to not be an idiot. The prob is that lots of gun owners are idiots.
And if you aren’t strapped youre fucked when the zombies come!
Being killed or maimed while you burglarize does not make you a victim. The victim is the property owner.
I think that shooting a burglar is a reasonable course of action, and frankly, if they are in the process of the crime, a perfectly legal response. Just don’t shoot them if they’re leaving: you must allow them to leave unless you have reason to fear for your safety.
“prob is that lots of gun owners are idiots. “
And if you ever watch america’s favorite black comedy, ‘The First 48’, you’ll know that’s true.
@124 & 126 if you showed that people were more likely to get killed in a car accident than they were to get to their destination safely then yes, I would say make cars illegal. Instead, the reality is that the vast majority of the time everyone gets to their destination safely. So, the vast majority of the time the car does it’s job (getting you where you’re going safely) while a tiny minority of the time someone gets hurt in one.
On the other hand, with guns, the evidence presented in this post says that people are far more likely to get violently injured if they have a gun. So, gun owners get hurt by guns more often than they’re protected by them.
Again. Golob DID NOT SAY that he wanted to ban guns. He was offering data so that when you decide whether to own one you can make that decision based on facts (you’re more likely to die by your own gun than protect yourself with it) rather than rhetoric (I’m perfectly safe if only I carry a gun).
@21- I like a rural feel to my house, so I have an ax handle.
@124- Gun ownership should be legal, as spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. Meaning the kind of gun ownership that goes with being part of a well organized militia. America’s current gun culture, legal structure, and military have nothing to do with this concept. Anyone who wants to (and is capable of) being in the militia should have a rifle and basic training. Taking a handgun to the mall should be illegal.
@123:
>implying that crime rates among the urban poor have risen in the past half century or so
@127 I agree with you, but it seems you may have missed my point.
I’m not saying that driving a car is intrinsically dangerous. I’m saying that driving a car while drunk is more likely to result in a car accident. But just because someone is stupid and doesn’t use technology safely, it doesn’t mean that a well-trained, unimpaired person is more likely to injure themselves.
Admittedly, a gun is a lethal weapon, so anytime you are in the vicinity of or handling one, you are more likely to be injured or killed. But it doesn’t follow that you have the same likelihood of injury or death as an untrained or impaired person.
I’m not coming from a “from my cold dead hands” perspective. I don’t even own a gun. But I think this issue is sensitive enough to warrant careful consideration. If nothing else, Golob’s post is just preaching to the choir. Someone who is intent on owning guns is likely to take the “well, I won’t let it won’t happen to me” approach. I lean slightly toward an education and awareness approach.
Which leads me to this. I believe the second point in my original post is stronger, and am interested in hearing what people think about it.
One more note. I do not mean to argue that guns, in fact, make you safer. I’m questioning the validity of saying that, as a rule, guns make you less safe.
I wonder what the Saudi Arabian population makes of all this. We’re talking about a culture where EVERYBODY has a gun, not just a few loons here and there.
Ok statisticians: if 50% of all gun deaths and injuries are experienced by population A, who only make up 13% of the population and 35% of the gun injuries/deaths are from population B, who make up 70% of the population, which group is statistically more dangerous with guns?
1). A
2). B
?
@135: I think you mean “Which group is statistically more likely to be injured by guns?”
Also, speaking as someone with a grounding in statistical analysis, your little study would get laughed out of any peer-reviewed journal. Why? Because it in no way attempts to control potential confounding variables! Try something akin to a matched-pairs test, where you sample from two populations who are comparable in geography, age breakdown, socioeconomic status, etc., and differ only by the one factor of which you are attempting to test the effect. Maybe THEN you’d have some statistically meaningful data.
Sure, it’s just math. And because it’s just math, it’s all the scarier that you’re so clearly incapable of handling it.
Seattle is only 8% black in total. Black males committed 14 of the 28 homicides in Seattle in 2008, 12 of the 21 in 2009, and at least 7 of the 17 in 2010.
“likely to be injured by guns”
You make it sound almost accidental that group A is 5 times more likely to be involved in gun violence. Or are the CDC numbers wrong?
Lies, damned lies and stats: glad to see your chosen occupation puts you at the end.
“socioeconomic status”
So poor people are statistically more violent? For once we agree except I’d argue with you Over which is cause and which is affect.
Of the 27 officers that were shot and killed by criminals in the last 20 years in King and Pierce county, 21 of them were shot by black men, even though black men make up less than 3% of the population of those counties combined.
Now I realize that Seattle is one of the two whitest cities in the USA and that most of you naive white progressives almost never have any actual significant contact with blacks (Charles does not count), and you are always comparing Seattle’s crime rate favorably to places like Detroit, Chicago, and LA without ever putting 2 & 2 together, but geez quit being so wilfully blind and naive. You are embarrassing yourselves and you don’t een realize it. Don’t worry though you might someday win an Amy Biehl Award for your progressive efforts.
Let’s look at the real city of Dallas:
At least 63% of all homicides in Dallas are committed by blacks and latinos (probably even more than that).
http://www.dallascityhall.com/committee_…
Homicides in Dallas Texas – 2008
Race of Suspect – # of Homicides – Percentage
White – 9 = 6%
Black – 72 = 47%
Hispanic – 24 = 16%
Unknown – 49 = 32%
Therefore, even if the every single one of the 49 “unknown” murderers were whites, the “known” black murderers would still outnumber them!!!!!
To really put it in the proper perspective:
http://www.city-data.com/city/Dallas-Tex…
Dallas Population Racial Data:
Hispanic – 547,781 (44.6%)
White – 355,922 (29.0%)
Black – 274,087 (22.3%)
Can you imagine how wonderful and vibrant Seattle will be when it is 30% or even just 20% black? But will it still be a liberal progress city then? Probably not. White progressives who, in their retardedness and naïveté of white guilt, are most vocal about being liberal and “anti racist” and “anti white privilege” almost never have to be around any real blacks and almost never actually come into contact with them. In short, they are sheltered and naive, or they have willfully blinded themselves to the cold hard facts of reality, evolution, and crime. White progressivism is a stupid religion just like Christianity.
A close look at the New York Times Interactive Homicide map might interest some of you naive white libtards at The Stranger.
New York Times Interactive Homicide Map
http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homici…
Blacks = 60% of the killers, 61% of the victims
Whites = 7% of the killers, 8% of the victims
Blacks = 26% of NYC population
Whites = 35% of NYC population
So what do we surmise with these stats?
Answer: Black males commit more homicides.
@137-142 . . . did you even read Venomlash’s comment about confounding variables? Or did you simply not understand it?
@Root: “@101, I have another idea. Why don’t we ask that burglar’s gang whether they’re likely to drive by and riddle his home with bullets. We could both just ask ignorant questions, ignore the facts presented to us and choose anecdotal evidence over peer reviewed studies. That would be fun. “
So, by your logic, we shouldn’t defend ourselves from criminals because the criminals might commit more crimes against us.
Brilliant, I tell ya, brilliant!
Really, seriously, all of you who keep touting the Golob’s data, did any of you actually read any of it? Did none of you see this, from item #2?
“Overall, the study found that it was not possible to generalize national information on firearm ownership and storage to surveyed patients of primary care clinics in Wisconsin.”
The study’s own authors admit that it’s useless for a general statement on firearms policy.
Let’s just cut to the chase- none of you want to own guns or to have an equalizer should the unthinkable happen and someone attack you in your homes.
I feel differently and I would defend my girlfriend and her children, and my property, from any scumbag that would think to walk into my home and either hurt my family or steal the the things that I work my ass off to provide to my family.
Don’t like that? Tough.
Think you’re smarter than me or more reasonable than me? Fine, try reasoning with the intruder in the dark as he’s crushing your skull with a claw hammer or anally raping your partner.
Feel that it’s immoral to take another persons life? OK, take that philosophical stance- I hope it comforts you while you wonder where your child disappeared to and who took him/her.
There’s a reason we lock our doors and it’s not out of paranoia; it’s because there are bad people in the world. And sometimes those bad people decide to kick down that door or come through the window.
When they do, will your high-minded sentiments stop them? Will your morals or ethics or philosophy cease the assault or the rape? Will the gov’t or your neighbors or Mr. Golob or anyone else save you? Remember, you have to be able to reach the phone to call the police and, even then, they may not come for at least several minutes.
You folks may be willing to take that risk.
I am not.
And whoever comes into my home to hurt my family will reap the consequences of their actions.
Did any of you really read the article on the incident in Tacoma?
The detectives determined that the burglars had actually been inside that mans home, before he awoke and confronted them in the garage. Think of what that might mean to you. Two strange men, whose motives are completely unknown, might be standing over you and your family as you sleep, while you’re helpless.
You may think that’s OK, I do not.
I sleep far better, knowing I am able to protect my family.
@143…. “confounding variables”
Oh, you mean “EXCUSES”!
@146 “A confounding variable, also known as a third variable or a mediator variable, can adversely affect the relation between the independent variable and dependent variable. This may cause the researcher to analyze the results incorrectly. The results may show a false correlation between the dependent and independent variables, leading to an incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis.” (http://www.experiment-resources.com/conf…)
IOW, how do violent crime rates of poor black children of single mothers living in the inner city compare to violent crime rates of poor white children of single mothers living in the inner city.
More simply, Braeburn Apples to Braeburn apples. Not to Fujis or oranges.
Science, it works, bitches. (http://xkcd.com/54/)
Good job, man. I am with you on all points Golob.
According to USDOJ victims surveys, over 37,000 white women are raped/sexually assaulted by black men every year in the USA. According to the same reports, less than 10 (ten) black women are raped or sexually assaulted by white men in the USA every year. One in 3 black South African men freely admit to committing rape, usually multiple times, usually gang rapes.
@147
Again, confusing cause and affect. Are more inner city blacks criminals, involved in violent gun crimes, because of poverty, or are they poor because of the criminality encouraged by their culture and defended by earnest white liberals?
Some of us believe in human will and the ability of individuals to make choices. You folks apparently don’t.
@138: When you report the results of a statistical test, you don’t draw conclusions right then and there. You report exactly what the test suggests, AND NOTHING MORE OR LESS, and save your interpretation for the “Conclusions” section of your paper.
@141: I live in Woodlawn, a neighborhood in the South Side of Chicago that is ~95% African American. Stop pretending to be a guest expert on Colored People.
@145: I’m perfectly at ease with defending myself, even with lethal force if it comes to that. There are just better ways to protect one’s home or person than with a gun, ways that provide adequate security without such a high risk of accidental grievous injury.
@147: Thanks. I’m really starting to get tired of these ignorant-ass crackers pretending that the statistics back them up, when in reality they know Jack Diddly Squat about statistical analysis.
@150: There’s an easy way to find out, one which jlar and I have already suggested in this thread: cohort testing. Test poor blacks and poor whites (and poor Asians and Latinos if you want to be really exhaustive) living in the same inner-city areas, and see if the crime rates amongst them differ by statistically significant margins.
See, the black subjects will be affected by the variables of black culture and of poverty, while the white subjects will only be affected by poverty. Now if the black population has crime rates which are higher than those of their white counterparts by a statistically significant margin, we can agree that the data support your hypothesis. If there is no statistically significant increase, then your hypothesis is not supported. ¿Comprendes?
@150 obvious troll is obvious.
“Science, it works, bitches”
Don’t confuse sociology (ism) with science.
@151 you always do make the CLAIM that you live in a 95% black hood, but the catch here is that I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU.
@venomlash: “@145: I’m perfectly at ease with defending myself, even with lethal force if it comes to that. There are just better ways to protect one’s home or person than with a gun, ways that provide adequate security without such a high risk of accidental grievous injury.”
Really?
Name them.
Describe to me, a 6′, 230-lb. man, former infantry Marine, former bouncer, former private investigator, former bodyguard, former store detective, how a 5’5″, 130-lb. woman would defend herself and her children against someone of my size and physical ability.
Describe to me in detail what training, with what period of physical/psychological reinforcement and muscle memory development and with what non-lethal tools that woman and/or child could stop a physical assault in the dark, having just been woken by the hand of a stranger across their mouth.
You can’t, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
In fact, never mind. I don’t even care about your answer because you’re an idiot and you’re just spouting bullshit.
My family will remain safe; yours may or may not.
I just hope we never find out who’s wrong, but at least I’m being proactive.
@155- Statistically speaking, it looks like your family is less safe.
@156: Based on Golob’s links? I re-iterate:
Did you see this, from item #2?
“Overall, the study found that it was not possible to generalize national information on firearm ownership and storage to surveyed patients of primary care clinics in Wisconsin.”
The study’s own authors admit that it’s useless for a general statement on firearms policy.
@153: Don’t confuse statistical analysis with sociology. And certainly don’t confuse either of them with socialism!
@154: If you ask nicely, I’ll go down to 63rd and Ellis and take a picture with timestamp.
@155:
>implying a properly stored firearm would be of any protection against an intruder who has just awakened a sleeping person
Get a good knife, of the sheathed or folding varieties. Get a Taser. Get a collapsible baton.
And you know what I would do if I woke up in the dark to find a stranger’s hand over my mouth? As soon as I had a sense of where his neck was, I’d jab two stiffened fingers in between his clavicles as hard as I could. Unless the guy has high-end body armor on, he’ll drop like a log. (Of course, this mode of defense can be lethal if sufficient damage is done to the trachea.) I recommend teaching your wife about the various weak points of the body; everyone’s got them.
Your answers are stunningly stupid.
http://www.freep.com/article/20110510/NE…
“Township police Lt. Delmar Lange said the worker fired multiple shots at one of the bandits, forcing the men to flee.
“He could see the hostage situation developing,” Lange said. “He could not retreat any farther. He was in the back room. If it was me, I would have done the same thing.””
If a cop agrees that someone shouldn’t have to acquiesce when cornered at work, imagine the reaction to being attacked in ones home.
sounds like it is possible that handgun ownership might make one more likely to die, but less likely to get robbed. so both sides are right?
@157- Yes, I saw your little quote. One quote and a bunch of insults isn’t a convincing argument about statistics. Venomlash has done an excellent job explaining things. You’ve called him stupid. I find Venomlash more convincing.
Every person in America has an inalienable right to bears arms.
The vast majority of them probably shouldn’t, and the more strenuously they defend their right to a gun to more likely it is they shouldn’t. People who own guns because they’re irrationally scared are very likely to use them irrationally.
@162: Well, except my talk about statistics wasn’t about the issue he’s raising; I was responding to Alleged‘s blathering about Scary Negroes.
Ja- please, don’t mistake me for that racist fuck.
@164- OK, you’re not that racist fuck….
So anyway, you’ve got a statistical analysis that contradicts Golob? Something longer than calling us stupid and one out of context quote.
Dave66 –
Did you read the entire survey or just the abstract? You are mis-construing the statement in my reading.
That statement referred to several specific tests regarding rates of ownership, reasons for ownership, etc. Their study found a very large variation throughout different communities within Wisconsin. However, the statement that Dr. Golob made regarding safe storage was in fact validated across the board by the data.
So, no, the study is not useless in informing public policy. I really don’t see how that is very difficult to understand…
So what is it that is stopping you naive white Seattle libtard gun-haters from putting a sign In your front windows that reads “PROUD TO BE A GUN-FREE HOME”. ? Walk your talk you white Seattle wimp libtard hypocrites (sorry about the redundancy of the last 4 words in that sentence).
darn Junior aren’t you afraid one night you might accidentally jab your two stiffened fingers in between your own clavicles causing yourself accidental grievous injury?
it must be terrifying to sleep with such lethal weapons as your two stiffened fingers so close….
@168- In the meantime, you don’t have to worry because nothing stiffens around your bed.
I fear I may be the last commenter and I want to hear Golob’s opinion on crime/death in Vermont which has the most lax handgun laws in America. (no permit required to carry) Also, why are cities than ban handgun ownership outright (D.C., Baltimore) so dangerous? Lastly, if guns are the problem why are Cananda and Switzerland so safe? Cananda has more guns per capita
and all able bodied Swiss males have assault weapons in their houses for national guard service.
I meant Canada.
dwightmoodyforgetsthings,
do the mentally inhibited have a right to own a gun?
why not?
safety?
@170- America’s culture is the reason why we shoot each other so often. High crime cities banned guns AFTER they became high crime cities.
@172- If they’re competent to exercise their other rights as citizens, yes. Why did you assume I was going to say no?
I read up to about 109 before skipping to the end, so pardon me if someone has already said this.
Perhaps there is a “crowd” effect going on in some places: if there is a perception of common gun-ownership, perhaps some potential criminals decide not to commit said crime. But if person X on that block is the one person not owning a gun, he could get the benefits of the rest of the crowd owning guns without the risks of owning one himself. Like the crowd effect seen in community vaccination programs.
So the evidence from the different studies might be complimentary after all. One could then debate whether being a gun-owning country is good or bad in the aggregate, but I doubt that is a debate with any real end-game in the US.
@174- Except areas with high gun ownership are not immune to crime.
You’re probably right. I for one am an ideologically-driven anti-gun nut. But the scientist in me wanted to offer an alternate explanation for the seemingly-contradictory evidence.
Golob: …regarding a gentleman who defended his garage (undoubtedly filled with mountains of useless junk that should be thrown out) from two burglars, by killing one and seriously injuring another human being with his vaunted handgun.
Yes, burglars are human beings. This means they should have the right to break into your garage (or home) without being harmed.
The argument is weak because it is statistical.
A lot of things if done carelessly are dangerous. Cars are very dangerous to drive, statistically. So is carrying a gun. Yet many well-trained cops and military people, can operate vehicles safely, and guns safely. You’d essentially have to argue that cops and military should NOT have guns, or cars, because they are unsafe, in order to have anything more than a statistical argument.
And the statistical argument is pretty weak because it assumes you are untrained, ignorant, are willing to have the outcome of the “average” person rather than an expert, and so forth. By all means if you don’t want to train with a gun, rehearse how to keep cool in dangerous situations, etc, then of course don’t carry, it will just make you more dangerous. That’s all the statistical argument is pointing out. Ignorance is dangerous.
In related news, butter is more dangerous than both guns and cars. Because people ignorant of physical health eat it and then become fat and develop health complications…
Also someone made an argument about a mugging being a dangerous situation where guns would not help, therefore guns have no use in making one safe. Again it comes down to training and the particular situation. If you have concealed carry and the mugger doesn’t find your firearm, and you’re well trained, then you should almost always be able to make yourself safer. Because instead of being a “hero” you can do the smart thing, and always try to maximize your safety. Pull out the arm only if it will improve your odds of living. For example if they have the advantage just wait until you are safe, or run. If you have gained a safe distance on a mugger who is unarmed or armed with a knife, now you have the advantage, and you can do whatever you want depending on what makes you feel safest. Or if they have a gun you could act like you’re unarmed and comply, which won’t change your odds of surviving at all. But if they decide to shoot at you, then of course it gets dicey, maybe the thing to do would be to run for cover. Or you could shoot back at them which could potentially improve your chances of living, over being a passive target (depending on the situation and your judgment). Or maybe you have a really quick draw that you’ve trained for. Or if you make it to cover you could send out a few shots as cover fire to hopefully dissuade the attacker. Who knows. It’s your call. But you’d have to argue that people cannot make good judgments at all, in order to say that the gun makes the person being mugged inherently less safe. Otherwise it just comes down to the training of the individual.
The thing is, there’s no credible, rational argument that carrying makes one less safe in every circumstance. They are all ideological arguments driven by gun politics. An analogous argument would be “Is carrying a katana going to make you less safe?” Let’s say you’re untrained and think you’re a badass and pull out a katana in a mugging. Now you’ve just become incredibly unsafe. But if there’s a well trained samurai with a katana who’s mugged by someone unarmed, or armed with a knife, man I’d be betting on the samurai. And guns of course have the additional advantage that you can conceal them, in certain jurisdictions.
Actually, all philosophizing aside. The FBI is kind enough to keep statistics on crime prevention. The presence of an armed citizen prevents crime, often without a shot being fired thousands of times a year. An additional tidbit they keep, is the types of crimes and the weapons used. Most robbers, muggers and rapists use no weapon at all (they are just bigger and meaner). Those who use a weapon are most likely to have a knife or blunt trauma weapon. Those who resist criminals are less likely to be harmed than those who willing “walk back to the storage room,” and my favorite irrefutable fact, the Texas Department of Public safety keeps crime statistics on only two identifiable groups, peace officers and concealed license holders. In Texas at least CHL holders are the most law abiding and safe group in history. I’m sorry to say, much safer and law abiding than the other identifiable group.
In closing, all the constitutional amendments are important and with responsibility does come some risk of harm. We have collectively decided that those rights are sufficiently important that the risks are to be tolerated. Otherwise we would shut down those who print subversive books, put the guilty in jail with out the expense of trial, search everyone because only the guilty have anything to hide and we would all go to the approved churches on Sunday.
Actually, all philosophizing aside. The FBI is kind enough to keep statistics on crime prevention. The presence of an armed citizen prevents crime, often without a shot being fired thousands of times a year. An additional tidbit they keep, is the types of crimes and the weapons used. Most robbers, muggers and rapists use no weapon at all (they are just bigger and meaner). Those who use a weapon are most likely to have a knife or blunt trauma weapon. Those who resist criminals are less likely to be harmed than those who willing “walk back to the storage room,” and my favorite irrefutable fact, the Texas Department of Public safety keeps crime statistics on only two identifiable groups, peace officers and concealed license holders. In Texas at least CHL holders are the most law abiding and safe group in history. I’m sorry to say, much safer and law abiding than the other identifiable group.
In closing, all the constitutional amendments are important and with responsibility does come some risk of harm. We have collectively decided that those rights are sufficiently important that the risks are to be tolerated. Otherwise we would shut down those who print subversive books, put the guilty in jail with out the expense of trial, search everyone because only the guilty have anything to hide and we would all go to the approved churches on Sunday.