Octang Frye

I don't sit around with my guns cocked all day and sleep with one eye open.
For the most part, I don't worry about crime at all. Don't think about it.
I am aware of my surroundings, and fortunately, Denver is a pretty safe city.
I feel safer here than I do on Poole High Street in the UK.

kins

* speeds back up again *

chartreuse

I think what some of us are taking issue with, Bob, is the way that you're throwing out these quantitative statements without any credible data to back them up.

But, for the sake of moving the conversation along, let's agree to say that there is some risk in confronting a burglar, even if one is armed.

How do we risk assess the alternative tactic of passive compliance (given that "legging it" may not be an option)? How is one supposed to know whether the masked men who've just broken down your door are intent on:
(a) Taking your stuff and leaving you unharmed,
(b) Taking your stuff then killing you for shits and giggles, or
(c) Ignoring your stuff while raping, killing and eating you. Not necessarily in that order.

Hint: Any answer involving the word "most" will be disqualified on the basis of culpable asstwattery.

Bob

You've not provided anything to counter it either though, except some bokum anecdotal news stories.

Like I said, no problems with gun ownership, but owning a gun for safety is just a daft reason.

Kaffy Mintcake

I can appreciate the need for data to back up statements. A quick google turned this up for me:

"Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nd-killed.html

Bill_S

Did you notice that Wintemute has published a critique of that study?

FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT
Am J Public Health, June 1, 2010; 100(6): 967 - 968.


I haven't read either yet, I might have access to that journal at work.

chartreuse

I'm not the one making the assertion, though. It's down to you to substantiate it, and there's nothing to refute until you do.

I can't get ahold of the paper, as we don't have a subscription to that journal. That said, there's a lot of studies like that about. Typically, they neglect some significant factor about the sample, such as it being gangbangers in a ghetto neighbourhood, etc.

FWIW, the National Academy of the Sciences did a detailed meta-study, a while back, on concealed handguns and crime which concluded that letting law abiding foks carry had, at worst, no effect and possibly some positive effect. In other words - it can't hurt and it might help. I'll try to dig out the link.

Bill_S

Bokum? Are those new reports not true then? Is this story false? Is the Boston Globe making it up?

Are you seriously arguing that being unarmed and defenseless in the face of a violent threat is a good thing?

Kaffy Mintcake

It doesn't surprise me in the least that there would be critiques of that study, or of any study for that matter. Afterall, as the researcher pointed out, you can't really hand a gun to one person and say "defend yourself" and deny a gun to the other, stand back and take notes.

Kaffy Mintcake

The researchers attempted to account for the issue that you have highlighted.

"The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood."

They also offered a theory behind their findings which seems intuitive to me:

"While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates."

I can pick apart any study if left alone with it long enough. It's what I do for a living. People often want to hear that a study equates to 100% certainty, and that's never possible. That's why we usually see the margin of error quoted. Still, if the method is sound, and the analyst is unbiased when reviewing the data, it's worth reviewing with an open mind.

Ray

Similar here ...


when I was young I sat around with my cock all gunned with his one eye open

Bob

But you are, your saying your safer and that's why you're gun owners, okay perhaps you not specifically with that point.

Bob

Like I said, your picking anecdotal one off stories. It's like people picking stories to say the NHS is shit.

It's just rather daft.

What I'm saying is, most people, when faced with a in the shit situation aren't likely to be clear headed to not make a mess of things and something faffing around with a fun is more likely to get it taken off them and used against them than actually taking a shot at killing a person in front of them.

Had they done nothing, it's much more likely the robber will bugger off, breaking and entering while a bad crime is nothing compared to armed robbery. Your going to hear more of the bad stuff happening, but that's because they are more sensational, far more robberies happen without guns or other weapons.

jeepgirluk

We have great fun shooting. I must ask whether you have ever held; fired; or been in the same room as a gun?

If I ever have an in the shit situation I will be sure to pop back on here and give you a run down of how it went.

jeepgirluk

In your opinion...