Just having a gun in your home increases your risk of being shot - virtually always either by your angry spouse, or yourself - by 50%. The idea that having a gun make you safer has no sound basis.
> Just having a gun in your home increases your risk of being shot - virtually always either by your angry spouse, or yourself - by 50%. The idea that having a gun make you safer has no sound basis.
So? Just having a swimming pool in your home increases your risk of drowning, but people have them anyway.
Also, I think you pulled that 50% number out of the air.
Stanford published a study following handgun owners from 2004 to 2016 [1]. From the results: "Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners. These elevated rates were driven largely by higher rates of homicide by firearm."
But we could also reduce that down to "if you're specifically in an assault". Surely you're safer right? If you're in an assault and in possession of a gun, you are over 400% (4 times) more likely to be shot then if you do not have a gun. [2]
While having a swimming pool in your home does in fact increase the risk of drowning - in fact, it increases the risk of all the kids of your neighbors drowning as well (this is why I don't, and never will in fact have a private swimming pool in my home)...nobody puts a swimming pool in and says "this will stop me from drowning". In fact they go to considerable lengths and there is considerable regulation surrounding preventing exactly that.
> But we could also reduce that down to "if you're specifically in an assault". Surely you're safer right? If you're in an assault and in possession of a gun, you are over 400% (4 times) more likely to be shot then if you do not have a gun. [2]
From the paper itself, the TLDR is that those numbers only apply if you're in a gang. The cohort that is 400% more likely to be shot is, according to the paper, 400% more likely compared to non-illicit activity individuals.
> "However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1)."
It's a good argument for better social services, not for restricting non-gang individuals from owning firearms.
Surely there are confounding variables? For instance, if one does/does not have a criminal record, has/does not have a propensity for violence, or maybe most importantly does/does not have curious children in the house.
US reasoning is so weird. It's ALWAYS safer to have no gun than to have one? I'd even say that you have less chance to get shot unarmed than you do armed. Is there any data to back this up?
I was born in the US to Italian immigrants - so I don't particularly feel it's just "US reasoning". We didn't live in the greatest neighborhood growing up (about 2-3 miles from where the Buffalo Tops grocery store shooting occurred.) My father had a .22 caliber rifle. One late night (2-3 am) when we were asleep the doorbell rang. My father answered the door with his rifle in hand. Two people claiming to be Buffalo Police Officers were "looking for a missing child" and wanted to come in to ask questions. My father felt something was amiss and didn't let them in. He subsequently called the police and they had no such report of a missing child in the area, nor any police officers going door to door at that hour of the night. In this case I feel it was safer to have a gun than no gun. You can't plan for such events, the best you can do is being prepared for it. There are consequences to gun ownership and consequences to not owning a gun. Ultimately it's the law of the land that allows you to make that choice for yourself.
A defensive use of a firearm doesn't mean you actually need to fire the weapon. The mere presence of a gun can act as a deterrent.
So? Just having a swimming pool in your home increases your risk of drowning, but people have them anyway.
Also, I think you pulled that 50% number out of the air.