[psunavy03]

Your first statement is not supported by the second. Yes, in a DV situation or a situation where someone has severe mental illness, it's probably not a good idea to have easy access to a firearm.

But if you actually look at the numbers, the average firearm is not used in self-defense, nor is it used to endanger a family member. The vast majority just . . . sit there. They're machines which must be used respectfully and responsibly, not magic evil talismans.

[radlad]

> The vast majority just . . . sit there.

This is irrelevant to the statement that having a gun around is more dangerous than not having a gun around.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-owner...

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homi...

[newzisforsukas]

> Men who owned handguns were eight times more likely than men who didn’t to die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds.

> Women who owned handguns were more than 35 times more likely than women who didn't to kill themselves with a gun.

That is specific to handguns and kind of what would be expected?

Also, being more likely than not likely at all is pretty much comparing degrees of impossibility.

Seems like this pops up in arguments often.

Something like:

"We need to stop this bad thing that rarely happens! Only when it happens even less than hardly ever will we all be safe!"

[luqtas]

barely happens but suicides rates among teens are increasing & never were this high [0]

students who take a weapon with them to school, impact welfare & performance of nearby students just because they are aware of that [1]

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1414751/

[1] https://apadiv15.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Reducing-Wea...

go figure the plot you have to live after an event of this type

[newzisforsukas]

> go figure the plot you have to live after an event of this type

I am not saying these aren't issues, but that the risk is often overstated.

Also, I think there are plenty of other things that are greater risks than the likelihood of gun violence toward oneself or others that impact lifetime well-being for individuals on a socioeconomic scale, especially in schools.

[latexr]

> That is specific to handguns

So what? More likely than not that’s the type of gun the person we’re discussing used.

> and kind of what would be expected?

Again, what’s your point? Because it’s expected we shouldn’t discuss it or do anything about it? Let’s bring back lead paint while we’re at it; I mean, it’s expected that it causes brain damage.

> "We need to stop this bad thing that rarely happens! Only when it happens even less than hardly ever will we all be safe!"

It happens in the US significantly more than in other countries. The US is literally at the top of the list, to the surprise of no one. So yes, making it happen fewer times, perhaps by learning from other nations which have demonstrated it’s possible, is a worthwhile goal.

[newzisforsukas]

> Again, what’s your point?

The article states specifically that people who commit suicide with a gun are more likely to do so if they own a handgun. IMO, that follows from the mechanics of the scenario.

It is easier to point a handgun at yourself and pull the trigger than it is to do so with a long gun. So, IMO, it is common sense that it is more likely that someone committing suicide by firearm chooses to do so with a handgun over a long gun, and they are more likely to do that if they own a handgun already.

However, it isn't like a random person who owns a gun is significantly more likely to complete a suicide attempt just because they own a gun. Yet, a person who is already at risk of suicide might have an increased risk if they own guns.

That being said, as a random individual, the risk of completed suicide over a lifetime is incredibly low, and that risk is even lower for suicide by any firearm.

> Let’s bring back lead paint while we’re at it; I mean, it’s expected that it causes brain damage.

I don't see this as being analogous to what I am saying. Maybe I am missing something.

[jrussino]

> if you actually look at the numbers, the average firearm is not used in self-defense

Those aren't really the numbers you'd want to look at, right? If you have a community with 1000 firearms and 499 of them end up being used in a shooting you could still assert that "most firearms are never used".

I think what you'd care about in assessing risk is: what is the likelihood of violent injury and/or death in household with firearms vs households without? Controlled for other relevant factors?

I've never seen this particular assessment presented in the way I've described it, but then again it sounds like there are some political hurdles to studying gun violence: https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-viole...

[613style]

Yet it remains true that not having magic evil talismans in my house makes it very unlikely that my family or I get cursed by accident.

[luluthefirst]

Most landmines also just sit there.

[hirvi74]

No kidding, mine are still in the box.

[bandyaboot]

Not sure what the point here is. The vast majority of firearms that are used to hurt family members previously just sat there.

[simondw]

> The vast majority just . . . sit there

> They're machines which must be used [...] not magic evil talismans

I feel like there's a straw man in there. No one is worried about guns sitting around literally unused, and I don't think anyone cares too much about the used/unused ratio. Obviously the thing people are worried about is how they are used when they are used.