• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are people who own guns more likely to be shot?

Orphia Nay

Penguilicious Spodmaster
Tagger
Orphia Nay
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
52,449
Location
Australia
Would any statistics on "skill" in some gun-owners defending themselves and shooting an armed opponent be cancelled out by stats on:

  • gun deaths by suicide,
  • poor defence,
  • being shot by police by holding a fake or toy gun
  • accidental
  • other ways of being shot?


"A 2013 study of U.S. states in the American Journal of Public Health found that for each percentage-point increase in gun ownership, the overall firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent, controlling for other factors."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/overlooked-role-guns-police-reform-debate/613258/

So again, that's only counting homicide. Not gun death by officers, suicide, domestic violence, accidental death.

This is not a "ban guns" thread.
It's about the logical fallacy in believing that having guns protects you.
 
Actually, it probably does include getting shot by an officer or shooting a family member in a domestic violence incident, since that falls under homicide in any legal definition I've ever heard of. And it would most definitely include self-defense, shooting an intruder, etc.

Self-defense (or in the USA and some other places defense of one's property) is an affirmative defense, not something that makes it not a homicide. Affirmative defense doesn't mean "it didn't happen", but rather, basically, "yes, I did it, but here's why it should count as allowable." Police shootings might fall under qualified immunity, but that basically means you're immune from prosecution and civil liability, assuming that all evidence points at it being justified. It doesn't mean a homicide didn't happen.

(Mandatory disclaimer: this is not legal advice. If you intend to shoot someone, talk to a lawyer, not to some random ass hole on the Internet:p)

Anyway, while I get the point, it's not per se disproving the case of the gun lovers, since shooting an intruder is what falls under positives for them. You'd have to split it into justified and unjustified homicides to show whether it actually cancels out or not.
 
Last edited:
Suicide is the Biggie.

There are many things that can trigger suicidal thoughts, including prescription drugs, and often the only thing preventing you from killing yourself is the lack of means in the moment - if it takes 30 min to get ready, you are often over the urge already.

But if you have a gun ready it can be too late before you come back to your senses.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Suicide is the Biggie.

There are many things that can trigger suicidal thoughts, including prescription drugs, and often the only thing preventing you from killing yourself is the lack of means in the moment - if it takes 30 min to get ready, you are often over the urge already.

But if you have a gun ready it can be too late before you come back to your senses.
Click to expand...

Based purely off speculation, I suspect this has a lot to do with it. Guns are effective killing tools, so having a gun means a momentary flash of anger or suicidal ideation is more likely to lead to a death.

People who attempt suicide by gun are more likely to succeed than other methods. People who get into domestic or other violent confrontations with firearms are more likely to end in someone dead.

That's not to say there aren't alternatives, but guns tend to be the best killing tools available.

All that said, we live in a country where guns are everywhere, and unilateral disarmament doesn't protect you from being shot by other armed people. Someone who has a credible fear of being shot might be well advised to take up a gun themselves.
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
Would any statistics on "skill" in some gun-owners defending themselves and shooting an armed opponent be cancelled out by stats on:

  • gun deaths by suicide,
  • poor defence,
  • being shot by police by holding a fake or toy gun
  • accidental
  • other ways of being shot?


"A 2013 study of U.S. states in the American Journal of Public Health found that for each percentage-point increase in gun ownership, the overall firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent, controlling for other factors."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/overlooked-role-guns-police-reform-debate/613258/

So again, that's only counting homicide. Not gun death by officers, suicide, domestic violence, accidental death.

This is not a "ban guns" thread.
It's about the logical fallacy in believing that having guns protects you.
Click to expand...
The first part deals with the overall death rate, not the death rate of those who own guns.

The last sentance deals with whether owning a gun protects the owner, not the general population, so the first part doesn't relate to the last part

The last sentance also suggests you already consider it a logical fallacy that having a gun protects the user, so you seem to have made up your mind...
 
Last edited:
TBH, I wouldn't discount other factors either, such as numbnuts escalating a situation just because they have a gun. Even in the USA, depending on where you are and the exact situation, self-defense and even castle doctrine may include a duty to retreat if you can, and only use violence if it actually is the only reasonable option. Plus, even when legally allowed or grey area, if you escalate straight to pulling a gun, the other may meet that level of escallation by pulling out his, so it may not be the smartest thing to do. But I doubt that careful analysis of the tactical and legal situation is what's going to happen when one is marinated in adrenaline.
 
No. There's no correlation between owning a gun and shooting someone, and not owning a gun in not shooting someone. That's just silly. Just like how there were as many hit and run car accidents in Ancient Mesopotamia as in modern day Manhattan.

//And I say this as someone who loves guns and is a lot more gun rights favoring than most people in my political spectrum.//
 
Here in Missouri, for many years it was simply illegal to carry a firearm. Period. No permits, no exceptions.
Some years back, when about half the states had adopted at least some form of concealed-carry provision, Missouri legislators passed a “permit” law. Now, if you obtained the required training and obtained a background check, one could carry a concealed weapon. At the time, there were many cries of opposition.... The streets would run red, every argument would become a shooting, etc, etc.
That didn’t happen, nor did it happen in states that had similar training and background requirements.
But more recently, the august boys in Jefferson City removed the permit requirement in a move to placate 2nd-Amendment activists.

Now.... If you can legally purchase a handgun, you can carry it. No permit, no training. And, we have indeed seen a rather sharp increase in “rage” shootings. Here in St. Louis, we have seen a pretty steady number of road-rage shootings, arguments (even between friends) devolving in gunfights, and the like.
This is quite separate from the gang/drug related shootings that are a constant.
 
I think there's a lot to parse here beyond the basic "how many are killed by gunshot" type data.

As Hans pointed out, lawful shootings should probably be treated differently than unlawful shootings. Or at the very least, that data would be interesting to look at.

From a public policy standpoint, would an increase in lawful shootings be considered a bad thing? If victims of violent crime are able to defend themselves, that might increase the number of lawful shootings.

Take Bikewar's road rage example. An unarmed person might get beat up on the side of the road, but there's no fatality. An armed victim might kill their attacker in a lawful shooting, increasing the deaths by gunshot. Is it better to keep deaths low or to protect victims of unlawful violence? Does increasing guns lead to more unlawful vs lawful killings? Can you account for defensive gun uses that don't result in death or injury?

Then you have the topic of the OP's article, about jumpy cops killing lawfully armed people. That gets into the whole hornet's nest about how cops often get away with what should be unlawful killings and how police killings are treated in the data.

I would speculate that a more heavily armed society would probably lead to more "hot blood" murders or suicides, but it's hard to say one way or another without detailed data.
 
Well, if both are as likely to have a gun, as a prior probability, who do you think is more likely to pull a gun and shoot? The guy who was just minding his business behind the wheel, or the guy who already flew into a fit of rage and was out to teach the other guy a lesson?
 
HansMustermann said:
Well, if both are as likely to have a gun, as a prior probability, who do you think is more likely to pull a gun and shoot? The guy who was just minding his business behind the wheel, or the guy who already flew into a fit of rage and was out to teach the other guy a lesson?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I'd love to see some real research into how carrying a gun changes someone's approach to confrontation.

In my experience in the gun community, people seems to be impacted differently, even in extreme ways. Some people seem more belligerent, confident in the knowledge that they can back themselves up with lethal violence if things go badly. Some seem more conflict averse, not wanting some minor squabble to result in death.

Not sure how'd you measure this.
 
Well, I dunno, but given the prior that one was already past the point of rationality and basically out to break the law (assault is still a crime,) dunno, I'd trust them less to be responsible with a gun or anything else at that point. Regardless of how their personality might be affected outside that incident.
 
Well yeah and we have to, at some point, at least acknowledge the fact that even if you snapped your fingers and made very single gun disappear from the streets and homes of America our murder rate would still be way out of whack with the rest of the world.

In 2018, 726 people were murdered in England and Wales. And from what I can gather that was actually a rather bad year. Knives where the predominate weapon, bare hands second, and only 39 shot.

In 2018, 16,214 murders were committed in the US. And our numbers are actually going down. 6,603 were murdered by handguns, 2,963 by firearms (exact type unknown or unspecified), 297 by rifles, 235 by shotguns, 167 by "other guns" (whatever the hell that means), 1,515 by knives or cutting instruments, 672 by bare hands, 443 by blunt objects, 90 by asphyxiation, 78 by narcotics, 72 by fire, 70 by strangulation, 9 by drowning, 4 by explosives. (Unknown or multiple methods will mean the numbers will not match up exactly to the total)

So yeah you don't have to crunch the numbers too hard to realize if you get rid of guns we're still going to have a murder rate massively out of sync with the rest of the world

And no since apparently people have this goddamn argument mapped to a keyboard macro, that doesn't mean getting rid of just the gun murders isn't worth trying to do.
 
The biggest demographic is the inner city drug addled ignorant gang members. Something like 97% of the homicides. Fix that demographic group and America's homicide rate drops to one that is comparable to many other countries.

It's not the NRA members that do the mass numbers of homicides.
 
Sure, the people that get shot are more likely to live in homes with guns. They are also more likely to have a criminal record for violent offenses, like 97%. And drug offenses. And most cannot qualify for legal gun ownership because of it.
 
casebro said:
The biggest demographic is the inner city drug addled ignorant gang members. Something like 97% of the homicides. Fix that demographic group and America's homicide rate drops to one that is comparable to many other countries.

It's not the NRA members that do the mass numbers of homicides.
Click to expand...

So why aren't members of the busch family getting killed in the drug trade?
 
William Parcher said:
The Clydesdales are actually trained to be bodyguards. In secret.
Click to expand...

You laugh there's a major Budweiser Brewery near my house and they bring the Clydesdales there occasionally and as huge as those things are I halfway believe it.

I can imagine some drunk at the tour or during one beer events they occasionally throw putting hands on one of the employees, in the background out of focus one of the Clydesdales stands up on his hind legs and walks over, pokes the guy in the shoulder, he turns around the horse is towering over him, cracking his knuckles and goes "Boy... you just made the last mistake you'll ever made" and before the guy can go "Wait how are you cracking your knuckles you have hooves, also how are you talking" he's already been knocked out.
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
Are people who own guns more likely to be shot?
Click to expand...

I didn't looks at the study, but it would seem very likely that people who own guns are more likely to be shot for a variety of reasons.

One of the main ones is that people who are more likely to be shot, are more likely to own guns. If you're a criminal or in a gang for example, and think rivals or the authorities may be coming for you then you're probably more likely to acquire (or already have) a gun. If you live in a very unsafe neighborhood, you're more likely to consider picking up a gun. If you live in a low crime, safe, well, patrolled neighborhood you're probably less likely to purchase a gun.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Would any statistics on "skill" in some gun-owners defending themselves and shooting an armed opponent be cancelled out by stats on:

  • gun deaths by suicide,
  • poor defence,
  • being shot by police by holding a fake or toy gun
  • accidental
  • other ways of being shot?


"A 2013 study of U.S. states in the American Journal of Public Health found that for each percentage-point increase in gun ownership, the overall firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent, controlling for other factors."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/overlooked-role-guns-police-reform-debate/613258/

So again, that's only counting homicide. Not gun death by officers, suicide, domestic violence, accidental death.

This is not a "ban guns" thread.
It's about the logical fallacy in believing that having guns protects you.
Click to expand...

You're making your own logical fallacies here. The study you reference finds a positive correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates on a statewide level. But that says nothing about the protective value of guns to an individual. Nor does it say anything about the direction of causation (if any) in the correlation it found. You seem to have concluded that gun ownership leads to homicides, but the data itself don't distinguish between that possibility and homicides leading to gun ownership (ie, people buy more guns when they live somewhere more dangerous).

Furthermore, risk isn't evenly distributed among individuals either. If you're a drug dealer, your odds of already owning a gun are high, and your risk of getting shot are high. But it's the being a drug dealer, not owning a gun, which causes that high risk. If you want to avoid being shot, don't buy a gun and become a drug dealer. But again, that correlation says nothing about whether a law abiding individual is at any increased risk if they buy a gun. Similarly, if you're prone to suicidal thoughts but you don't want to commit suicide, don't buy a gun. But plenty of people are not at risk of suicide, and owning a gun doesn't place them at any increased risk. What's more, people can determine with high accuracy whether they are in these high risk groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom