What's a trivial number Putin? How many people are killed in an attempted self-defense? You have no idea of either number -- where do YOU come up with this stuff? What is the percentage of gun deaths caused by legal versus illegal firearms? Again, I don't think you have any idea.

Let me ask you this, would you defend yourself or your family from the use of deadly force with deadly force? Would you shoot someone trying to kill you or someone in your family? Would you shoot someone who was raping your daughter, your mom, you sister, or your wife?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

More likely says the study -- fine. But what do you say to those whose life was saved by the presences of a gun? Do you tell them they're not allowed to protect themselves because a study shows that they're more likely to hurt themselves or someone else that is not assailing them? Who are you to make that determination?

Answer my question. Would you defend yourself or your family, or would you let yourself of a loved on be a victim?

"Who are you to make that determination? "

I'd ask them to help me get guns eliminated for good, so they wouldn't have to shoot people to live their lives.

Who are you to tell the countless gun violence victims that they need to suffer because you want widespread gun ownership because it makes you feel 'manly'? Who are you and people to make the determination that large cities aren't even empowered to legally vote in basic gun regulations?

I wouldn't need to tell them anything if we got guns eliminated from society, period. We wouldn't be having that conversation.

"Would you defend yourself or your family, or would you let yourself of a loved on be a victim?"

I'd call the police and hide or fight off the attacker with whatever I could muster. Then I'd probably find out that the home invader barged into my house with arsenal of legally obtained weapons.

Anyway why do you still pretend this gun lust of yours is about defending yourself? Gunfighter gave away the game when he said that everything kills, so public safety is not a concern.

Hate to break it to you Putin, but guns will NEVER be eliminated from society -- stop living in a dream world.

"I'd call the police and hide..." That says all that one needs to know.

No, you probably wouldn't find out that they had legally obtained guns. Someone that is going to commit these types of crimes is likely going to have a record, and won't be able to get a gun legally.

Maybe you should pull the covers over your head Putin.

"Anyway why do you still pretend this gun lust of yours is about defending yourself?"

I am not going speak for anyone else, but the gun ownership issue for me is ONLY about the Right of the People to defend themselves and their family from the use of deadly force. If there were a time when guns, all guns -- not just privately held guns -- were eliminated from society, then I wouldn't have a problem. However, that isn't going to happen, no matter how hard you try -- government always want the People to give their guns up, but aren't willing to do the same.

I don't want to shoot anyone. I don't think a gun makes me "manly" or strong. It makes me prepared for an eventuality that I hope to god never arises. But, that being said, I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Just like I am a very cautious and careful driver, I take gun safety VERY seriously, and I NEVER think of a gun as anything but deadly weapon for defense. I do not play with them, I don't flaunt them, I don't think of them as my "toys." They are tool, like an ax, a chainsaw, or any other dangerous tools. I don't leave those laying around, I maintain them as necessary, and I teach my family to respect them, but also -- when it is appropriate -- how to use them safely.

I think I am indicative of MOST lawful gun owners in the nation.

If gun ownership were a net-positive contributor to the safety of your family (and others), I would be inclined to agree. Naturally, I'm sympathetic to people like you who feel unsafe apart from them, even if I don't think much of the level of civilization achieved by a society where that's so, but the facts are the facts. If we were, indeed, net-safer with guns than without, I would not oppose private handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, even if I personally chose not to own one.

But the PubMed study is pretty strong evidence in the other direction. The only thing I could complain about is not identifying through what channels the guns got into the hands of the people involved. It would not be enough to say how many were obtained through legal vs. illegal channels, but the nature of the channels would indicate whether those channels would continue to exist if certain types of guns were outlawed. For example, a gun that was acquired by robbing a home is different from a gun that was brought across the border from Mexico.

That said, the unintentional shootings were probably mostly done with guns that were obtained in the normal way, and those, alone, have a 4:1 ratio against self-defense, according to the study.

canada...

But no study can indicate how many homes weren't robbed because the would be thieves noticed a gun case when they were casing the neighborhood.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Apparently, home robberies are how 10-15% of criminals acquire their guns. If thieves have the wherewithal to case a place, they have the wherewithal to wait to rob it until the owner is away. Probably a visible gun is quite the opposite of a deterrent.

Who would ever say that a gun would provide home security when you're not home to fire it?

Nobody, would say that, I hope. On the contrary, if you return home to a thief already in the house, one would hope that at least your gun were in a hidden lock-box and not on display. Also, one would hope that your neighbors had done the same when their houses were robbed.

I still don't understand.

Draugnar asked how many homes were _not_ robbed because a thief saw a gun in the home. My point is that a visible gun probably indicates a good target. Even if the thief doesn't want a gun, personally, he or she can apparently unload it pretty easily.

unload = sell. No pun intended. This clarification is for my own sanity. It's late and I'm sick.

The study concludes, "Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense." I think this is a erroneous conclusion because their reported methods: "reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas" only takes into account the times that guns were discharged, and fails to take into account times when guns aren't discharged, but are used successfully in self-defense.

The conclusion should read, "when guns kept in private homes are DISCHARGED, they are more likely to be used in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense." But even this statement is a bit misleading.

How are these 626 shootings that occurred, "in or around a residence" related to the concept of "guns kept in homes?" Were all the guns used in these 626 shooting the property of the homeowner? Were any of them brought in from the outside? What about random "drive-by" shootings that often occur in neighborhood? Upon further review of their methods, they state they: "reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of ALL fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities." [emphasis added] I assume from there, they narrowed it down to shootings "in or around a residence." But again, we don't know how many of these were private lawful gun owners in their homes shooting someone -- either himself, another illegally, accidentally, or in justified self-defense. But, despite this, they make the blanket statement that "guns kept in homes" are significantly more dangerous. Also, as I mentioned above, we don't know how many times a violent crime was thwarted "in or around a residence" by the presence of a gun, but without it being discharged.

Perhaps they go into the necessary detail of each of these shootings in their study. But, in reading their published abstract, his doesn't sound very scientific to me, and seems that the researchers were biased by an anti-gun agenda.

It says that 13 of the shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self defense. Since 3 were police, the other 10, it would seem, were ordinary citizens. Those 10 are the cases you're looking for, if I understand you, rightly.

As to the first question you raise, I can imagine where someone manages to protect him or herself by showing a gun. But that doesn't reduce crime. It just means that individual wasn't the victim... Not unless the citizen held the would-be assailant at gunpoint until the police arrived to make an arrest. And that sounds newspaper-worthy -- not a matter of statistics. Although, if you can find a study...

Most crime guns are bought through straw purchase sales or legally licensed gun merchants, which means the very legality and widespread availability of guns makes it easy for criminals to get guns. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

"I don't think a gun makes me "manly" or strong."

Riight. Which is why you constantly taunt people who disagree with you on this issue for being "pussies".

"I think I am indicative of MOST lawful gun owners in the nation."

Heh.

"The gunwalking 'scandal' was an attempt to gun after Mexican cartels"

Yeah, excellent idea. Give the cartels assault rifles in an attempt to weaken them. An anti-Second Amendment false flag operation is just as likely as the DoJ approving something that stupid.

"So let's not have any public safety regulations whatsoever."

Let's not have any pointless gun laws that would only cause a dangerous black market as krellin outlined earlier in the thread.

"100,000 people get shot every year."

Okay, let's break this down. How many of those are accidental or suicide? Because hunting rifles and shotguns with legitimate sporting purposes as well as handguns with legitimate home defense purposes can be involved in accidents or suicides. How many of those gun-related deaths are caused by registered guns with registered gun owners who passed a gun safety class? How many of those deaths are in areas with loose gun laws?

I'll respond more later

I have severe doubts about the value of a gun in terms of self defence.

The criminal: Well practised in gun use and willing to use it. He is awake and alert and prepared.

The householder: Just woken up from a deep sleep, is wearing pjs or is nude, and has to get gun from secure location. Is terrified for his own safety and that of his family. Has probably never shot at a human before and will almost certainly hesitate.

My money is very much on the bad guy.

There is avast conspiracy by the gun lobby and their fellow travelers to enrich themselves off of murder. They also make the dumbest arguments in defense of their cause, bar none.

@Octavious,

so that is justification to not even try to defend oneself and family? I think you're depicting self-defense scenarios in a very limited range. Sure, some go down as you depict, but obviously not all. In many instances the victim need only announce that he is armed to deter the assailant.

@Willtor,

I saw the 13 incidents in the abstract. Read what I wrote again. We don't have details about those, nor any of the 626 indicents they looked at other than they happen "in or around residences.". The study was put forth in here, and its conclusions state, that a "gun in a home" is more least likely to be used in justified self defense. However, as I stated last night, we don't have the details of any of the shootings. The 10 that were lacked justified could have been the only 10 in which a home owner shoot an assailant with his own gun, in his own home. All the others, potentially, could be situations in which a shooting ocurred with someone elses gun, outside but near a residence. We just don't have the details -- as such, the study doesn't tell us what it claims to tell us. This is an all too common failing of "studies" in the social sciences. At first glance the findings seem quite clear. But, it only takes a cursory look at their methods and conclusions to see that they're leaping, and best, and being downright disingenuous at worse. Lots of shooting ocurred in and around residences that have nothing to do with the self-defense scenario of a resident defending himself and his family, especially in ghetto areas of Memphis, Seattle, and Galviston.

@Putin,

I called YOU a pussy -- not anyone else -- not because you don't want a gun, but because you say you live in constant fear of them. There are literally dozens of things that are far more dangerous, statistically, than guns. Yet, you're not on a board lamenting your constant fear of them, are you?