'Why do you own a gun?'

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Interesting Stat:

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend or to commit suicide than to defend oneself.

There flip side is the gun owner will kill someone they don't know...

[natty bumppo 297]

Interesting Stat:

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend or to commit suicide than to defend oneself.

There flip side is the gun owner will kill someone they don't know...

Wow .. haven't seen this Dr Kellerman bunk in years.

[Cantankerous 0]

Interesting Stat:

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend or to commit suicide than to defend oneself.

An Interesting Reply:

FABLE I: A gun in the home makes the home less safe.

Firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to commit them,1 and accidents with firearms are at an all-time recorded low.2 In spite of this, anti-firearm activists insist that the very act of keeping a firearm in the home puts family members at risk, often claiming that a gun in the home is "43 times" more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder, based upon a study by anti-gun researchers of firearm-related deaths in homes in King County (Seattle), Washington.3 Although Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed, anti-gun groups and activists use the "43 times" claim without explaining the limitations of the study or how the ratio was derived.

To produce the misleading ratio from the study, the only defensive or protective uses of firearms that were counted were those in which criminals were killed by would-be crime victims. This is the most serious of the study's flaws, since fatal shootings of criminals occur in only a fraction of 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide.4 Survey research by award-winning Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, has shown that firearms are used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually.5

It should come as no surprise that Kleck's findings are reflexively dismissed by "gun control" groups, but a leading anti-gun criminologist was honest enough to acknowledge their validity. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," wrote the late Marvin E. Wolfgang. "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. . . . What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology."6

While the "43 times" claim is commonly used to suggest that murders and accidents are likely to occur with guns kept at home, suicides accounted for 37 of every 43 firearm-related deaths in the King County study. Nationwide, 58% of firearm-related deaths are suicides,7 a problem which is not solved by gun laws aimed at denying firearms to criminals. "Gun control" advocates would have the public believe that armed citizens often accidentally kill family members, mistaking them for criminals. But such incidents constitute less than 2% of fatal firearms accidents, or about one for every 90,000 defensive gun uses.8

In spite of the demonstrated flaws in his research, Kellermann continued to promote the idea that a gun is inherently dangerous to own. In 1993, he and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.9

This study, too, was seriously flawed. Kellermann studied only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and used a control group unrepresentative of American households. By looking only at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. After reviewing the study, Prof. Kleck noted that Kellermann's methodology is analogous to proving that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted, "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Northwestern University Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, writing, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."10

1. Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 160; FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, annual reports.

2. National Center for Health Statistics and National Safety Council.

3. Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, "Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, pp. 1557-1560.

4. Kleck, pp. 163-164.

5. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, p. 164.

6. Marvin E. Wolfgang, "Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, pp. 188-192.

7. National Center for Health Statistics, 1999, the most recent year for which data have been published.

8. Gary Kleck, "Keeping, Carrying, and Shooting Guns for Self-Protection," Essays on Firearms and Violence, by Don B. Kates, Jr. and Gary Kleck, San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1995, p. 208.

9. Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, p. 467.

10. Daniel D. Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Interesting Stat:

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend or to commit suicide than to defend oneself.

An Interesting Reply:

FABLE I: A gun in the home makes the home less safe.

Firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to commit them,1 and accidents with firearms are at an all-time recorded low.2 In spite of this, anti-firearm activists insist that the very act of keeping a firearm in the home puts family members at risk, often claiming that a gun in the home is "43 times" more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder, based upon a study by anti-gun researchers of firearm-related deaths in homes in King County (Seattle), Washington.3 Although Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed, anti-gun groups and activists use the "43 times" claim without explaining the limitations of the study or how the ratio was derived.

To produce the misleading ratio from the study, the only defensive or protective uses of firearms that were counted were those in which criminals were killed by would-be crime victims. This is the most serious of the study's flaws, since fatal shootings of criminals occur in only a fraction of 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide.4 Survey research by award-winning Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, has shown that firearms are used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually.5

It should come as no surprise that Kleck's findings are reflexively dismissed by "gun control" groups, but a leading anti-gun criminologist was honest enough to acknowledge their validity. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," wrote the late Marvin E. Wolfgang. "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. . . . What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology."6

While the "43 times" claim is commonly used to suggest that murders and accidents are likely to occur with guns kept at home, suicides accounted for 37 of every 43 firearm-related deaths in the King County study. Nationwide, 58% of firearm-related deaths are suicides,7 a problem which is not solved by gun laws aimed at denying firearms to criminals. "Gun control" advocates would have the public believe that armed citizens often accidentally kill family members, mistaking them for criminals. But such incidents constitute less than 2% of fatal firearms accidents, or about one for every 90,000 defensive gun uses.8

In spite of the demonstrated flaws in his research, Kellermann continued to promote the idea that a gun is inherently dangerous to own. In 1993, he and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.9

This study, too, was seriously flawed. Kellermann studied only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and used a control group unrepresentative of American households. By looking only at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. After reviewing the study, Prof. Kleck noted that Kellermann's methodology is analogous to proving that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted, "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Northwestern University Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, writing, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."10

1. Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 160; FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, annual reports.

2. National Center for Health Statistics and National Safety Council.

3. Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, "Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, pp. 1557-1560.

4. Kleck, pp. 163-164.

5. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, p. 164.

6. Marvin E. Wolfgang, "Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, pp. 188-192.

7. National Center for Health Statistics, 1999, the most recent year for which data have been published.

8. Gary Kleck, "Keeping, Carrying, and Shooting Guns for Self-Protection," Essays on Firearms and Violence, by Don B. Kates, Jr. and Gary Kleck, San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1995, p. 208.

9. Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, p. 467.

10. Daniel D. Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.

Have you ever had a gun stuck in your face? If you have, your first wish would be to have one yourself. Just imagine that scenario.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Have you ever had a gun stuck in your face? If you have, your first wish would be to have one yourself. Just imagine that scenario.

If somebody sticks a gun in your face, owning a gun will better your odds? I'm thinking I could be carrying a loaded gun with me and if somebody manages to pull a gun and aim at my face at blank range, I don't think having a gun on me is going to better my odds much. I've had martial art instructors say that when someone pulls a gun or knife on you in close range, your best chance is to disarm them by knocking the weapon out of their hand.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Cantankerous 0]

Have you ever had a gun stuck in your face? If you have, your first wish would be to have one yourself. Just imagine that scenario.

If somebody sticks a gun in your face, owning a gun will better your odds? I'm thinking I could be carrying a loaded gun with me and if somebody manages to pull a gun and aim at my face at blank range, I don't think having a gun on me is going to better my odds much. I've had martial art instructors say that when someone pulls a gun or knife on you in close range, your best chance is to disarm them by knocking the weapon out of their hand.

I have had a gun as well as a knife pulled on me. To the dismay of some, I have survived ...

The topics of self-defense, protecting your family, securing your home, etc. are ones that I am very interested in and I think would make a good Topic for a separate discussion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Personally I don’t think ‘packing a piece’ necessarily makes a person able to defend themselves. I’d say that most people who have a gun pulled on them are not thinking about pulling their gun, bashing the guy over the head or kicking him in the nuts – but about the state of their underpants. I'd say its easy telling people how they should react in situations where a person isn't thinking rationally - hence that thread shortly after the Virginia Tech massacre.

Do we really live in a society where a person needs to carry a gun to go about their daily lives? How many people I wonder have actually been subjected to a robbery or assault I wonder… Probably not as many as are afraid of it happening.

[SteveLaura 0]

The Militia as defined by us code is any male between the ages of 18 and 60. So that means you and me! A militiaman supplies his own weapon which is to be just like what the regular military uses. Hence well regulated. It has nothing to do with any governmental agency regulating it. You have been under the influence of big governmenr for much too long. Not everything or everyone has always been regulated or overseen by them nor has there ever been a need for it.

Again for those that were sleeping in history class and have never done any further reading into the constitution or the thinking and history behind it. The second amendment has NOTHING to do with repelling invaders, hunting, or most of the other things mentioned above. It has EVERYTHING to do with the ability to protect themselves and the inalienable rights mentioned in the constitution from intrusion by THE GOVERNMENT. In other words it is the last resort of the people when the government has gone out of control and needs to be brought back into line with the principles originally set forth in the constitution and the original bill of rights.

If you remember your history the colonists had just fought a war for independance from a government that was infringing on their rights as English citizens "Taxation without representatation" as well as infringements on religion and a host of other areas that were never mentioned in your high school history class.

Why is it that Americans born and bred here are so ignorant about The most important document in their history. A document that literally changed the role in government in many places around the world. A document that is the very foundation of who, what and why The United States is. I'm really beginning to think that everyone should be required to take a test on the constitution and its history everyother year just so they can remember how import this document and what it says is to our lives here.

I'm taxed but not represented. Is there a militia in Milwaukee I could join?

[Ladylethal 12]

My dad has tons, we have a farm back in my country and everyone there has guns. I don't like guns but have done some target shooting before. Now here with my husband we don't have any guns in the house. Of course here in PR I think it's not so common.

I too think it's wrong to have children holding guns and posing, or knowing how to use them, etc. I think parents should put a limit to it and keep guns in a safe place that children and teenagers can't reach, even if you do take them target shooting.

Btw, my brothers and dad do hunt at the farm, but I don't think I could unless it was as survival thing.

[Geist 0]

I own a gun because I won one in a Second Amendment Sister's raffle. I went shooting with it, but didn't particularly enjoy it (too loud..it stank...and then I found out that I actually have to clean the damn thing. That's like owning a pet, only I derive far less utility from it). Anyhoo, I still own it, no plans to give it away because frankly, I think owning a gun is a good idea as is knowing how to use one. I just probably won't ever use it.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Personally I don’t think ‘packing a piece’ necessarily makes a person able to defend themselves. I’d say that most people who have a gun pulled on them are not thinking about pulling their gun, bashing the guy over the head or kicking him in the nuts – but about the state of their underpants. I'd say its easy telling people how they should react in situations where a person isn't thinking rationally - hence that thread shortly after the Virginia Tech massacre.

Do we really live in a society where a person needs to carry a gun to go about their daily lives? How many people I wonder have actually been subjected to a robbery or assault I wonder… Probably not as many as are afraid of it happening.

first bolded statement - something is better than nothing, eh? not everyone is a kung fu expert.

second bolded statement - probably more than you are willing to accept.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

first bolded statement - something is better than nothing, eh? not everyone is a kung fu expert.

I don't dispute that. I'm just asking why a person would feel a need to carry one. I don't - hence I don't relate to it.

second bolded statement - probably more than you are willing to accept.

Yes - I don't doubt a lot of people are afraid of being victims of crime. Its pretty well documented for instance - that media coverage increases people's fear of crime. I wonder how much of that accounts for people's desire to own/carry guns.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Interesting Stat:

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend or to commit suicide than to defend oneself.

An Interesting Reply:

FABLE I: A gun in the home makes the home less safe.

Firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to commit them,1 and accidents with firearms are at an all-time recorded low.2 In spite of this, anti-firearm activists insist that the very act of keeping a firearm in the home puts family members at risk, often claiming that a gun in the home is "43 times" more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder, based upon a study by anti-gun researchers of firearm-related deaths in homes in King County (Seattle), Washington.3 Although Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed, anti-gun groups and activists use the "43 times" claim without explaining the limitations of the study or how the ratio was derived.

To produce the misleading ratio from the study, the only defensive or protective uses of firearms that were counted were those in which criminals were killed by would-be crime victims. This is the most serious of the study's flaws, since fatal shootings of criminals occur in only a fraction of 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide.4 Survey research by award-winning Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, has shown that firearms are used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually.5

It should come as no surprise that Kleck's findings are reflexively dismissed by "gun control" groups, but a leading anti-gun criminologist was honest enough to acknowledge their validity. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," wrote the late Marvin E. Wolfgang. "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. . . . What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology."6

While the "43 times" claim is commonly used to suggest that murders and accidents are likely to occur with guns kept at home, suicides accounted for 37 of every 43 firearm-related deaths in the King County study. Nationwide, 58% of firearm-related deaths are suicides,7 a problem which is not solved by gun laws aimed at denying firearms to criminals. "Gun control" advocates would have the public believe that armed citizens often accidentally kill family members, mistaking them for criminals. But such incidents constitute less than 2% of fatal firearms accidents, or about one for every 90,000 defensive gun uses.8

In spite of the demonstrated flaws in his research, Kellermann continued to promote the idea that a gun is inherently dangerous to own. In 1993, he and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.9

This study, too, was seriously flawed. Kellermann studied only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and used a control group unrepresentative of American households. By looking only at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. After reviewing the study, Prof. Kleck noted that Kellermann's methodology is analogous to proving that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted, "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Northwestern University Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, writing, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."10

1. Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 160; FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, annual reports.

2. National Center for Health Statistics and National Safety Council.

3. Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, "Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, pp. 1557-1560.

4. Kleck, pp. 163-164.

5. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, p. 164.

6. Marvin E. Wolfgang, "Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, pp. 188-192.

7. National Center for Health Statistics, 1999, the most recent year for which data have been published.

8. Gary Kleck, "Keeping, Carrying, and Shooting Guns for Self-Protection," Essays on Firearms and Violence, by Don B. Kates, Jr. and Gary Kleck, San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1995, p. 208.

9. Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, p. 467.

10. Daniel D. Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.

[SteveLaura 0]

The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that the vast majority (I would suggest) of people who own guns like guns. Similarly, the opposite is true. All the stats in the world saying that guns are the dog's bollocks wouldn't get me to have one in the house. Stats showing that kids and adults are getting blown away accidentally on a daily basis isn't going to change a lot of gun owners' minds either. I personally don't understand the perceived need to own a gun, nor what the joy, or whatever, people get from owning and/or shooting one. Should my personal opinion trump your's? Aye, there's the rub.

[tmma 467]

Personally I don’t think ‘packing a piece’ necessarily makes a person able to defend themselves.......

By " a person" do NOT include me in that generalization! Here is my story....

I was car-jacked by 2 guys afew years ago. Hoping it was just the car they wanted-I screamed they could have it-and tossed the keys at one of them....And tried to get away....Not being satisfied with the keys they thought it was fun ( I guess) to make sure I was as beaten up as possible..I was pulled by my hair out of the car ( so I could not get to my can of mace), and held and beaten.

Luckily a man ( a hero to me)stopped when I was spotted in the middle of the road fighting the 2 guys off, helped me and called the police. It was in the newspapers and on TV and they ended up getting 5 and 7 years jail time.. My point is that [in that instance] I feel sure that if I had my gun in the glovebox-and flashed it out the window-the field would have been leveled somewhat.

I was left needing 4 days in hospital and loads stitches from defense injuries across my head,arms,neck and legs.

I gave one of them a black eye, though. Big deal..

How many people I wonder have actually been subjected to a robbery or assault I wonder…

Start a poll.ME for one!

I am not a fan of guns at all.I am not a " trigger happy" person, either. I don't go shooting for fun or hunt or even shoot skeet. I have a healthy fear and a serious respect for the safe use of guns. But you can bet that I know how to use one properly. I also know that if you pull a weapon out-you better be bloody serious about firing if you have to-as the chances of you being fired at increase.

I think in my instance having alittle protection would have helped me- as I was no match for 2 fully grown men.

I wish we lived in a world where things like my story do not happen; but we don't and this is just my story to point out that the field is not level in some circumstances. You cannot generalize.