Most Americans think so. According to recent Gallup polls, 63 percent of adults believe having a gun in the house will make them safer and 56 percent think the country would be safer if more people carried concealed weapons. But numerous studies suggest that owning a gun can actually increase a person's risk of bodily harm and death. Research published this year in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that the 80 million Americans who keep guns in the home were 90 percent more likely to die by homicide than Americans who don't. A paper in the American Journal of Public Health, meanwhile, determined that a person with a gun was 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than someone who was unarmed.

...all of them.

I have a moral obligation to protect my wife, children and myself, and will do so with the best means available.


Safety first, easy voluntold victim never.

The claim "the annual per capita risk of death during a home invasion is 0.0000002 percent" based on a population of 350 million would give a result of .7 deaths in home invasion per year.

Even if we round up to 1 that is clearly a false claim.

Since the number of burglaries stopped by home owners with guns is greater than 1, the premise is shown to be false.

IF you access a gun BE READY TO USE IT WITHOUT HESITATION! Many people grab or carry a gun to feel safer, but when it comes to a confrontation, hesitate just for a second because its very hard for the average person to KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, and that gun that made you feel safe gets used on YOU!

Decades ago I had to walk across a bridge from where I parked my car to where I worked. Because you're a captive audience hen you're in the middle of a bridge, I carried a concealed S&W snub nosed 38 in my pocket. I would think about what my my reaction would be if confronted on that bridge, and realized that I would try to scare the attacker with the gun because I really didn't want to KILL anybody. I quit carrying because I realized that same gun that made me feel safe would most likely be used to kill ME!

Just something to think about. BTW, I made that trip twice a day for 14 years, and never had any problems.

...an overall plan for safety and security. That plan begins and ends with a thorough safety assessment of all factors that bear on the situation including regular and occasional environments, choice of any defensive measures and/or weapons, means to secure and transport the weapon, risk for specific dangers and concerns, costs (both one time and ongoing) and your training.

Doors don't lock themselves, guns don't shoot on their own; USMC gun fighting rule #26: Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

A gun is not the primary tool to use in self-defense ever, your brain is.

...during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen." If you don't kill your assailant, you're not doing your part to convince "gun skeptics" that having a gun makes you safer, so act accordingly.

Which make up 99.99% of DGUs. Also this opinion piece doesn't factor in all situations where a gun would likely have been useful, if the victim had one. While a gun won't stop every robbery, rape, beating, or home invasion...they would likely stop most.

I've noticed that almost all of this type of article he cuts and pastes doesn't count anything but actual shootings as a DGU.

It's an easy way to cook the books for the people that don't know any better.

When we see his 'byline' (for want of a better term) we know that there is an
antigun spin forthcoming and so know to search it out, as you and the two previous
posters have done.

He has a habit of picking up obscure blog posts that might be 2 or more years old and posting it like it was "news".

The other thing is, he doesn't always read all the way through and has been caught a couple of times with a catchy headline, that turns out to be a pro second amendment story.

I'm speculating of course but ...

I think in some strange way, having more of his posts up than others makes him think he's somehow "winning" and dominating the conversation. He can't seem to hear the laughter.

Just like another verbose poster feels that if he has the last post in a thread, even if it's months old and he has to resurrect it, he "wins" with the last word.

She is recovering, though seriously wounded by one of the quite experienced thugs. One thug is IN JAIL on a MILLION DOLLAR bond. Still searching for the other stinker. One in custody has left a trail of previous crime like a diarrhetic cow.

since I noticed the date on the story. I didn't even post the one about the 12 year old girl in Oklahoma who shot and killed a home invader because I think I've already seen that one posted here before.

Peace,

Ghost

Nor will they be in the future.

What other reason is there for posting one crime story after another?

Gun owners are fair game to try and shame on DU. Thankfully, when it gets too horrendous Skinner will step in and demand some civility or our host will act.

I guess there's a failed hope that somehow we'll identify with the criminals and feel guilty ... because, well GUNZ!!!

Never really worked, but I know there are some other gun owners that won't post here because of the shaming that follows them through other groups and forums.

Nor will they ever be.

Although, maybe its time to start shaming the shamers, assuming that a significant percentage of their ranks are capable of feeling shame in the first place. I know I know. Big assumption there.

With few exceptions, they have the attention span of pre-K student.

I'm sure there's a polite way to also point out that they never seem to want to use their own time or money to support "their cause".

As long as Bloomberg and other 1%'ers are footing the bills and paying for professional agitators and PR staff like Ms. Watts, they're hell bent for leather. True believers, as long as it doesn't cost them anything.

But I never hear of any of them going to any real gun control events, protests, rallys, petitions to repeal CCW, and when I ask on DU, "what do you do in the real world to support your beliefs", they either go away or dump a lot of crap on me for asking and embarrassing them as Keyboard Kommandos.

They can be "morally superior" and dump on us all they want, as long as they keep losing in court and in the legislatures.

Her crumby little org is trying to make hay out of the paris terrorist attacks too:

Only gun deaths count, since they can be used to push the agenda your boss pays you for?

I can't think of a way to describe that kind of thinking and behavior that won't get me banned.

As usual, pay no attention to the person pulling the trigger.

beevul boasts: Our rights aren't determined by statistics. Nor will they be in the future.

Beevul's contradictory signature line on his very post above: 99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent

You do realize that is for one year don't you? When you take your 99.9% over the course of a gun owner's lifetime of 75 years, the pure percentage of gun owner's per capita who would shoot or kill someone rises to near 5.5%. But then this doesn't account for multiple shootings by one individual so the 5% would be lower, perhaps 2% - 3%. Not that high but dramatically higher than your 0.1% figure. http://www.rapidtables.com/calc/math/Exponent_Calculator.htm

Considering 'illicit' use of firearms, over the course of a gun owner's life this percentage would increase dramatically, due to accident shootings whether with or without consequence; shooting at property like stop signs & lights; brandishing; reported & unreported violent crimes with guns; myriad of misdemeanor offenses; - the percentage would likely be from 20 to 40% of gun owners illicitly using any of their firearms over the course of their lifetimes.
So beevul, is it the 20% to 40% (imo) of those gun owners who illicitly will use firearms over the course of their lifetimes that we should focus on with preventative laws? or should we leave them 'the hell alone'?

Your sig line reminds me of this dated gun factoid:

just facts: "About 99.8% of firearms and more than 99.6% of handguns will not be used to commit violent crimes in any given year."
Reason for elimination: This statistic neglects key information such as the number of guns in the U.S. Thus, it can create a misleading impression, given that, in 2008, roughly 436,000 violent crimes were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp

Yes, every year, 99.9x percent of those who own guns do not use them to commit gun violence.

Every year 99.9x percent of guns are not used to commit gun violence.

Theres nothing contradictory to that, except maybe that its contradictory to your dogmatic belief system about guns.

We are keeping our guns james.

beevul: Yes, every year, 99.9x percent of those who own guns do not use them to commit gun violence.
Every year 99.9x percent of guns are not used to commit gun violence.
Theres nothing contradictory to that,

Yes, what you say is contradictory to your signature line. You need to tack on 'per yer' or 'annually' so as to clarify your sig line, or you will be posting a contradiction to reality.

beevul's signature line: 99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent

What your sig line contends is that of the approx 80 million gun owners, only 0.1% of them, or 80,000 gun owners, have ever shot or killed anyone. That is not true. There are likely a couple million existing gun owners in the US today, who have wounded or killed someone with a gun, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Indeed, the total number of firearm deaths & nonfatal firearm woundings & failed suicide attempts & accidental fatalities & woundings far surpasses the 80,000 gun owners as per beevul's contention:

The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.2 deaths per 100,000 population in 2009. The highest rate was 28.4/100,000 for African-American males, more than quadruple the rate of 6.3/100,000 for white males. (CDC, 2009)
The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

Taking into account multiple shootings or woundings by gun owners, it's still going to be higher than 80,000 for all gun owners than beevul contends. Couple million gun owners in the US have shot or wounded someone with their firearm.

yet self-reporting of gun ownership is.

But not 'funny haha'.