Gun more likely to be turned on owner?


PDA






Lurp
October 28, 2008, 02:48 AM
Hey, my good friend is doing a presentation about gun control and is trying to dispel the common myth that a gun is more likely to be turned on the owner than used defensively. I was wondering if ya'll could give me any insight or hard data as how to counter this statement. I was thinking along the lines of looking for data on how many times firearms are used in defensive situations and then comparing it to the amount of homicides during burglaries or some such thing. Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun more likely to be turned on owner?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
No Fear
October 28, 2008, 02:50 AM
A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise.

A shotgun has a "handle" (known as a super long barrel, even 18" is long compared to a handgun) the bad guy can use to grab it out of your hands (using a twisting action will guarantee that the thug takes your shotgun). This is the direct reason that short barreled shotguns were banned in 1934 (unless you get the cost prohibitive license). The gun banners view self defense as an OFFENSIVE ACT, and they painted guns as offensive and evil. Thus, the beginning of federal bans in 1934, was crafted and aimed at guns that were more effective for self defense (i.e. guns with short barrels).

sniper5
October 28, 2008, 03:12 AM
ANY firearm within arm's reach of the BG. Hint: Distance is your friend-in many ways.

TwitchALot
October 28, 2008, 03:17 AM
Hey, my good friend is doing a presentation about gun control and is trying to dispel the common myth that a gun is more likely to be turned on the owner than used defensively. I was wondering if ya'll could give me any insight or hard data as how to counter this statement. I was thinking along the lines of looking for data on how many times firearms are used in defensive situations and then comparing it to the amount of homicides during burglaries or some such thing. Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

I wouldn't try to attack the argument directly in this case. I'm not sure there's any hard data to analyze in the first place. Instead, I'd try something like this:

"If a gun is more likely to be turned on the owner than used defensively, I have a great idea. Let's arm all criminals. That way, whenever they commit crimes, citizens can take their guns and use it against them to defend themselves. Being that it's more likely for a gun to be used on its owner than defensively, this would result in a safer society for everyone."

I think at that point almost everyone will realize the apparently obvious: That it's not that simple, and while gun disarms do happen, it's almost always never easy, and almost always extremely dangerous.

Blarelli
October 28, 2008, 03:22 AM
I seem to remember reading something about how that whole study was bogus because it included self-inflicted gunshots from accidents and suicides.

TwitchALot
October 28, 2008, 03:24 AM
I seem to remember reading something about how that whole study was bogus because it included self-inflicted gunshots from accidents and suicides.

The Kellerman study was trash, no doubt. And if that's what the OP is referring to, that's easy enough to debunk. Just get the numbers from the study and show the class how the "statistics" were derived. But I was under the impression he was actually referring to weapons literally being turned on their owners, as opposed to deaths in the home and such.

Blarelli
October 28, 2008, 03:26 AM
I've always thought that is where that myth was derived from originally.

TwitchALot
October 28, 2008, 03:28 AM
Well I'm not sure, but either way, they're two separate issues. The Kellerman study itself is easy to debunk. The actual argument (for which I think there is no data to support either side) is more conceptual and people could easily be convinced that it's true (even though it isn't).

mnrivrat
October 28, 2008, 03:34 AM
These kind of statements were the result of the Kellermann study . They were debunked almost as quickly as they came out , but the anti-gun crowd likes the thing so much they never let it die.

If you repeat a lie long enough it will become a fact, I think has been their stradigy. The Kellerman study almost single handedly could have caused the coining of a phrase regarding statistics in general .

There are lies, then there are big lies, and then there are statistics .

Sorta like trash in - trash out.

JohnKSa
October 28, 2008, 03:46 AM
The study that I believe you're referring to didn't specifically say what you're saying.

I believe it said that a gun in the house was X** times more likely to kill a resident than a burglar. (**Can't remember the exact factor offhand.)

It's a double-whammy...

First, it OVERstates the likelihood of a gun being turned on its owner because the statistic includes suicides, accidental shootings and shootings involving disputes between residents. So a person reads the stat thinking it's really about a gun being taken away by a criminal and used against the owner when, in reality, it's about any possible kind of shooting that the gun might be involved in that results in a resident dying.

Second, it UNDERstates the usefulness of a gun in self-defense because it only counts the cases where the criminal actually dies. In the vast majority of SUCCESSFUL self-defense gun uses the gun is never fired and when it is, the criminal is often missed. Furthermore, a person has about an 80% chance of surviving a wound from a handgun. In well over 90% of self-defense gun uses the criminal survives. The cases where a criminal is actually killed in self-defense make up a tiny minority of the situations.

The statistic is a masterpiece of misdirection. Someone really thought it out carefully.

Lurp
October 28, 2008, 03:51 AM
Thanks guys! That’s just the kind of info I was looking for. I checked out the study on Google and got some good info on what was wrong with the study.

The question originally arose when my friend proposed his idea to do gun control for his project and the professor gave him a couple of snide remarks with one of them being the former. Figured something was behind the myth as I've heard it a few times before. Thanks again and keep them coming if you guys have anymore!

BullfrogKen
October 28, 2008, 04:09 AM
Its tough to make this argument. Have your friend narrow the parameters of the study.

Is he going to study the instances where an officer of the law had his firearm taken from him? Those are much easier statistics to compile. Those can be compared to officer involved shootings, as those are also easy statistics to compile. The greyer area is when officers unholster, yet do not fire the weapon. Or greyer still, when the officer approaches the suspects within proximity while the gun was still holstered, and a gun grab attempt takes place but was thwarted. Even so grey its almost black - when an officer interacts with the public, with his firearm in plain view, and nothing happens.


Attempts to disarm an armed citizen happens, and its often tragic when it does. But I'm not sure those statistics are as easy to collect. And although we can generally track down the numbers where an armed citizen fires his gun in self-defense, what we cannot reliable determine is how many times a firearm was merely introduced into a situation, and the altercation was resolved without a shot fired. Many of those incidents are not reported, or if they are, do not get properly catalogued.


Perhaps a discussion over the problems of just making the case, one way or the other, is enough for a good presentation?

Or a good topic might be a study on whether handgun retention training affects the outcome of a gun grab attempt. And if it does, how successful is that training? How successful is it when the odds are 2 on 1, 3 on 1? How successful is it depending on size difference of the attacker? Or whether the attacker spent time in prison and learned in the criminal academies good attack techniques? How long can a defender, trained in retention techniques, expect to fight off an attack? Do back-up weapons change the outcome?


This is a good subject to approach. Decide whether to make it a scientific approach, or if he'll set out to debunk a political myth.

For me, the very first professional gun handling course I ever paid out of my pocket for was a Handgun Retention and Disarms course. Its a lot harder to take it from someone who uses appropriate gun presentation skills for the situation and also knows one or two good retention techniques. Its a lot easier to take it from someone who doesn't know those skills, but its still dangerous.

Deanimator
October 28, 2008, 07:47 AM
I have been asking anti-gunners for an example of someone other than a cop trying to arrest someone with non-lethal force having his or her firearm "turned on the owner" for the better part of twenty years. None of them has been able to provide one.

If you shoot someone, they have a real disinclination to take things which don't belong to them. If someone tries to take your gun, SHOOT THEM.

A lot of this comes down to misogyny. People who say that women's guns will be "taken away" display REAL contempt for women. If women are so stupid, inept or cowardly by their nature, why should we allow them to be police officers or soldiers? The truth is, a motivated woman will defend herself and her family as competently as anyone else.

Finally, none has been able to explain to me why, if it's so easy to "snatch" guns from people, it isn't just as easy to "snatch" them BACK.

moooose102
October 28, 2008, 08:44 AM
the only way a gun will be turned on its owner is if the gun owner is afraid to use it. so, if you can not pull the trigger to save yourself, leave the gun in the safe, and buy a can of prpper spray.

gregormeister
October 28, 2008, 09:10 AM
"A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise."

Don't know about that.......

NeoSpud
October 28, 2008, 09:11 AM
A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise.
What? Guaranteed?

A shotgun has a "handle" (known as a super long barrel, even 18" is long compared to a handgun) the bad guy can use to grab it out of your hands (using a twisting action will guarantee that the thug takes your shotgun). This is the direct reason that short barreled shotguns were banned in 1934 (unless you get the cost prohibitive license). The gun banners view self defense as an OFFENSIVE ACT, and they painted guns as offensive and evil. Thus, the beginning of federal bans in 1934, was crafted and aimed at guns that were more effective for self defense (i.e. guns with short barrels).
1. Explain this "direct reason"
2. Transfer tax != license
3. I don't think the NFA was created with the intent of curbing self defense shootings...

Rmeju
October 28, 2008, 09:14 AM
"If a gun is more likely to be turned on the owner than used defensively, I have a great idea. Let's arm all criminals. That way, whenever they commit crimes, citizens can take their guns and use it against them to defend themselves. Being that it's more likely for a gun to be used on its owner than defensively, this would result in a safer society for everyone."

:rofl:


Twitch, that is hands down the best "stupid answer to a stupid argument" I have ever seen on gun control. My hat, sir, is off to you.

I'm gonna use that one!

Rmeju

hso
October 28, 2008, 09:33 AM
Twitch, great logical attack.

The facts are that firearms are used from one to 2.5 million (http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html) times a year to stop a crime.

There are under 30,000 deaths a year due to all firearms use, that includes LE, gang and suicide.

The argument that a gun is likely to be taken away and used against the good guy isn't borne out by these two facts.

Beagle-zebub
October 28, 2008, 09:39 AM
A lot of this comes down to misogyny. People who say that women's guns will be "taken away" display REAL contempt for women. If women are so stupid, inept or cowardly by their nature, why should we allow them to be police officers or soldiers? The truth is, a motivated woman will defend herself and her family as competently as anyone else.

Butbutbut they're always getting tripped up by their high heels! If we can't depend on them to evade zombies, how can we trust them with firearms?

Vern Humphrey
October 28, 2008, 09:40 AM
A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise.

Anyone who believes that can test it by breaking into a house where there is a woman and a shotgun, and seeing if he has what it takes to look down the bore of a shotgun held by a trembling woman and try to grab it.

Kind of Blued
October 28, 2008, 09:55 AM
The facts are that firearms are used from one to 2.5 million times a year to stop a crime.

There are under 30,000 deaths a year due to all firearms use, that includes LE, gang and suicide.

Hence, the statistics are heavily in "our" favor, especially after you:

Ignore those attributed to suicide,

ignore those attributed to gang on gang violence,

Increase the disparity by estimating the number of unreported violent crimes by comparing the FBI's UCR to Victim Survey studies.

This is hard data. None of this takes into account one's training (retention, if nothing else), avoiding conflict, de-escalating situations, etc.

mainmech48
October 28, 2008, 10:07 AM
Amen, Vern. I would strongly advise against conducting that little experiment at our house, though.

benEzra
October 28, 2008, 10:08 AM
Good info (with the actual data) here:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

The "more likely to be used against you" thing is essentially a media distortion of Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home," New Engl J Med 1986 (314:1557-60). Kellerman has rehashed the study in several iterations since, without significantly changing his methodology.

Contrary to media myth, Kellerman did not find ANY instances of the homeowner's gun being used to kill the homeowner by a criminal, AFAIK. I believe that in every case in which Kellerman cited a gun-owning homeowner being shot, he/she was shot by a criminal's gun brought into the house from outside (the homeowner probably being unarmed at the time; Kellerman only looked at whether a gun was present in the home, not whether the owner tried to use it defensively).

The VAST majority of the deaths Kellerman et al cite are suicides, not homicides or accidents. If you are not at risk for suicide, there goes most of the alleged risk. Accidental gun deaths are statistically insignificant, so much so that I doubt he even recorded any (current rate is ~600/year nationwide for 80+ million gun owners, and this figure does not exclude accidents by gun-owning criminals, a fact which tends to skew the perceived risk higher).

Of homicides in which the victim was the gun owner, Kellerman counted these as if the homeowner's gun were at fault, but in every instance the gun used was the criminal's gun, brought into the house by the criminal with lethal intent. Kellerman didn't bother to control for the fact that people who are in greater danger of being murdered are more likely to purchase a gun than those in the control group, nor did he control for understatement of gun ownership by the control group (which given the area and political climate almost certainly would have skewed his results).

The commonly cited "43 times more likely to kill a family member than defend against an intruder" statistic from Kellerman et al excluded ALL defensive gun uses that didn't result in the death of the criminal, which acts systemically to hugely underestimate the number of actual defensive uses. (Surveys of self-defense incidents imply that 98% or more do NOT result in the wounding of the criminal, much less his death). Using this methodology, if the intended victim pulled a gun and the criminal fled, it didn't count; if the victim fired a warning shot and the criminal fled, it didn't count; if the victim shot the criminal, halting the attack, but the criminal survived, it didn't count; and if the criminal were shot and killed, and was known to the victim, IIRC it was counted in the "shooting a friend or family member" category. Not exactly an objective study. Using this methodology, one could prove pretty much anything she/he wants.

Certainly one can quibble about the Lott et al data, and the Gary Kleck et al data on defensive gun uses, but if you exclude suicides I don't think there is any data anywhere that suggests a gun in the home is a significant danger to you or your family.

And FWIW, the National Crime Victimization Survey showed that victims who defended themselves with firearms were the least likely to be injured in the course of the crime (even less than those who offered no resistance at all), and all victims who used guns and were injured were injured BEFORE they accessed the gun. Unfortunately, the sample size was VERY small, so that data is not as robust as it might be with a larger data set.

hso
October 28, 2008, 10:22 AM
If you ignore Kleck and Lott and just go with the very low DOJ data of 800,000 defensive gun uses you still have a 30,000 max vs an 800,000 min or almost a 30 to 1 stat discrediting the argument that good guys have their guns taken away and used against them by bad guys.

everallm
October 28, 2008, 11:09 AM
The statistics you are after probably can never be gathered with any degree of certainty. Too many variables, too few reliable records, no common methodology of report or record etc etc.

A more useful measurement might be to extrapolate the number of incidents where assault occurred which fall within the Tueller "Rule of 21 feet".

The reality is that statistically an assailant can cover that distance quicker than the majority of people can react with a firearm and this will skew any stats.

For example, did the assailant overcome then take the weapon or take the weapon then overcome ?

You can also tie in to the OODA principles as to WHY the untrained AND trained can fail to act "correctly" in such situations.

In its simplest, the OODA is a simple recursive but interruptible feedback loop that will govern your actions, particularly when at stress.

Observe You see an action, activity or occurrence
Orientate What is the action and what does it mean to you right now
Decide What am I going to do about it and how
Act Now I know what to do, now I can do something

Unfortunately, if at any time during the loop something happens and resets the loop then you end up failing to do anything. An example below where the loop starts and ends then one that keeps getting interrupted

You hear a breaking window at home at Dark O'clock (Observe)
It's a bad sound in the context of location and time (Orientate)
I'd better investigate, it may be dangerous I will take a weapon (Decide)
Out of bed, pick up CZ SP-01, chamber round, start to clear house (Act)

This loop has finished, so another starts.

Get to kitchen, hear strange sound, it's not right, I'll sweep and check, go hard at the door, sweep low and high left to right. (OODA ends) New loop starts.

See BG, start the loop, OOD (interrupt and restart), crap another noise to the left, restart loop, OO (interrupt and restart), damn original guys moving, OO (interrupt and restart), second persons got a knife, OO (interrupt and restart)

etc etc etc

Vern Humphrey
October 28, 2008, 11:22 AM
The Tueller Drill is predicated on the attacker being armed with a knife. If you have a shotgun, the counter is a short thrust while pulling the trigger.

Justin
October 28, 2008, 11:29 AM
Even if the argument can't be attacked directly, it would be worth pointing out that none of the studies claiming that a weapon is more likely to be turned on its owner have ever controlled for level of firearms training and/or proficiency nor have they ever taken into account the mental willingness of the intended victim to defend him/herself.

mljdeckard
October 28, 2008, 11:39 AM
Guaranteed? You know how to tell who is full of bull on these boards? ANYONE WHO SPEAKS IN ABSOLUTES. If you think a shotgun in the hands of a female is guaranteed to change hands, come into my house and try to take one from my wife. The best defense against this happening is if she grabs the carbine instead. Then there's no way you're taking a shotgun out of her hands.

If you are told; "A gun in the home is more likely to be used against the occupants than a bad guy.", ask for a source. They might say, "Everyone knows that." Say, "I obviously don't." It is unlikely they will actually name Kellerman, because next to any reference to Kellerman is the paragraph explaining how his data is flawed. (And by 'flawed', of course we mean fabricated.)

bdickens
October 28, 2008, 11:48 AM
No one who repeats this fairytale of the armed citizen's gun being taken and used against him can ever seem to be able to cite any occurences of it actually happening.

MagnumDweeb
October 28, 2008, 11:53 AM
Speaking as someone who has taken guns out of the hands of two attempted muggers (two different incidents) the reality is quite possible. Where the data be found I have no clue.

A good defense is a good offense in this matter as I see it. Go after whoever has stated this information and find out who their sources are. And do your research thoroughly, you'll probably end up going through a chain of citations to other sources being cited by other sources. Always be prepared for the reality that the person saying this is either full of garbage or is mistating a key fact or leaving out some crucial information. Remember the 2005 statistics saying 30,000 people killed by guns had nearly half of those deaths caused by suicide and with some tacit state by state reseach you could probably find that more than fifty percent of the remainder had been confirmed to be linked to drug dealing or gang violence. The rest is probably a mix of self-defense by LEOs or civilians and some stray murders here and there that couldn't be confirmed to be drug or gang related or just some good folk getting done wrong unfortunately.

To quote Reagan, sort of, "It's not that my Liberal friends are ignorant, it's that they know so much that isn't true." that's the eye I take to anything that comes out of the mouth of a Anti or liberal. Or to quote Publius Syrius, "Trust not those who claim to know the truth, but those who seek it." Yeah I know kind of Locke or Humes but still very true when you are doing you're research. Good Luck.

ranger335v
October 28, 2008, 12:42 PM
It is a fact that nearly all honest people are reluctant to shot anyone else, no matter the situation. Those who think that if they just display a firearm and it will cause the villian to depart are frequently right, but not always. '

No public records exist to show the number of times the display of a defensive weapon stops the perp but it's a LOT! It's happened to my own wife twice and a daugher once.

It is the occasional determined troll who takes the weapon away from those who can't bring themselves to pull the trigger and they pay the price for that reluctance. That's a fact.

That fact does not obliviate the undocumented successes but it does give the statistics saying the guns have been taken away and used against the owner. It's a fools argument, signifiying that if the owner was simply defenseless he/she might not have been harmed. Obviously not true!

As Professor John Lott found, just the sight of a defense weapon stops a lot more attacks than gun take-aways. If the owners had the mind-set of shooters it would stop a lot more attacks and prevent recurrances too!

Hoppy590
October 28, 2008, 12:45 PM
some one said it best

if they are so easy to take away from me, il just take it from him, and the gun will be passed back and forth until the cops show up

cassandrasdaddy
October 28, 2008, 12:47 PM
A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise.



very few guarantees in life and they fall off sharply after puberty

Vern Humphrey
October 28, 2008, 12:55 PM
A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise.
Can anybody cite an actual instance of a bad guy taking a shotgun away from a homeowner, male or female?

cassandrasdaddy
October 28, 2008, 12:56 PM
nope but its "guaranteed"

Vern Humphrey
October 28, 2008, 01:00 PM
I agree with you. It's never happened but it's "guarenteed" to happen. Some day, in an alternate universe.:scrutiny:

Guns and more
October 28, 2008, 01:09 PM
Here's what never shows in the anti statistics. Guns used for defense but never fired. Anti's will use evidence showing that family members are more likely to be killed than bad guys. What is left out is the crime that doesn't occur because the potential victim was armed but didn't fire.

BullfrogKen
October 28, 2008, 01:41 PM
Calm down guys.

All of ya attacking No Fear's comments probably ought to go back and read them again.

No Fear said: A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise.

A shotgun has a "handle" (known as a super long barrel, even 18" is long compared to a handgun) the bad guy can use to grab it out of your hands (using a twisting action will guarantee that the thug takes your shotgun). This is the direct reason that short barreled shotguns were banned in 1934 (unless you get the cost prohibitive license). The gun banners view self defense as an OFFENSIVE ACT, and they painted guns as offensive and evil. Thus, the beginning of federal bans in 1934, was crafted and aimed at guns that were more effective for self defense (i.e. guns with short barrels).


Now, this is the internet after all. And we can't see facial expressions or hear voice tone. But that certainly comes across to me as a witty blend of sarcasm and a rant on the Act of 1934.

Now I could be wrong. But if anyone's curious as to just what he meant, there's an easy way to find out. Just ask him.

RockyMtnTactical
October 28, 2008, 02:04 PM
A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise.

That's a very bold statement...

longdayjake
October 28, 2008, 02:10 PM
the data used to make this argument relies almost completely on suicides. There are statistically more suicides than any other form of firearm death and supposing that you own the firearm you use to kill yourself, the statement could be true. The same is true for cops or atleast it was when I was in the academy 3 years ago. Statistically they are more likely to kill themselves then to be shot by a bad guy.

cassandrasdaddy
October 28, 2008, 02:12 PM
jake hits the best point as well as they count folks up to 23 as "kids" killed. i gotta call gangbanger on gangbanger fatakities accelerated darwinism

Vern Humphrey
October 28, 2008, 02:19 PM
There are statistically more suicides than any other form of firearm death
Correct. And I say if a man wants to kill himself so bad he's willing to put the muzzle of his gun in his mouth and pull the trigger, he'll find a way to kill himself, even if there was no such thing on this earth as a gun.

cassandrasdaddy
October 28, 2008, 02:20 PM
and its his choice none of my buisness

Vern Humphrey
October 28, 2008, 02:28 PM
and its his choice none of my buisness
Funny how the people who support "physician-assisted suicide" are so opposed to gun-assisted suicide.

coloradokevin
October 28, 2008, 02:35 PM
A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you on this one.

I've used the long guns (shotgun, AR) quite a bit at work in the course of my duties, and I personally think that weapon retention is easier with the shotgun and AR.

How you carry the firearm is important, and how you deal with someone grabbing it is important. But, there are no guarantees that a female is going to lose that weapon. Moreover, what guarantees that the female hasn't already dispatched the bad guy by the time he is within reach of the weapon?

Sean Dempsey
October 28, 2008, 02:55 PM
I think everyone misinterprets what the "your own gun used against you" is supposed to imply.

I think what it means is that between a criminal who is jonesing for another rock hit, who has already assaulted and robbed dozens of people in his life, has probably been to prison, has probably violently attacked and succeeded in harming innocent people... this guy is probably more likely to have the balls/stupidity to grab your gun and shoot without thinking than you are.


He might not value his well being, he just wants another hit off the stem. So he's not going to weigh the options of rushing you to take your weapon and quickly just killing you so he can get his 20 dollars. Whereas if the Badguy has a weapon, how many thoughts are the victims going to be considering?

So yeah, I can totally see the argument for having your weapon used against you. A rabid jackal is scarier to me than a sane lion.

BullfrogKen
October 28, 2008, 02:58 PM
You know, I've have suspicions folks don't actually read through entire threads before responding.


Again, guys. I think No Fear's statement was a tongue-in-cheek comment. At least, given to totality of the post, that's how I read it. If you're not sure, feel free to ask him what he meant.

Vern Humphrey
October 28, 2008, 03:41 PM
I think what it means is that between a criminal who is jonesing for another rock hit, who has already assaulted and robbed dozens of people in his life, has probably been to prison, has probably violently attacked and succeeded in harming innocent people... this guy is probably more likely to have the balls/stupidity to grab your gun and shoot without thinking than you are.
Such people don't have a long life expectancy.

Again, cite an instance where a home invader has taken a gun away from an armed citizen and used it against him.

everallm
October 28, 2008, 03:42 PM
What.....People might engage mouth before brain.....Say it ain't so.....

(This is an evil, sarcastic, ironic remark......:evil: :D :rolleyes: )

bdickens
October 28, 2008, 04:02 PM
You know, I've have suspicions folks don't actually read through entire threads before responding.


I get that feeling myself sometimes.

MD_Willington
October 28, 2008, 04:06 PM
A shotgun, esp in the hands of a female is guaranteed to be taken and used on the owner, especially if the thug is even slightly aggressive and has any element of surprise.

Try that with my wife, you'll leave with a bloody pulpy stump you used to call your hand ... or worse.

TxState101
October 28, 2008, 04:41 PM
You know, I've have suspicions folks don't actually read through entire threads before responding.


Again, guys. I think No Fear's statement was a tongue-in-cheek comment. At least, given to totality of the post, that's how I read it. If you're not sure, feel free to ask him what he meant.

I think they're doing it now just to spite you.

NeoSpud
October 28, 2008, 04:53 PM
BFK - Possibly, but consider:
-He didn't use any emoticons/other visual indicators of sarcasm (capslock, italics, bold font, ellipses, etc) that are very commonly used on the internet to express tone and would be expected.
-What he's writing is indiscernible from actual liberal drivel. A key part of satire is exaggeration to the ludicrous; what he's writing is perfectly believable in that I can fully expect many people to share his expressed sentiments / misunderstanding of history.
-He's rather new, so we can't be expected to grasp his style of writing if it lacks the above conventions.

tl;dr - His "satire" is hard to discern from ignorance or trolling, so expect people to take it as such.

MT GUNNY
October 28, 2008, 05:35 PM
How about this,

A Thug will not know if a victim is a CCer therfore why would he try to disarm him?

mbt2001
October 28, 2008, 05:40 PM
http://www.berettausa.com/communities/home_prot/family.htm

Firearms & Your Family
"Close To Home" - An Overview of the Issues Concerning the Use of Firearms for Home Protection
Courtesy of the Sporting Arms & Ammunitions Manufacturers Institute (S.A.A.M.I.)


Introduction
At times the question is purely academic-a debate about whether a firearm in the home is more likely to protect or endanger it's owner: And, at times the question is brought closer to home-such as when robberies or assaults in a community cause people to consider a firearm for personal protection. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) neither advocates or discourages the use of a firearm for home protection. We believe it is inappropriate for any organization to make a blanket recommendation that an individual in Maine, Montana, or Massachusetts should or should not maintain a firearm for self-protection. This reference is offered as a responsible examination of the issues that you should consider when making the very serious, very personal decision about the use of a firearm for home protection. In examining whether a firearm in the home is a risk or a benefit, four issues are at the core of the debate: Is a gun in the home more likely to be used to protect its owner or be used against a member of the household; how frequently are guns used for self-protection; how effective are they when they are used; and how safe are guns in the home?

A Gun in The Home Is 43 Times More Likely To Be Used Against You-Or Is It?

One of the most widely quoted statements about guns in the home is that a firearm kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. This comes from a study first published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1986,i following a six-year review of gunshot deaths in Seattle, Washington, conducted, by DR. Arthur Kellerman, et al. The validity of this study in determining the value and risk of firearms for home protection has been questioned due to its limited focus. The Kellerman study viewed defensive gun uses only as instances in which the criminal intruder was shot and killed. Instances in which intruders or assailants were wounded or frightened away by the use of a firearm were not included. Kellerman admitted that, "Studies such as ours do not include cases in which intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display fire arm. A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require these figures be known."ii Kellerman's approach was not unlike measuring the effectiveness of police officers solely on the basis of the number of criminals they kill.iii

Others argue that when people defend themselves with firearms, they are frequently disarmed by criminals and assaulted. According to findings in a National Crime Survey, less than one percent of defensive gun uses result in the offender's taking the firearm from the victim and then using it against him or her.

The Deterrent Factor-How Effective Is A Firearm In Deterring Crime In The Home?

There are occasions when firearms can be used as effective tools for self-defense. There are no precise statistics maintained on how many times a year firearms are used defensively, but there are a number of estimates. Polls by the Los Angeles Times, Gallup, and Peter Hart Research Associates show that there are at least 760,000, and possibly as many as 3.6 million, defensive uses of guns per year. In 98 percent of the cases, such polls show, people simply brandish the weapon to stop an attack.iv Professor Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, indicates there are upwards of 2,400,000 defensive uses annually.v Kleck's research is considered the largest national study on this topic, to date. In a follow-up survey of those who reported the defensive use of a firearm, one in six respondents said they believed their intervention with a firearm prevented the loss of life.vi This suggests that upwards of 400,000 lives are being saved by the use of a firearm annually-a sharp contrast to Dr. Kellerman's claims. Some argue that the presence of a gun escalates the level of violence and does little to deter crime. Common sense and statistical evidence suggest that most criminals will not knowingly attempt a crime against an armed individual. Sociologists James Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 1,900 convicted felons and concluded that 40 percent decided to forego committing a crime at one time or another because they believed their intended victims were armed.vii A 1979-1985 National Crime Survey report indicated 50.6 percent of victims who resisted physically were injured, 40.3 percent who resisted with a knife were injured, 34.9 percent who offered little resistance or tried to flee were injured, but only 17.4 percent of victims offering armed resistance were injured.viii

A 1996 study by University of Chicago Law Professor John Lott and University of Chicagos economics graduate student David Mustard found that firearms are overwhelmingly effective in deterring crime. The study, which focused on concealed firearms, found that states with concealed weapons laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults by 7 percent. According to Mr. Lott,"...criminals respond rationally to deterrence threats."ix

"Hot" burglaries, or burglaries in which the victim is home, account for nearly half of all burglaries in Canada and Britain where gun control laws are tough. Conversely, in America, where gun ownership is prevalent, only 13 percent of all burglaries are "hot". Criminals do not behave differently by accident. Studies show that criminals are far more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about the police.x

Inviting An Accident?

Opponents of firearms for home protection argue that bringing a gun into the home is inviting an accident. Any perceived or actual risk associated with a firearm in the home can be minimized or negated with education and safe handling and storage techniques. The mere presence of a gun in the home does not increase the likelihood that an accident will occur. The number of firearms in American homes has increased approximately 45 percent since 1973xi, while the number of accidental firearms fatalities in the home has steadily decreased from a high of 1,400 in 1974 to 800 in 1995.xii Often, the incidents of firearms accidents in the home are exaggerated by certain special interest groups to discourage ownership of firearms. The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV), for example, used unpublished 1994 data from the National Center for Health Statistics and reported: "Every day, 15 children, age 19 and under, are killed with guns."xiii Statements like this mask the issue and confuse people who are considering the purchase of a firearm for home protection. The actual number of children aged 1 to 14 who died in firearms-related accidents was 216 in 1992, the most recent year for which exact data is available from the National Center for Health Statistics.xiv These, and all accidental deaths, are tragedies best prevented by providing training and education. The CPHV statistics take on new significance when definition is added. According to the bureau of Statistics' Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1994, 3,074 children, aged 19 and under, were murdered with a firearm in 1993, with 2,650 of the victims aged 15-19.xv In both the 14-17 and 18-24 year-old categories, nearly 90 percent of all homicide victims, regardless of how they were killed, died at the hands of someone outside the familyxvi

Much of the danger lies with firearms not in the home but in the hands of criminals on the streets. The number of young people and adults killed in firearms homicides is a national tragedy. This problem is not one dimensional and cannot be attributed solely to the presence of a gun. Mixing the very low number of accidents with the much greater number of intentional killings distorts the facts necessary to make the personal determination regarding firearms ownership. Exaggerating or sensationalizing the problem serves no useful purpose and diverts attention from developing solutions.

Serious Considerations

There are certain factors that argue against keeping a firearm in the home for self-protection. Firearms ownership requires an honest evaluation of personal circumstances. Are your security concerns realistic and consistent with local crime rates? Do other adults in your household support the decision to maintain a gun in the house? If they have access to the firearm, will they join you in a firearms training and safety program? What precautions will be practiced to safeguard children? Do risk factors such as drug and alcohol abuse exist within your household? If you are not willing to accept certain basic responsibilities and adhere to important rules of firearms ownership and storage, the members of SAAMI would urge that you not purchase a firearm.

Make No Mistake About It

If you decide to keep a firearm in your home for self-protection, you need to take special safety measures. Keeping a gun to defend your family necessitates strict adherence to safe and responsible firearms storage and handling techniques. In keeping a firearm for self-protection, create a situation in which the firearm is readily available to you, yet inaccessible or inoperative to others. Quick-release trigger locks, chamber/cylinder locks, or special locked cases that can be instantly opened by authorized individuals are options to consider. Your most important responsibility is ensuring that children cannot encounter loaded firearms. The precautions must be completely effective. Most fatal home firearms accidents occur when youngsters-often children who do not live in the home-discover firearms that have been left loaded and unsecured.

In Conclusion

The decision to maintain a firearm in the home for self-protection is a serious, personal matter. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute emphasizes that maintaining a firearm for home protection is not appropriate for all homes or all individuals. We believe that well-informed adults are capable of making decisions that best suit their individual needs and circumstances.

SAAMI recognizes that there is no simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question of the use of firearms for home protection. Unlike passive safety devices, such as alarm systems, firearms used for home protection require significantly more involvement by the owner. Any added safety benefit that may be derived from a firearm depends in large measure on the owners commitment to appropriate training and a clear understanding of safe handling and storage rules. In addition, issues such as individual temperament, reaction to emergency situations, and specific family circumstances should also enter into the decision.

Free firearms safety information may be obtained directly from SAAMI at:

Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute
11 Mile Hill Road
Newtown, CT 06470-2359.

Mike J
October 28, 2008, 06:40 PM
You might also check out the information at www.guncite.com/ Most of the studies quoted are footnoted it might be useful

HIcarry
October 28, 2008, 07:58 PM
Use Kellerman's own statements:

“If you’ve got to resist, you’re chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah.””

Lurp
October 28, 2008, 08:10 PM
Thanks for all of the replies guys, I really appreciate the help. He is doing this project/speech for a class at Manhattan College in the Bronx, so as you can guess theirs plenty of antis. As I said earlier the question came up when he presented the idea to his professor who told him to be ready for a bunch of questions such as the one about guns being turned on their owner. I figured I'd help him out and get him a head start by trying to dispel some of the most common myths that are likely to be asked by the anti-crowd. Thanks again guys.

makarovnik
October 28, 2008, 09:36 PM
I don't think it's true. I do believe that if you have a handgun in the house it's more likely to be used on a family member (including yourself) than on an intruder. Maybe.

So what? It's still our choice to make.

A lot of people slip in the tub and and hurt/kill themselves. A lot of children die from drowning in swimming pools. Does that mean we should make tubs and pools illegal?

Showers only my friends.

Hostile Amish
October 29, 2008, 01:27 AM
If a person attempted to grab, say, a shotgun while you were holding it, I believe the instinctive reaction is to fire. Doing so will obviously not result in the bad guy owning the weapon.

Rifleman 173
October 29, 2008, 01:38 AM
The information about guns being taken away from and then used against their owners was a fabrication that came out of the old Brady Gun Control Propaganda machine many years ago. Is that LIE still around and kicking??? The NRA, a number of police groups and even the FBI discounted that fable time and again over the years. Contact the NRA at (800) 392-8683 which is the number for NRA Legislative Action and ask if they can help you in some way or refer you to somebody who can provide you with more substantial data to put this lie back in its coffin. You can also google the NRA to find other numbers that could help you out or give you contact information for a local counselor to help.

Diamondback6
October 29, 2008, 11:15 PM
I like Clint Smith's saying:
"Someday, someone may kill me with my own gun, but they're gonna have to beat me to death with it 'cause it'll be empty*."
*Context as in, "unloaded into them"...

----------------
Now playing: John Barry - James Bond - Ninja (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/john+barry/track/james+bond+-+ninja)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

Beagle-zebub
October 30, 2008, 01:07 AM
Manhattan College in the Bronx

Shows you how expensive Manhattan real estate is now.

HIcarry
October 30, 2008, 02:13 AM
If a person attempted to grab, say, a shotgun while you were holding it, I believe the instinctive reaction is to fire. Doing so will obviously not result in the bad guy owning the weapon.

Depends on who's holding the shotgun and who's trying to take it away. Granted most common criminals aren't going to be well versed in active disarming techniques, but it is possible, if close enough, to disarm someone holding a shotgun and not be shot. Of course, with the proper training, the person with the shotgun would be able to easily counter all but the most skilled person's attempts to do so.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun more likely to be turned on owner?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!