Does owning a gun/CCW extend your life on average?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If a suicidal person [strike]owns a gun[/strike] wants to, they can kill themselves on a spur of the moment decision in a few seconds.
Click to expand...

Other methods of suicide are much slower and less effective.
Click to expand...

Time is irrelevant, and effectiveness is pass-fail.

Am I the only one that smells a troll?

We've heard, and refuted every point made here countless times.
 
Unfortunately, there are not many valid studies about firearms and the risks/benefits associated with them. For obvious reasons, it's not possible to do proper control group studies. There are, however, a lot of skewed statistics and junk science masquerading as legitimate studies.

Notable is the oft-quoted Kellerman study, that starts with a population of people killed by firearms, and "finds" that the ratio of dead who lived in the same house to intruders is 43-1. A proper study would have started with a full cross-section of all homes, divided into groups based on presence or absence of a firearm. The comparison would be are you more likely to die by violence (suicide + homicide) if you're in group A or group B. To my knowledge, no one has done that study (or they did and didn't publish it because they didn't get the result they wanted).
 
I'm trying to be fair here. I'm not anti or pro.

I'm trying to say that the pro-gun people have a point : the freedom and autonomy of private citizens owning firearms it something America has allowed as a right for centuries. You could say it is one of the things that differentiates America from everywhere else.

I'm trying to say that the anti-gun people have a point : as a practical matter, if your goal was to maximize the lifespans of the overall population (including, I suppose, that of the criminals), then the evidence is that severe gun restrictions would increase the overall lifespan.

I'm actually being neutral here : as I pointed out, living longer just for the sake of living is NOT necessarily universally a good thing. We all do die eventually, and old age is not a pleasant way to go.
 
Besides the amount of firearms used annually to stop crimes (which to me is the biggest statistic of guns are awesome), look at the actual number of firearms owned in America versus how much they are used for anything bad.

Last estimate said 240,000,000 plus firearms right? Slightly more than 50,000 deaths (suicide or homicide) every year. That means that 0.0208% of firearms are used in a negative fashion annually. That percentage is so ridiculously low that anyone trying to make note of it is obviously bent on some other angle than actual cold hard fact.
 
Am I the only one that smells a troll?
Click to expand...

I think so. I think he has a legitimate question. It would be interesting to know how the presence of a gun in the house of a depressed patient affects survival rates. My guess would be that you'd see something like this:

GUN - low risk
DEPRESSION - moderate risk
GUN + DEPRESSION - high risk
 
I'm trying to say that the anti-gun people have a point (of view, not a legitimate point, per se) : as a practical matter, if your goal was to maximize the lifespans of the overall population (including, I suppose, that of the criminals), then the evidence is that severe gun restrictions would increase the overall lifespan.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see a big problem here. Who's goal is that, and what purpose does it serve?

You suggest exactly what ArmedBear states;

if "they" own all of "us" then yes, a lack of guns would allow "them" to keep "us" alive longer.

I own me. Who owns you?
 
You suggest exactly what ArmedBear states; if "they" own all of "us" then yes, a lack of guns would allow "them" to keep "us" alive longer.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that's necessarily true (that we would be alive longer, even on average, if only criminals and government agents had guns, as it is in many countries).

I am, however, saying that, even if it IS true, that's not a moral justification for disarming individuals if you believe that an individual owns him/herself. If you believe that individuals have no rights, and are owned by some other entity, only then could you justify disarming individuals.
 
Last edited:
No, but it shortens the life of the intruder, on the average.





A huge proportion of people die of heart disease and other illness. Violence of all types as a cause of death is so low that gun ownership doesn't even ripple the surface, except certain small groups of people of a particular age group living in particular inner cities. Centers for Disease Control web site has a searchable and filterable data base on causes of death. Go check it out.
 
ArmedBear : a perfect world, in my imagination, would be one where advanced technology controlled by a super-intelligent entity prevented all death and severe human suffering. I think such technology could eventually be developed, although no one who is alive today may live to observe it. In such a world, it would be impossible to die from old age, suicide, murder, and nearly impossible to be killed by an accident. All this would be enforced by countless hidden mechanisms....if you're interested, I could explain how this science fiction technology could actually work without violating any known laws of physics, but that's not what this thread is about.

So, ultimately, I believe that human beings should have the freedom to seek their own happiness...but that freedom does not extend so far as to cause the death of themselves or others. If nonlethal weapons were equally effective for home defense (and the new Taser XREP shotgun round may be such a weapon) as firearms, then I think firearms should be made illegal.

Actually, I also think that as soon as the electronic cigarettes have been proven to be safe and to deliver equal doses of nicotine as conventional cigarettes, I think cigarettes should also be made illegal.

I guess I'm a liberal.
 
I think by your logic, you should be campaigning against cars and unhealthy food long before you turn to look at guns.
 
Habeed, you are far too willing to believe only one side of this issue.

CDC is very anti-gun, and they don't try to hide it.

The MINIMUM number of lives saved per year by armed citizens per year is between 100-200,000. This is based on the actual number of reports filed by law enforcement agencies. John R. Lott, in writing "More guns, less crime", used survey data to put the number at 2.5 million per year. The Department of Justice, not believing this survey data to be reliable, did their own survey, and put the number at THREE million per year. No matter how you cut it, it is about ten to one that a gun will save you rather than hurt you.

But this doesn't matter. We value freedom over safety. We would not trade safety for freedom. If we did, we would deserve neither.
 
So, what's the break down of those 33,300 suicides and 18,573 murders in 2006? Raw numbers like that mean nothing in regards to guns. They don't tell me how many people were like with guns. Nor does is tell me the break-down of the type of people killed; how many of the 18,573 were gang or drug related, how many were related to illegal immigration or road rage, etc.? If people are going to use numbers to support an argument they need to be more detailed about it.
And honestly, do you really think it would be better to just sit there and not fight back when somebody is trying to rape you? How about armed robbery? If somebody is already comitting a violent act against me, there's absolutly no reason for me to believe he won't stop short of killing me. The basic rule of using deadly force is the reasonable belief that the person's actions are likely to cause immediate death or serious bodily injury....and I think that rape or armed robbery certainly meet that requirement.

What exatly do you mean by firearms killing more people than they protect? If people kill a lot of other people it's a problem with society, not guns. And if those killings are justified, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Unrestricted civilian gun ownership is, in my opinion, the single best crime reduction act we could do. Just because someone is a government agent such as a cop, doesn't mean that he's any more qualified to handle a gun than I am....even with the training they get. Here in Socal, a lot of police departments I've talked to only have about 24-40 hours of firearms training, which includes training on when to use the gun. And many departments only have 1-2 requal requirements a years. I sure get a lot more practice than that, and I've also had professional trainging. I don't think the government should be allowed to own/use any guns the public isn't allowed unrestricted access to.
 
Well, if OP really wanted to be on top of statistics, it's 10x more dangerous to recieve medical treatment than to be around firearms. It's about 100x more dangerous to to be on public thoroughfares.

Owning and operating a POV is hugely more potentially life-shortening than almost any other implement (including parachutes, bungee cords, surf boards, even razer scooters).

Golfing probably has a higher "life risk" than any form of gun ownership. Golfing requires huge financial outlays (stress); permits/promotes unhealthy activities (drinking, smoking, gambling); sets up situations where people who are under-fit to over-exert themselves, while also in marginal weather conditions; then toss in lightning risk on top of that. So, golf is probably worse for you than plinking at the dump.

Gee, wonder how many doc do one and not the other . . . ?
 
According to a 2006 General Social Survey, gun owners are statistically happier and less depressed than non gun owners.

According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco – as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)

Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.

Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.

In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.

The gun-owning happiness gap exists on both sides of the political aisle. Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%). Similarly, holding income constant, one still finds that gun owners are happiest.
Click to expand...

As we all know, general happiness increases lifespan, just as depression and stress decreases it. So I would say, based on the available statistics, that owning a gun slightly increases your lifespan.
 
So, ultimately, I believe that human beings should have the freedom to seek their own happiness...but that freedom does not extend so far as to cause the death of themselves or others.
Click to expand...

Oh, but it does.

If I cannot decide how to end my life, then why would you let me decide to how live it?

I think firearms should be made illegal....I think cigarettes should also be made illegal...

I guess I'm a liberal.
Click to expand...

Ah, and here we are. The liberals want to control your life, including when it gets to be over.

a perfect world, in my imagination, would be one where advanced technology controlled by a super-intelligent entity prevented all death and severe human suffering. I think such technology could eventually be developed, although no one who is alive today may live to observe it. In such a world, it would be impossible to die from old age, suicide, murder, and nearly impossible to be killed by an accident.
Click to expand...

A simple question: how would humans die?

This thread crossed over into crazy long ago...
 
Last edited:
As I recall, the evidence was every time firearms were used, it was a suicide or a homicide.
Click to expand...
you've got to be kidding me. so if i can find one time a firearm was used in the home that wasn't a homicide or suicide, i'll have proven you wrong?
 
We've fed the troll 42 posts he should be getting full now. When you argue with someone that ignorant they just bring you down to thier level and beat you with experience.
 
I don't smell a troll, I smell someone with the same rational questions I faced many years ago. To ignore or belittle someone as a 'troll' because they are legitimately confused by all the propaganda against guns is highly counterproductive.

The problem is in the data (if it can be called that).

There are those who will ignore certain data in order to make other data seem more relevant (and even those who will fail to make rational conclusions or even lie). If you are not exposed to this additional data your conclusions will naturally be the same as those produced from the incomplete/inaccurate data.... thereby, you feel you have made a rational and well educated conclusion of your own...

Habeed, please go back and look at all of the responses to your interrogatory and data. Some (dare I say most) of the responses point out legitimate problems with the data and philosophy behind this line of thought you propose. If you refuse to face the real facts, whether you like it or not, you are a classic 'anti'.... even if you think guns are "cool"...

Seriously, go look at all of the data available, all of the resources (from both sides), read the logic behind it all.... try to see the problem from all angles.... then come back and let us know what you find...

I grew up around guns, and none of them were ever used to harm another person, but I still felt for a while that guns were a problem (not inherently evil).... I heard what all of the anti gun establishments were saying and it made sense... the problem was the things they were not saying, which I was luckily exposed to by others... as you are here and now....

After filtering through the excess of 'data', hyperbole, and facts, I made a rational and educated decision to arm myself, and to keep arms in my house for many purposes.... I sure am glad I did...

I know that the repetition of anecdote does not create data... but this anecdote firmly destroys this 'data' you presented....

Habeed said:
I've also read about a study where all of the shootings happening in private homes were tallied up, and the number of homicides/suicides versus self defense shootings were compared. As I recall, the evidence was every time firearms were used, it was a suicide or a homicide.
Click to expand...

My anecdote- I defended my home, which included 2 young children, a woman and myself, against a known murderer and repeat violent felon while in the course of a felony... I used a firearm and there was no homocide or suicide involved.... just one really scared murderer in the commission of a felony..

I can't buy that you read a report that says such.... it is just plain too absurd to even pretend... where was this study done?... who even wrote the article?... I think either your memory fails you or your 'article' was written with the intent to deceive those not intelligent enough to just see right through this clear farce...

what was that about anecdotes? It applies equally to misinformation!

You REALLY gotta weed out the clearly flawed 'data' like that if you even hope to have a chance to come to a rational decision about this issue..... (if not, you are a troll from this point on)

In the end, I hope that you come to realize the same things that many of us here have, but if you don't I won't hold it against you.... please do us the same favor...
 
Last edited:
If a suicidal person owns a gun, they can kill themselves on a spur of the moment decision in a few seconds. The most depressed person can probably thumb off a safety and pull back a trigger. It's too easy.
Click to expand...

There is evidence that a lot of suicides are spur of the moment. There was a study of people who jumped off bridges with intent to kill themselves and survived. (Or may be it was just the Tappan Zee Bridge. Not sure.) A fair high percentage said they were just driving along and saw how easy it would be to get over the rail, and went for it. Most of these people had no further desire to kill themselves after they were rescued.

Now, the Tappan Zee Bridge is not as effective for suicide as a gun. It doesn't go straight to the OP's question, but it's a fact that the most likely way to reduce gun deaths in a big way is reduce suicide gun deaths. I know most guys on THR don't like gun locks, but quite a number keep their guns locked up and some keep the ammo locked in a separate place. [This protects your family members but not yourself, for obvious reasons.] I think it's reasonable for people with public safety responsibility to give a "this means you, this means you here and now" message.

One quibble about what the OP wrote. He wrote

I've also read about a study where all of the shootings happening in private homes were tallied up, and the number of homicides/suicides versus self defense shootings were compared. As I recall, the evidence was every time firearms were used, it was a suicide or a homicide.
Click to expand...

Taken literally, this would mean there were no self-defense shootings.

But more than that, there is an issue of restricted choice. I'm sure that the most common use of a gun is to take it to a range, shoot it, and bring it home with no danger to anyone. To base gun control policy solely on the times someone gets hurt is hold guns to some extreme standard. We don't have ski control even though a couple famous people have killed themselves on the slopes, and we don't have boat control even though people drown, or golf control even though the chemicals they put on the courses are terrible for the environment.
 
Oh, and what about all of the legitimate, non-combative uses for a gun.... lest we get completely waylaid on the self defense issues.....

Hunting?
Plinking?
Collecting?
Art?
Nostalgia?
History?
 
If you wanted to use guns only for hunting, there could be special gun rental places near hunting grounds that would be the only legal place a citizen could get a firearm. (you'd have to turn in the weapon after the hunting trip, and it would have a GPS transponder on it)

Same for plinking : shooting ranges would be licensed facilities, required to keep inventory.

For collecting/art/nostalgia/history : such weapons would have to be disabled in some permanent way, such as a plug welded inside the barrel, with a small hole so you could still fire blanks.

If somehow, magically, tomorrow all the criminals were disarmed, then steps could be taken like I describe to effectively end gun death in this country.

That's a fantasy world, and I know it : I'm just saying that self defense is at the core of the issue. If you no longer needed firearms for self defense, the other uses could be dealt with in a safe and practical manner.
 
edited.

That's a fantasy world, and I know it : I'm just saying that self defense is at the core of the issue. If you no longer needed firearms for self defense, the other uses could be dealt with in a safe and practical manner.
Click to expand...

If I had fried eggs on Venus, would there be bones on your chili?

This thread is stupid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Insurance survey asked if I owned guns.
Replies
18
Views
2K
ericyp
E
hso
Apples and Aardvarks Comparisons
Replies
7
Views
569
Steel Horse Rider
S
D
  • Locked
Banning Private Sales Costs Lives (Published Study)
Replies
2
Views
499
Dean Weingarten
D
KarateHottie93
  • Locked
Your opinion on felons owning guns?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
170
Views
5K
rust collector
R
S
  • Locked
Many guns owned = likely to murder someone?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
machinisttx
M
Back
Top