The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Discuss the March 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month, Final Notice by Van Fleisher.
Forum rules
Because this forum is host to a potentially controversial special gun control topic series, all posts will be held for moderation to ensure each forum topic stays on-topic and to ensure the Forum Rules are strictly enforced.
User avatar
Teralek
Posts: 857
Joined: March 16th, 2012, 7:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Teralek » March 19th, 2019, 2:47 pm

A short research online clearly points out that owning a gun is less safe than not owning one.

But when making the question if owning a gun makes the owner more or less safe, we need to understand on what social context the owner lives in. I believe this is more important than anything else. How one keeps his gun safe is also important.

It is different to own a gun on a community where 80% of people owns guns than on a community where only 1% of people owns one. If there is a high prevalence of firearms in a community, when a criminal situation develops there is a higher chance a firearm is involved and that fact changes both the danger of the situation and how one should proceed.

The same applies to what kind of laws regarding firearms are there. For example, if concealed, or open carry is allowed or not.

Switzerland is perhaps the only country in the world where there is a high prevalence of gun ownership and low homicide rate. I am convinced that one of the main factors (but not the only one - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 30606.html) that accounts for this is that carrying a weapon concealed or not in public is against the law in Switzerland. If you own a gun you have to keep it at home or can only carry it for very specific activities like going to the shooting range or hunting. Switzerland is a unique case and very specific. Moreover there's even evidence from Switzerland that their relative safety isn't due to gun ownership at all.

Now to the specialists opinion and empirical data.

Tyler Bonin, a marine that turned teacher, wrote on the Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/a ... rs/554783/) why he thinks about allowing teachers to carry guns into the classroom. He makes good points and his thoughts apply not only to the classroom but to any self defence situation involving a firearm, particularly when a mass shooting is taking place.

Drawing from his experience as a marine he says:

"Responding effectively to an active-shooter situation is one of the toughest challenges for a marksman out there. To train teachers for this role would be an enormous task—and policymakers who think otherwise aren’t being realistic."

"By the time I completed boot camp at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island (...) I came to realize: There’s no such thing as a Rambo. Teamwork was the essence of mission success in the Marine Corps."

"As a former Marine and current teacher, I know that building within teachers (including military-veteran teachers) the required teamwork to be effective in a Parkland-type situation is an unreachable goal."

"Before recruits set foot on a rifle range for live-fire exercises, proper weapons-handling skills and the fundamentals of marksmanship are drilled into them—and these 13 weeks of training represent a minimum level of proficiency needed to simply be functional in a combat environment. The ability to enter a building and effectively clear rooms—a skill needed to stop an active-shooter situation—requires an added layer of training and specialization. Thus, having military training alone does not guarantee a person to be effective in an active-shooting situation"

"Over the course of my time in the Marines, I trained on various heavy machine guns for the purpose of convoy operations, and consider myself to be proficient with a firearm. But none of the skills I learned would truly transfer into an active-shooter situation. Furthermore, as a teacher, I know that most of my day is spent alone in a classroom with my students. Efficient communication—the type forged in the military and necessary for neutralizing an active shooter—cannot occur when teachers spend the day cut off from other teachers in separate rooms."

"Nobody knows how he or she will react when rounds are flying in their direction, and the confusion that law-enforcement officers may experience when encountering armed teachers at school during an active-shooter situation could be devastating. The danger of students being hit by stray bullets during the crossfire that may result from teachers engaging a shooter is also a very real possibility."

" Furthermore, a working paper by Sheldon Greenberg, a professor of management in the School of Education at Johns Hopkins University, illustrates that arming teachers will present an increased risk in schools, rather than mitigate the risks posed by an active-shooter situation."

"Had I wanted to continue carrying a firearm at work, I would’ve stayed in the service or chosen a different profession after my enlistment. Having worked with high-school students for several years now, I understand that my ability to be effective as a teacher is predicated on the existence of an environment conducive to learning and trust building. This environment will not exist in a schoolhouse where teachers double as armed guards."

These points have the merit of applying to any country because they do not draw from the abilities of the police forces or the strength of the law but are very situation specific.

I agree that on some very specific situations a good guy with a gun can in principle prevent a number of deaths but in most situations that is not the case. The assailant has the sheer determination, the element of surprise and the nerve that the "good guy" caught by surprise doesn't have, at least immediately. His gun may not be close or ready to fire. And those seconds could be the difference between life and death.

Finally there are the scientists point of view.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... ety-safer/

"Scientists who conduct research on gun violence overwhelmingly agree that firearms make society more dangerous"

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... ggests-no/

"Hemenway noted that one commonly cited statistic about guns—that 2.5 million people use them each year to defend themselves or their property — is based on faulty analysis from a 1990s study. A more reliable source of information, the National Crime Victimization Survey, pegs the number of people who use guns in this manner at roughly 100,000"

"the presence of more guns does make crimes more violent. “What guns do is make hostile interactions—robberies, assaults—much more deadly,”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nce-shows/

"About 30 studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help."

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2018041 ... isappeared

"Though controversial, some research indicates that the mere presence of a gun makes men behave more aggressively, a phenomenon called “the weapons effect”

On a side note, I think is important to understand the psychological effect of owning a gun. Even with a clean criminal record if you have violent tendencies, and psychology shows everyone can be violent if pushed to the limits, is much easier to kill or injure someone with a gun than anything else. So your threshold may be lower if something compels you to be violent.

https://law.stanford.edu/2015/10/12/pro ... -us-safer/

"Guns are a bit like chest x-rays. If you really need them, they can be helpful to have around, and even save lives. If you don’t need them, and yet are constantly exposed to them, they represent a constant threat while conferring little or no benefit (...) On the other hand, if one happens to be in a particularly high-risk category, then having a gun for personal protection could make sense. One reason that gun ownership in the United States is declining is that more and more Americans recognize that for them guns are unlikely to be confer benefits that exceed their costs."

"Indeed, the FBI report indicates that the only case in which a citizen with a concealed carry permit holder (as opposed to a police officer or armed security guard) stopped an active shooting (at a bar in Nevada in 2008) also occurred when the shooter stopped to reload his high-capacity handgun."

"The problem of mass shootings in the United States stems largely from the fact that a gun-obsessed culture allows certain mentally ill individuals to marinate in a commonly expressed ideology that says guns are a useful way to deal with one’s perceived enemies"

"Certainly, we don’t have a higher prevalence of mentally ill individuals than our competitor nations, but we undoubtedly have a higher number who are constantly being flooded with glorified messages about the power of guns to thwart one’s enemies, coupled with ready – indeed at times omnipresent – access to powerful weapons.

At one point, Australia had that same unappealing brew operating and suffered from an even larger problem of mass shootings (on a per capita basis) than the US, but a massive effort to turn away from that gun culture after a particularly horrendous shooting in 1996 has drastically reduced the problem in Australia over the last twenty years. With only 20 percent of the murder rate of the US, half the robbery rate, and no active mass shootings in almost 20 years, Australia is a very potent example of what can be achieved if a country is willing to reduce the presence and availability of guns as well as the gun culture. No country can ever be immune to such tragedies, but President Obama is right that one can reduce their frequency through reasonable measures."

Ending on a personal note; I live in the UK with my partner and a toddler. If I had a gun in the house, even if it was hidden, unloaded and kept safe I would not feel safer. On the contrary, I would feel much more unsafe having such a thing around.
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. ~Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Malachi
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: January 29th, 2014, 9:13 pm

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Malachi » March 19th, 2019, 3:08 pm

I can't answer the question but I did have a thought about what might be meant by 'less safe'. Are you asking only for 'shot and killed'? Or, does 'less safe' include 'shot and injured' also? I suppose these would include suicide by gun.

In that same vein, it occurs to me that a gun owner could bring harm to themselves by using the gun in a manner in which they may quickly regret. Such as, for example, road rage or an argument with a family member or friend. Having the gun, and in a moment of rage, the gun allows the gun owner to escalate the situation. So, what might have been a mere argument or maybe even a brawl turns into felony murder and the gun owner spends the rest of their life in prison. That must certainly be considered a 'harm' that gun ownership made more possible.

I have no idea how to tease that out of statistics.

Note: this post shouldn't be taken as pro/con stance to gun ownership. Just wondering out loud about the meaning of 'less safe'.

Haicoway
Posts: 198
Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Haicoway » March 19th, 2019, 3:17 pm

I would like to see some statistics, but I am not going to look. I’ll just asseverate my opinions.

If we are talking about being safer from criminals, I think if a criminal suspects a household has a gun or guns he or she (almost always a he) should be less apt to pick on that house. I have heard, but not seen proof, that towns that are known for its people having guns experience less crime. If one has a gun, s/he should practice with it in order to come out on top in a gunfight. I practiced and used to be good with a gun, and I keep one in the house, and feel safer with it.

If we are talking about being safer from someone accidentally discharging one and hurting or killing someone, then a household with no gun would be safer.

If we are talking safety from anguish and one feels better with a gun, then he or she should have one to be safer from emotional distress.

I’ll tell a little story, because I am an old man and so wont. I carried a gun in the car in Columbus Ohio when I was a young man, as it was legal to do so. My car broke down in a Black ghetto (I am white) during a race riot. I was stupid to have attempted that short cut. Like the a—hole I am, I took the gun to walk to get help; it was way before cell phones. Held the big magnum in my hand at my side, like Dirty Harry, sort of saying to everybody, keep your distance.

Well, of course somebody called the cops. A squad car pulled to the curb ahead of me. A cop got out and stood in the sidewalk facing me. It felt so much like Dodge City. For a split second I thought I might draw and fire. It just felt like the thing to do. Instead I hollered, “I know you know I have a gun, and I am going to put it on the sidewalk, slowly.” No point to that story other than what anybody gets out of it.

User avatar
Teralek
Posts: 857
Joined: March 16th, 2012, 7:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Teralek » March 19th, 2019, 3:28 pm

Here is a statistical Meta-analysis that shows that owning a gun increases risks rather than decrease them.

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814 ... systematic

This article gives you the answer you are looking for. The Link above was taken from this piece:

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death

The way the OP makes this question sounds like there is still great doubt about the safety of owning a gun. Among specialists I don't think there are doubts whatsoever. In my life I have always followed the specialists and made my opinions based on the specialists; specifically scientists. I have always been fine and happy with this choice.
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. ~Bertrand Russell

Veritas Vincit
Posts: 2
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 5:30 am

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Veritas Vincit » March 19th, 2019, 3:33 pm

On an individual basis, even in most everyday contexts, I don’t see any way to answer the question affirmatively or negatively. I see it as posed from a peculiarly American perspective, as we here north of the 49th don’t normally fret too much over subjects like this. We’re not much in the habit of toting guns about town, except for gangsters, and any sighting of open carry would quickly flood our 911 call centres, unless the carrier had on a police or armoured car guard uniform.

Obviously there may be strictly delimited contexts in which the question may be sensibly answered on an individual basis. Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight? That seems obvious, dunnit? And yet..and yet..police constabulary in the UK don’t normally pack sidearms. They rely on rapid callout of armed units when needed. It works overall in the UK on account of not that many people packing guns. It wouldn’t work in the US, and it’s a political non-starter even in Canada.

I think in the American “about town” context, the question may only be answered statistically, rather than individually, and even then, a lot of variables to take into consideration.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3781
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by LuckyR » March 19th, 2019, 3:37 pm

There are three angles on this issue, statistically: suicide, accidents and protection from wrongdoers. Clearly the largest negative with gun ownership, statistically is in the increased lethality of suicide (when compared to other methods in the absence of firearm availability.)

Of course, a very large segment of society are not prone to suicide, so this negative is not evenly distributed within the population.

Accidents OTOH are much more evenly seen in various groups, since they occur more frequently in individuals other than the primary gun owner (friends, guests and family member). Naturally most of the accidents are nonlethal, but still can be catestrophic.

Lastly, on the safety side, there's the issue of crime prevention. It does occur, though the numbers are quite small. In addition, if a gun owner scares off a pursesnatcher, who was not going to physically harm the victim, does that count as the gun owner being "safer"? Richer, yes, but many would disagree with safer.

That gets into the idea of psychological safety, as opposed to physical safety.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Theophane
Posts: 2349
Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:03 am
Favorite Philosopher: C.S. Lewis
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Theophane » March 19th, 2019, 3:53 pm

Gun ownership does not guarantee responsible conduct, no more than a driver's license guarantees the person behind the wheel is competent and responsible.

User avatar
Beyondthecave
Posts: 117
Joined: July 31st, 2012, 11:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Pinker ala The Better Angels
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Beyondthecave » March 19th, 2019, 4:59 pm

Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

One begins by noting the selfish character of the question. What about the gun owner's family, friends, guests, neighbors, etc.? Do they not count as equally significant human beings?

Given the selfish nature of the question, there is not a lot of statistical evidence on the issue. If you were a social scientist, would you spend your time focused on questions of general concern, or on those that only a selfish person would care about?

A question of general concern is whether gun ownership generally benefits the community, or does it generally tend to damage the community?

The ten states with the highest gun ownership rates are, in order,

Alaska 10.6 27
Arkansas 9.8 20.8
Idaho 3 23.2
West Virginia 6.5 21.1
Wyoming 3.4 26.9
Montana 4.3 28.8
New Mexico 8.5 23.3
Alabama 12.9 16.6
North Dakota 2.2 20.1
Hawaii 2.5 15.2

The two numbers after each state are their homicide death rates per 100,000 residents, and the suicide death rates per 100,000 residents.

The average homicide and suicide death rates for these ten states are 6.4 and 22.3 respectively. These death rates are not limited to gun deaths. My purpose is to show that death rates are higher in states with high gun ownership because guns make it easier to kill people. They are instruments designed to make killing easier and more efficient.

The ten states with the lowest gun ownership rates are, in order,

Delaware 6.9 11.6
Rhode Island 11.8 11.8
New York 3 8.1
New Jersey 4.1 8.3
New Hampshire 1.3 18.9
Connecticut 3.2 10.5
Ohio 7.5 14.8
Nebraska 2.7 14.7
California 5.1 10.5
Maryland 10.2 9.8

The average homicide death rate for these states is 4.6, and the average suicide death rate is 11.9.

In other words, the average homicide death rate in the high gun ownership states is 39% higher than in the low gun ownership states. The suicide death rate is 87% higher in the high gun ownership states.

The data indicates that it is generally safer to live in a state with low gun ownership rates.

There are of course exceptions because there are other factors that also influence death rates. I have found that homicide rates are affected by population density, "toxic culture", and gun control. Increased population density increases the number of human interactions and so increases the number of opportunities for homicides. When one accounts for that difference, "toxic culture" emerges as having a very high correlation with murder rates.

To get a measure for "toxic culture", I average the percentage of a state's citizens who believe in hell, the percentage of a state's citizens who read the Bible literally, and the percentage of the states citizens who belong to evangelical or black protestant churches (which tend to endorse those beliefs). You may object to referring to this as toxic culture, but the measure does correlate strongly with murder rates.

I have been hampered in providing a full presentation of all of the relevant data by the fact that I cannot see how to include charts and graphs in my presentation. I applaud the question's call for an analysis of the data on these issues, rather than expression of emotion.
In the garden beyond our cave, lovers of wisdom, nourished by the light of Compassion, flower and bear the fruit of intellectual imagination. Among them, the Indigo Sage sings that the Holy Spirit (Compassion) is the alpha and omega of wisdom.

User avatar
Beyondthecave
Posts: 117
Joined: July 31st, 2012, 11:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Pinker ala The Better Angels
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Beyondthecave » March 19th, 2019, 5:30 pm

I noticed an error in my earlier answer, The homicide death rate in Rhode Island is 1.8 per 100,000, not 11.8. Rhode Island has the third lowest homicide death rate among US states.
In the garden beyond our cave, lovers of wisdom, nourished by the light of Compassion, flower and bear the fruit of intellectual imagination. Among them, the Indigo Sage sings that the Holy Spirit (Compassion) is the alpha and omega of wisdom.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4323
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Scott » March 20th, 2019, 9:54 am

Anyone, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the below is the only piece of significant evidence given in this topic (with an actual source at least) that provides evidence one way or the other regarding the answer to the question:
Teralek wrote:
March 19th, 2019, 3:28 pm
Here is a statistical Meta-analysis that shows that owning a gun increases risks rather than decrease them.

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814 ... systematic
Thus, unless similar or better evidence is provided that indicates the opposite, I will tentatively conclude that the answer "Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?" is statistically less safe, especially in regard to statistical likelihood of experiencing violent death.

(Important note: That does not mean I am saying guns should be outlawed or even that it is unwise and immoral to own them. Those are questions for a different topic.)

RJG wrote:
March 19th, 2019, 12:44 pm
It is not the "ownership" of something that makes the owner "safer or less safe", maybe it is the "usage" (or "misusage") of that something.

Another way to see the flaw in the question is to replace "gun" with "car" and ask the same question. -- "Does car ownership make the car owner safer or less safe?"
That's a very good point. The analogy you give with car is similar to one that I gave in the OP: motorcycle ownership. It's a good analogy.

You make a very good point indeed that often, with things like motorcycles, guns, and cars, usage probably correlates more strongly to safety than mere ownership. Nonetheless, statistically on average, for most possible possessions, ownership increases the likelihood of usage. Even if the link is weaker, ownership can be easier to statistically study---because ownership tends to binary. Either someone owns a motorcycle (or gun or car), or they don't.

Based on the statistics above provided by @Teralek, it appears as of now in this topic that in regard to the statistical average affect on the owner on average, gun ownership is more analogous to owning a motorcycle or car than owning a first-aid kit or fire alarm.

(I own all four of those things--motorcycle, car, first-aid kit, and fire alarm--so please do not read between the lines to think I'm saying something I didn't say. In this forum topic, I'm not asking about what should be legal or what is wise to own/use or moral to own/use or any other possible questions that aren't the question I asked here. Soon-to-be-posted future forum topics will surely address those other questions or issues that are off-topic in this particular forum topic.)
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

User avatar
Teralek
Posts: 857
Joined: March 16th, 2012, 7:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Teralek » March 20th, 2019, 10:49 am

Scott wrote:
March 20th, 2019, 9:54 am
Anyone, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the below is the only piece of significant evidence given in this topic (with an actual source at least) that provides evidence one way or the other regarding the answer to the question:
That one was free. I gave you plenty of starting points where to look for specific studies if you are so interested, I am sure you can do it Scott. One of the links I provided from Scientific American, a most respected science magazine, says "About 30 studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help."

Why should we do this work of combing the web on peer reviewed studies about the safety of guns and post them here?
Scott wrote:
March 20th, 2019, 9:54 am
(Important note: That does not mean I am saying guns should be outlawed or even that it is unwise and immoral to own them. Those are questions for a different topic.)
Agreed. To distinguish an ought from an is, is basic philosophy since Hume.
RJG wrote:
March 19th, 2019, 12:44 pm
Nonetheless, statistically on average, for most possible possessions, ownership increases the likelihood of usage. Even if the link is weaker, ownership can be easier to statistically study---because ownership tends to binary. Either someone owns a motorcycle (or gun or car), or they don't.
This is a good point to the extent that driving, because it is a dangerous activity, is heavily regulated. There are driving rules and tests you have to pass and follow under the threat of heavy penalties. You cannot drive under the influence, if you suffer from epileptic attacks, or drive on sidewalks or shopping centres, off-road on public parks, etc.

Is also important to understand the vital importance of motorised transportation in the modern world. The possession of firearms by civilians isn't near as vital. But this perhaps links with the ought, not the naked numbers on what is the probability of dying owning a car or a gun asked on this post
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. ~Bertrand Russell

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1624
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by RJG » March 20th, 2019, 11:32 am

Scott wrote:Nonetheless, statistically on average, for most possible possessions, ownership increases the likelihood of usage.
Agreed.

Scott wrote:Here is a statistical Meta-analysis that shows that owning a gun increases risks rather than decrease them. https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814
Unfortunately, this analysis only shows the 'negatives' of gun ownership and none of the 'positives'. It doesn't look at the 'safety' aspects (or benefits) of gun ownership, but instead, only of its 'unsafe' aspects.

Scott wrote:Thus, unless similar or better evidence is provided that indicates the opposite, I will tentatively conclude that the answer "Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?" is statistically less safe, especially in regard to statistical likelihood of experiencing violent death.
Well, to be technically correct, this study does NOT logically conclude that "gun ownership is less safe", it only concludes that "unsafe" conditions (homicides, suicides, etc) are greater with gun ownership. It says NOTHING about the "safer" conditions of gun ownership. It only compares those "unsafe" conditions of gunowners with NON-gunowners. So where's the study/statistics that show the "safer-ness" of owning a gun? ...so that we can then truly ascertain whether or not it is "safer or less safe" to own a gun.

And I hope you don't mind Scott if I play a bit of devil's advocate here. If so, then one could easily make a sound statistically-based argument that gunowners are "more safe" than "less safe". Reasoning: If "safety" (or unsafeness) of owning a gun is related to its proper usage (or misusage) of the gun, then certainly there are more proper usages of guns than there are misuages (via homicides, suicides, accidents, etc), hence the "more safer-ness" than the "unsafe-ness".

User avatar
Beyondthecave
Posts: 117
Joined: July 31st, 2012, 11:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Pinker ala The Better Angels
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Beyondthecave » March 20th, 2019, 12:08 pm

Thank you Terelek for the various links including the one Scott identifies as answering his question.

Scott. Thanks for pointing out that I neglected to include the cites for the data I included in my post. The state suicide and homicide death rates were from the US Center for Disease Control.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm ... uicide.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm ... micide.htm

The ranking of the states based on gun ownership rates is from:

Bindu Kelesan et al., "Gun ownership and social gun culture", Injury Prevention, 2015, at

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/conten ... x0laFZMsQ2
In the garden beyond our cave, lovers of wisdom, nourished by the light of Compassion, flower and bear the fruit of intellectual imagination. Among them, the Indigo Sage sings that the Holy Spirit (Compassion) is the alpha and omega of wisdom.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4323
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Scott » March 20th, 2019, 3:02 pm

RJG wrote:
March 20th, 2019, 11:32 am
Scott wrote:Nonetheless, statistically on average, for most possible possessions, ownership increases the likelihood of usage.
Agreed.
Teralek wrote:Here is a statistical Meta-analysis that shows that owning a gun increases risks rather than decrease them. https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814
RJG wrote:
March 20th, 2019, 11:32 am
Unfortunately, this analysis only shows the 'negatives' of gun ownership and none of the 'positives'. It doesn't look at the 'safety' aspects (or benefits) of gun ownership, but instead, only of its 'unsafe' aspects.
Incidentally, it's a meta-analysis not an analysis. How exactly does the meta-analysis "look" at the "aspects" of gun ownership in any sense, whether "positive" or "negative" aspects. It should not really be looking at the aspects of gun ownership that lead to the result but just be looking at the net results (i.e. what percentage of gun owners were injured or killed over a certain timeframe versus what percentage of non-gun-owners were injured or killed over the same timeframe). In what sense did the meta-analysis and/or the 16 observational studies included in the meta-analysis fail to look at the results but instead look at aspects?
Scott wrote:Thus, unless similar or better evidence is provided that indicates the opposite, I will tentatively conclude that the answer "Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?" is statistically less safe, especially in regard to statistical likelihood of experiencing violent death.
RJG wrote:
March 20th, 2019, 11:32 am
Well, to be technically correct, this study does NOT logically conclude that "gun ownership is less safe", it only concludes that "unsafe" conditions (homicides, suicides, etc) are greater with gun ownership. It says NOTHING about the "safer" conditions of gun ownership. It only compares those "unsafe" conditions of gunowners with NON-gunowners. So where's the study/statistics that show the "safer-ness" of owning a gun? ...so that we can then truly ascertain whether or not it is "safer or less safe" to own a gun.
Here is the official conclusion of the meta-analysis: "Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide."

Based on that, unless similar or better evidence is provided that indicates the opposite, I tentatively conclude that on average owning a gun makes one more likely to experience significant injury or experience violent death, which tentatively answers the titular question with light evidence that is far from proof. If stronger counter evidence is provided, I will alter my conclusion/belief according to the evidence.

RJG wrote:
March 20th, 2019, 11:32 am
And I hope you don't mind Scott if I play a bit of devil's advocate here. If so, then one could easily make a sound statistically-based argument that gunowners are "more safe" than "less safe". Reasoning: If "safety" (or unsafeness) of owning a gun is related to its proper usage (or misusage) of the gun, then certainly there are more proper usages of guns than there are misuages (via homicides, suicides, accidents, etc), hence the "more safer-ness" than the "unsafe-ness".
I'm not sure what you mean.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if it is both true that (1) safe responsible gun ownership is correlated with the owner being injured and killed less often than the average non-gun-owner, AND that (2) overall gun ownership in general is correlated with the owner being injured and killed more often than the average non-gun-owner. Maybe that's the concept at which you are getting?

That's not my question in this forum topic, though. That might be a good question for a future topic. That question is much harder to answer and much more debatable than the one in this forum topic (especially since it has qualifiers that require definition and can change the result depending on the definition used). I think it would be a very intriguing question for a different forum topic.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

User avatar
3uGH7D4MLj
Posts: 934
Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by 3uGH7D4MLj » March 20th, 2019, 3:26 pm

ok, I've looked around a little, I'm not going to bother listing sources and results, but I can see that you're less safe with a gun in the house, period.
fair to say

Post Reply