A Gun in the Home Actually Makes You Less Safe

[mikeb302000]

Local news reports

A 57-year-old New Orleans man was accidentally shot and fatally injured by his wife who mistook him for an intruder, police said Monday.

The shooting occurred about 11 a.m. Monday. Police said the man, named by the Times Picayune newspaper as Charles Williams, died at the hospital.

No charges were immediately filed in the investigation. The newspaper said the man's 53-year-old wife was not arrested.

Most guns in the home are never used for defense. Some are, some actually save lives. But, the number of those incidents is far overshadowed by the various types of gun mishaps that occur.

This story in which one member of the family kills another is the worse, obviously. But it doesn't end there. When you add this type to all the other accidents and negligence and kids finding guns and theft, what you've got is an obvious conclusion. Guns do more harm than good.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Cross posted at Mikeb302000

[Mojorabbit]

1. She mistook him in full daylight? That would be weird.

You never shoot unless you can see what you are shooting at. I am thinking there is more to this story?

[holdencaufield]

2. Having a bathtub ...

... in your house actually makes you less safe.

There are considerably more accidental deaths related to showers / bathtubs than firearms.

[mikeb302000]

15. tricky wording

"more accidental deaths"

Accidental deaths are not the only problem that having a gun in the home is enabling. You need to consider ALL gun mishaps, which include the intentional ones, the negligent ones, the easy theft, all of it.

[PavePusher]

27. "intentional" kinda rules out "mishap", eh?

Words: they actually have meanings.

[trouble.smith]

3. I'll take my chances but thank you for your concern.

[LAGC]

4. HE'S BAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!

What caused you to be incommunicado, Mikey? Not enough traffic on your little blog?

Welcome back.

[mikeb302000]

16. thanks, I guess. n.t.

[rl6214]

5. Where's the link to the article Mikey?

It's just anecdotal if you don't provide the link, and not thru your blog please.

"what you've got is an obvious conclusion."

You sure do have a lot of "obvious conclusion(s)".

All of them wrong but a lot of them. More swimming pool deaths than firearm deaths and there are a lot more firearms then there are swimming pools.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. re: "It's just anecdotal if you don't provide the link..."

Not to be picky but, it's anecdotal even with a link. Without a link it's just hearsay.

But seriously, banning pools sounds like a lifesaver.


On a more serious note, when we consider sending troops to hostile locations to defend Americans like Libya and Egypt, we should put places with the greatest number of Americans in dangerous locations at the top of the list. For that reason I suggest Chicago and DC go straight to the top.

[ileus]

6. Not my safety devices...you're doing it wrong.

Get some basic gun safety classes wand hit the range. You need to be familiar with how your firearms operate to avoid hurting yourself and family. Also remember to get your kids trained properly.

[MercutioATC]

7. A Car in the Garage Actually Makes You Less Safe

Limit the field to the home, and the injury/death rate for firearms is considerably less than the injury/death rate for cars.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. Most home defense guns are never used for home defense - So What?

Most home fire extinguishers are never used to put out a fire.
Most smoke & fire dectectors never give a true alarm.
Most storm shelters are never used to avoid a tornado.
Most seat/shoulder belts // air bags never have to hold a person in an accident.

They are all still good ideas. My wife and I will keep our guns.

[4th law of robotics]

9. I have never used my automotive insurance

Except to show people as required by law.

Does that mean it's making me less safe when I drive?

Yes, clearly it is.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Clearly it is.

People who purchase products like that, plan to have an accident. Oh the horror!

BTW, is your policy full auto? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[4th law of robotics]

12. All part of our insane car-culture

glorified in movies like Fast and Furious and Herbie.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. There been an edit with a question

Don't forget the animated carnage in CARS.

[4th law of robotics]

25. I cut it down as much as the law would allow

limited liability only.

Yeah, I'm kind of a badass that way.

/oh and my car is worth less than what it would cost to get it fully insured.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. Way to go!

I drive 20 year old chevy at home and I keep a 19 year old chevy where I travel for work. I think the annual cost of my liability only policy exceeds the value of both cars.

[mikeb302000]

17. No

It's impossible to have a negligent discharge with your automobile insurance. It's impossible to get pissed off and kill somebody with it, and it's impossible for a thief to steal it and use it for no good.

What a stupid comparison!

[4th law of robotics]

20. You brought up the fact that guns are rarely used in self-defense

as if it were relevant to anything.

Then you added a bunch of claims with no substantiating evidence.

[Callisto32]

14. Trolling for traffic eh mikie?

[Atypical Liberal]

18. It doesn't matter if guns make you less safe or not.

It does not matter how many people commit crimes with guns.
It does not matter how many people commit suicide with guns.
It does not matter how many people have accidents with guns.


The second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear military-grade arms appropriate for infantry use so that the people can engage in warfare if necessary.

Whatever risks come with that responsibility are irrelevant. It is still a Constitutional right and the law of the land.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. Having a swimming pool makes you less safe, too.

According to WISQARS, there are 7 times as many accidental drownings than accidental firearm deaths.

I guess we should ignore the good things pools do for us and all give up swimming pools.

[4th law of robotics]

21. The typical counter argument to this

is to move the goal posts and claim that pools are ok even though they kill more people because they weren't designed to kill.

The dead kids aren't the issue. It's the intent of the object that killed them that matters (I guess objects can have motivations too).

So it usually starts with:
1) guns are useless for self defense
-actually that's not true, present evidence.

2) ok well they are more likely to be used against you so they make you less safe even if sometimes they are useful.
-actually that's not true, present evidence.

3) ok well they don't make you less safe but they're only purpose is to be EVIL!
-serious?

[Atypical Liberal]

22. But object X wasn't meant to kill!

True. Object X was made to serve a useful purpose. It also happens that in addition to serving a useful purpose, sometimes they kill instead.

Firearms are the same way, and moreover, sometimes killing is a useful purpose.

[mikeb302000]

29. that may be true

but there is no swimming-pool-rights movement which keeps trying to deny the fact.

You gun nuts keep telling us we and you are safer with guns. But, it just ain't so.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. As I have said before, it doesn't matter whether they make us safer or not.

It doesn't matter whether owning firearms makes me safer or not.
It doesn't matter how many people commit crimes with firearms.
It doesn't matter how many people commit suicide with firearms.

The United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear military-grade arms so that they can function as infantry in an emergency.

Yes, there is some risk that comes with this responsibility.

As Thomas Jefferson said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

Even if owning a gun makes me less safe, I will still choose to keep them in case I need them. I'm 30+ years into firearm ownership and my guns haven't harmed anyone yet. I will be making the choice as to whether or not to keep them, not people living in Italy.

Just like people who decide to own swimming pools in spite of the increased risk of drowning.

It should also be very interesting to note here that owning a swimming pool will increase your insurance rates, but owning firearms does not.

Now what does that tell you about the relative risks?

[mikeb302000]

35. What that tells us is this

The lack of an insurance requirement is not at all an indication that gun ownership is not dangerous but rather that the NRA and the gun lobby are cramming their agenda down our throats.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. And what gives you, an expat, standing to whine?

You are not in the US where this debate is pertinent. Your use of the the pronoun "our" is a lie.

[Atypical Liberal]

39. LOL, no, what it tells us is that pools are far more likely to cause financial loss than guns.

The lack of an insurance requirement is not at all an indication that gun ownership is not dangerous

No one claims that gun ownership is not dangerous. Just that it's not as dangerous compared to swimming pools.

Believe me, if there was a significant threat of payable loss due to firearm ownership insurance companies would be asking you if you own guns and charging you more if you did - just like they do with swimming pools.

But they don't.

And the reason is simple - there are seven times as many accidental deaths due to drowning than there is due to firearms.

[gejohnston]

40. does Italy require gun owners have insurance?

I'm guessing not.

[montanto]

23. and wives, too, can be dangerous when improperly handled.

[4th law of robotics]

24. Especially when modified

high capacity saline implants, extended hair clips, multiple earring attachments, access to rapid communication equipment developed initially by the military. The list goes on.

These are not the simple housewives our founders envisioned.

[PavePusher]

32. Wt....?!?!

[rDigital]

28. Blog spam.... nt

[DonP]

31. Congratulations! You have a Blog Spam thread that hasn't been closed ... yet!

I guess DU3 is less tolerant of selfish Blog Spamming that DU2 was.

[mikeb302000]

36. It was for being inciteful or some bullshit like that. n/t

[ileus]

33. why only a link to your blog?

Where's the link to the story?

[petronius]

34. +1. I don't know the legal standing of one-step-removed attribution (assuming the

original story even is correctly attributed on Mike's site), but this OP does not seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the DU ToS:

Don't willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights.

To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs, and we ask that the source of the content be clearly identified. Those who make a good-faith effort to respect the rights of copyright holders are unlikely to have any problems. But individuals who willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights risk being in violation of our Terms of Service.

Personally, I don't care if the OP blog-flogs (I can click links, or not, with ease) but I'd strongly encourage him to make an effort to show more respect for content created by others...

[mikeb302000]

37. thanks for the advice, man

I really appreciate it.