Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: Good for the Goose (93 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Got it - in response (4+ / 0-)

    From the article linked by KVoimakas link (above)

    "Studies that have directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of a gun...have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-suing crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."
    And in response, I quote the very same article:
    "Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun-user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public - concealed or open carry - may have a different net effect on the rate of injury.  For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun-owners this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use."
    So it would seem that even among the experts, the beneficial medical effects of gun use are in some dispute.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:26:39 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Which is why I said it is interesting (4+ / 0-)

      It neither assumes a foregone conclusion one way or the other (as many people here do), nor finds sufficient information for anyone to declare a slam dunk on that issue, and several others as well.

      Your quote also brings up an interesting moral divide. If gun users are genuinely preventing harm to themselves, but the overall misuse of guns cancels that out, what do you do? Or what if self-defense has a clear net benefit?

      Does an innocent person's right to save their life by self-defense count less, equal or more than another innocent person's right to not get shot by some pudgy loser whose girlfriend just left him? Because we can look at and endlessly quote the aggregate numbers, but in the end your view becoming reality is going to result in individuals dying needlessly. And the same applies to my view. All we are arguing about is the quantity of blood on our hands and whose blood it is.

      It is not an easy issue.

      To demonstrate this to yourself (regardless of your pro/anti slant) ask if you would change your mind on the issue if the numbers were not in your favor (for instance, a clear and provable benefit/detriment for guns in self-defense). If not, then it means you are not basing your decision on the numbers but are really just using them as an excuse to justify an already-made decision.

      •  It's for this reason that gun-controllers (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, Kasoru

        work so hard to deny the dozen-and-a-half studies that put the annual rate of self-defense uses at 2.5 million; and that injuries are lower among armed victims than unarmed ones; at the same time denying that the overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed by career violent felons, against career violent felons.

        It destroys their moralistic thesis that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens does more harm than good - the actual numbers showing the exact opposite.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:05:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hmmmmm. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, Tom Seaview

      First block quote is declarative, "Studies...have found...". The second block quote is speculative "possible...may...if...could...".

      You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

      by oldpunk on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:46:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site