Yet only about a third of households have one, and many of those are hunting rifles that are of dubious benefit for self-defense or crime.
Petty criminals often aren't. Just having a gun on them will greatly increase their prison time if they get caught.
Statistically it's quite clear that having a gun on you will only increase your risk of being killed, in various ways. A homicidal maniac who wants to kill you but is successfully fought off by a firearm is an extremely rare situation. People accidentally getting killed with their own gun is more common. People getting killed by criminals only after escalating the situation with a gun is more common than people preventing a crime with their gun.
Spot on. Cases of actual self defence where having a gun was definitively the cause of saving lives are rare, especially when held up against the thousands of needless death caused.
Very often even when you do read of a gun being used for defence it is far from clear that things would have been worse without it. In a recent case someone held up for the shoes they'd just bought pulled their gun and killed the mugger, but it wasn't clear the mugger would have done anything but run away if the bag had just been handed over. The victim justifiably said they didn't want to wait to find out. But all the same, is it clear he would have been killed if he didn't have a gun? Isn't it more likely the mugger would have just run off with the shoes? (They were right outside the store and there were lots of witnesses.) So an example used as a crystal clear 100% gun ownership justification isn't really all that clear cut.
Day in, day out in the USA family members are accidentally killing other family members. Children are killing their friends. Suicidal people who, in other countries, might not top themselves but end up receiving help, carry out their suicide because the gun is right there. Other suicidal people are shooting friends and family before topping themselves. Things they wouldn't do if they simply did not have the guns in the house in the first place. People are shooting and killing suspected burglars that aren't burglars (e.g. the young woman looking for help after a traffic accident. Knocks on door for help. Gets shot in the face by occupant "defending his property".)
People always use anecdotal examples (many of which are imagined scenarios) to justify gun ownership. They find it difficult to accept the statistical evidence that proves it all wrong, because the mental image of the (rare and/or hypothetical) "having my gun saved me" scenarios plays more strongly than cold, rational, analysis of the actual real world. Their thought of succesfully defending themselves Hollywood style hugely outweighs the reality of all the many ways they are probably making themselves less safe.
The NRA lobbied Republicans to make it illegal for their health dept to fund research into gun deaths. It is literally illegal for their civil servants to commission research about how and why gun murders happen. American gun rights enthusiasts are all arguing from a position of willful ignorance. Ignorance that Congress enforces by law. It's a very strange country. If I were an ordinary American family I would want this research. Because the alternative of using gut feeling and NRA's imaginary Dirty Harry scenarios leads to the wrong conclusions.
I suppose it would be down to the neighbourhood I was living in. I believe ownership of a gun is absolutely essential for protection in many parts of the US. You would be a sitting target for the criminals without any sort of firearm there, placing yourself and family at risk without one. So, reluctantly, I would be prepared to consider ownership of a gun if living in the US.
I'm just so glad that I live in the UK. Owning a gun for most here has never ever been a consideration. Hopefully, that will always be the case.
My American brother in law has a gun room, full of all different types of rifles and handguns, my nephew has a gun rack on his verandah, not even locked up. They go deer hunting, my nephew encourages the deer to come onto his land by planting crops which they like and sits in his tree house waiting for them to come.
I suppose it would be down to the neighbourhood I was living in. I believe ownership of a gun is absolutely essential for protection in many parts of the US. You would be a sitting target for the criminals without any sort of firearm there, placing yourself and family at risk without one. So, reluctantly, I would be prepared to consider ownership of a gun if living in the US.
I'm just so glad that I live in the UK. Owning a gun for most here has never ever been a consideration. Hopefully, that will always be the case.
The "sitting target" thing is something of a huge myth though. In many, many cases the presence of guns introduces danger that wasn't there in the first place. The "putting my family at danger" thing is probably something that hits home at an emotional level, even though it is mostly untrue. People often do irrational things because it appeals to them at a gut level. A similar thing is people refusing to vaccinate their children. All evidence shows it makes children safer and keeps them from harm, but they refuse because "what if the (imaginary) scenario of my individual child being hurt by it comes true?". So they do something not supported by real life evidence because they over react emotionally to a small (or non existant) risk. I think the same psychology is at play with families arming themselves. (I'm not diverting into argument about vaccines, btw, just using it as an example of irrational fear overwhelming rational evidence).
A rational thing for families who still think they need guns would be to also campaign heavily for strong gun controls. This would give them the best of both worlds. Rational action to reduce the actual amount of gun crime, whilst owning a gun to satisfy their emotional "I'm a sitting target" thing. But they don't - they buy the guns (making themselves statistically less safe in actuality) and don't lobby to do anything about the criminals with guns.
I'm talking specifically of families buying handguns as personal protection. Not the entirely separate thing of buying rifles for hunting or hobby target shooting.
No. I've not lived in America, but have been there many times on holiday. We have rented out houses/apartments many times in different states (New York, Florida, California, Nevada) and we've never felt unsafe. I don't see why that would change if I lived there.
I very much doubt I would buy a handgun unless I was in the unlikely position of living in Detroit or Compton.
Now Cape Town would be a different matter....! I have an 86 year old Aunt who's lived in Durban all her life. She has a pistol in her bedside table and always says she wouldn't hesitate for one moment.
I very much doubt I would buy a handgun unless I was in the unlikely position of living in Detroit or Compton.
Now Cape Town would be a different matter....! I have an 86 year old Aunt who's lived in Durban all her life. She has a pistol in her bedside table and always says she wouldn't hesitate for one moment.
On asking my cousin iin the US if she has one - reply is - "Yes, I have one, husband has one and son (18) has one. Daughter (16) will get one on her 18th birthday."
Why? Because the neighbours all have one and we need them for protection!
I'd never get over shooting someone - even if they broke into my home. They are someone's child and by shooting them and possibly killing them I would be upsetting many people. Honestly, I'd rather be shot and killed myself than have someone's death on my hands all my life. Each day would be a living hell - what life is that?
I'd get myself a 12 gauge Autoloader, a 45 Longslide with laser sighting and a Uzi 9mm. I'd also put a Phased Plasma Rifle in the 40watt range on back-order too.
It depends where in the UK I lived. I have been to many places, and some I definitely did not feel safe in, and yes if I lived there I might think about buying a gun. In other parts - no I wouldn't.
I'd never get over shooting someone - even if they broke into my home. They are someone's child and by shooting them and possibly killing them I would be upsetting many people. Honestly, I'd rather be shot and killed myself than have someone's death on my hands all my life. Each day would be a living hell - what life is that?
Personally I value my life over someone trying to rob my family. I would much rather live than die in this case. I would carry on my life as normal, not be stuck in a living hell just for defending myself and my family.
If you moved to the US, would you buy a gun for your own safety?
I find this a tough question because I am strongly against firearms, however it seems that if you did not have a gun in that culture, that you would be vulnerable.
You need to check your maths. 300 million is way more than 'almost one per household'.
Comments
Unless i had a house with a porch, then id have a shotgun, a rocking chair and a spitting bucket.
Spot on. Cases of actual self defence where having a gun was definitively the cause of saving lives are rare, especially when held up against the thousands of needless death caused.
Very often even when you do read of a gun being used for defence it is far from clear that things would have been worse without it. In a recent case someone held up for the shoes they'd just bought pulled their gun and killed the mugger, but it wasn't clear the mugger would have done anything but run away if the bag had just been handed over. The victim justifiably said they didn't want to wait to find out. But all the same, is it clear he would have been killed if he didn't have a gun? Isn't it more likely the mugger would have just run off with the shoes? (They were right outside the store and there were lots of witnesses.) So an example used as a crystal clear 100% gun ownership justification isn't really all that clear cut.
Day in, day out in the USA family members are accidentally killing other family members. Children are killing their friends. Suicidal people who, in other countries, might not top themselves but end up receiving help, carry out their suicide because the gun is right there. Other suicidal people are shooting friends and family before topping themselves. Things they wouldn't do if they simply did not have the guns in the house in the first place. People are shooting and killing suspected burglars that aren't burglars (e.g. the young woman looking for help after a traffic accident. Knocks on door for help. Gets shot in the face by occupant "defending his property".)
People always use anecdotal examples (many of which are imagined scenarios) to justify gun ownership. They find it difficult to accept the statistical evidence that proves it all wrong, because the mental image of the (rare and/or hypothetical) "having my gun saved me" scenarios plays more strongly than cold, rational, analysis of the actual real world. Their thought of succesfully defending themselves Hollywood style hugely outweighs the reality of all the many ways they are probably making themselves less safe.
The NRA lobbied Republicans to make it illegal for their health dept to fund research into gun deaths. It is literally illegal for their civil servants to commission research about how and why gun murders happen. American gun rights enthusiasts are all arguing from a position of willful ignorance. Ignorance that Congress enforces by law. It's a very strange country. If I were an ordinary American family I would want this research. Because the alternative of using gut feeling and NRA's imaginary Dirty Harry scenarios leads to the wrong conclusions.
I'm just so glad that I live in the UK. Owning a gun for most here has never ever been a consideration. Hopefully, that will always be the case.
Hahaha
The "sitting target" thing is something of a huge myth though. In many, many cases the presence of guns introduces danger that wasn't there in the first place. The "putting my family at danger" thing is probably something that hits home at an emotional level, even though it is mostly untrue. People often do irrational things because it appeals to them at a gut level. A similar thing is people refusing to vaccinate their children. All evidence shows it makes children safer and keeps them from harm, but they refuse because "what if the (imaginary) scenario of my individual child being hurt by it comes true?". So they do something not supported by real life evidence because they over react emotionally to a small (or non existant) risk. I think the same psychology is at play with families arming themselves. (I'm not diverting into argument about vaccines, btw, just using it as an example of irrational fear overwhelming rational evidence).
A rational thing for families who still think they need guns would be to also campaign heavily for strong gun controls. This would give them the best of both worlds. Rational action to reduce the actual amount of gun crime, whilst owning a gun to satisfy their emotional "I'm a sitting target" thing. But they don't - they buy the guns (making themselves statistically less safe in actuality) and don't lobby to do anything about the criminals with guns.
I'm talking specifically of families buying handguns as personal protection. Not the entirely separate thing of buying rifles for hunting or hobby target shooting.
Now Cape Town would be a different matter....! I have an 86 year old Aunt who's lived in Durban all her life. She has a pistol in her bedside table and always says she wouldn't hesitate for one moment.
How many times has she had to use it?
'Murica ! What a sad state of affairs.
Yawn...
Personally I value my life over someone trying to rob my family. I would much rather live than die in this case. I would carry on my life as normal, not be stuck in a living hell just for defending myself and my family.
You need to check your maths. 300 million is way more than 'almost one per household'.
Why? If you are so worried about your neighbours you should move