Firearms in homes save lives?

[Recursion]

Wondering what the board's general feel on this is, after another thread.

(EDITING: I'm thinking of privately-owned firearms in someone's home, not Police, just to be clear.)

12 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Never. Categorically, no
	1 (8%)
	Yes, but not as many as they kill
	5 (42%)
	Yes, but it's too complex to make simplistic comparisons
	6 (50%)
	Yes, and it's more people than they kill
	0 (0%)
	Yes, and it's not more people than they kill, but it's still "worth it"
	0 (0%)
	I'm stopping a home invasion with one right now
	0 (0%)
	You're a delicate flower or Gollum or whatever it is this week and need to go away
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[The Magistrate]

1. Taken As A Whole, Sir, Demonstrably Not

The increased risk of death by fire-arm associated with possession of a fire-arm makes it quite clear widespread ownership of guns costs more lives than they might have saved.

[Recursion]

2. I don't know that we have even an inkling of the contrafactual data

I'm inclined to agree that they kill more than "would have" died had there been no defensive use of firearms, but that's not really a question that can be answered well.

[The Magistrate]

4. The Numbers Give A Sufficient Basis To State It Without Reasonable Doubt, Sir

In an environment where murders comprise less than half the deaths owing to firearms, you would have to demonstrate that something on the order of two murders were stopped by privately owned firearms for every murder consumated, and that is just not supportable.

[Recursion]

6. Only if you assume all suicides would not have found another means

That's still the plurality of firearms deaths, IIRC the majority of firearms deaths in the home.

Accidents, I grant, would be completely eradicated if there were no firearms in homes. (Accidents in the home, at least.)

Let me see if I can find those actual numbers...

[The Magistrate]

8. In Most Instances They Probably Would Not, Sir

Few means are as certain, and none are so available as a gun ready to hand.

[Recursion]

9. Most successful by method is prescription drug OD, I think?

But not everybody has access to those, either.

But, like I said, my inclination is to agree with you, however there are so many "what ifs" that I took the "too complex" option.

[The Magistrate]

10. Much To Open Too Intervention, Sir

You can take a fist-full of phenobarbitol on a pint of whiskey and still wake up in a hospital, not in heaven or hell. It is true people sometimes manage to botch shooting themselves in the head, of course, but it is much more immediately lethal.

[ellisonz]

14. +1

[B Calm]

3. If guns make us safe, then

with all our guns, why isn't the United States the safest country in the world?

[safeinOhio]

5. Bingo

Hard to argue with that.

[raidert05]

7. maybe...

We gots more of them there crazies and drugs on the loose in 'merica

[krispos42]

12. Or the most violent?

Hmmm...

[jpak]

11. Dumb poll

yup

[jazzimov]

13. WTF kind of poll is this?

One option for NO that is absolutist, and several answers for YES with qualifications?

And opinions don't overcome facts. Look at the stats.

[TheCowsCameHome]

15. Looks like something from Fox or Newsmax.

[Recursion]

17. In retrospect, that's a fair point

If you can come up with a "no, but..." I'll add it.

[etherealtruth]

16. Not worth the risk for me and my family! n/t