A Q for the gun nuts and anti-gun nannies

[Matthew Currie]

Ok, I'm involved in a discussion on another forum in a universe far far away, with regard to the wisdom, etc. of keeping a gun in your bedroom. Forget that subject for a moment, please, in favor of a subsidiary subject: the assertion has been made by some that "you're in more danger from the criminal taking your gun and shooting you with it." That's a common refrain in the highly polarized world of gun debating, but nobody seems to be able either to confirm or refute it. We see huge bodies of statistics with regard to how many crimes are prevented by armed citizens, how many guns are stolen from us, statistics with a huge percentage that can be spun by one side to say "see how useful guns are," but a large enough remainder for the other to say "see how dangerous guns are," and so on and so forth. So I figure some of you wise guys here might have the statistic I need. Either side may play on this.

Is there, anywhere, a reliable study or statistic that shows, specifically, what percentage of armed citizens have been disarmed and then victimized by their attackers? Home invasion is the principal subject, but street crime would be a good start too, if separate. Forget the usual overall statistics of how many people have prevented crimes with their guns, and all that stuff. We know all that. What I'm looking for is any reliable information, not extrapolated or spun off from those statistics, that shows whether the dubious statement at issue is actually true or not. I tend to doubt it myself, and agree in principle that the people who make the statement should be the ones providing the statistics, but I'd be glad to short-circuit that process and hand the debate a real live study that addresses the question either way.

Please remember, I'm not interested at this point in a pro-anti-gun debate in general. I just want a truthful answer to that one question. And yes, I know, as anybody should, that even a reliable statistic of this sort only works in one direction: even if it turns out that 75 percent of the armed victims were shot by their own guns, it is predictive only for the general population; it still doesn't mean that an intelligent, well trained, prudent person will be shot with his own gun. We'll deal with that one separately.

OK, fire away.

 

[sjkimmel99]

check out some of these:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kellerman+study

It's been around since the early 90's.

 

[XJCruiser]

I for one keep a gun beside my bedside somewhere (will not say where i keep it for "safeties sake"). And like you am rather curious as to a decent and not bashing remarks. As well, I also feel that the people who have been victims of gun crimes in their own home with their own firearm are untrained and unaware of the dangers of that. Now I am not a professional anything when it comes to firearms, but I do have a child in my home and for one an extremist when it comes to firearms safety. I will check on PDO with your question and see if some people there may be able to answer that for us as well. I am also a concealed carry permit holder and have been so for 2 years, but have been somewhat of a gun nut since I was 9.

 

[imma honky]

Well, I can't speak from a "study" stand point, but here goes my story.

My best friend's Grand dad, who happens to live in (now) a bad part of town, was watching some good ole' wheel of fortune. The door bell rings and he yell's "whos there?", with no reply from the other side. No more time than he could walk to the bedroom, 3 men kicked in his front door. he managed to kick off 3 round of his .357 hitting one guy twice, and enough noise to scare whoever else was there and wake/bother the neighbors. They found the guy he hit (almost critically) and 7! other guys. No doubt, if he had NOT been armed (legally), he would not be here today. I myself carry (I have a conceal carry permit, which is noticed by many states other than GA). Everyone who knows me, knows I carry. Two of my female friends say they honestly feel safer knowing the fact that I do carry.

 

[Kejtar]

Ok, I'm involved in a discussion on another forum in a universe far far away, with regard to the wisdom, etc. of keeping a gun in your bedroom. Forget that subject for a moment, please, in favor of a subsidiary subject: the assertion has been made by some that "you're in more danger from the criminal taking your gun and shooting you with it." That's a common refrain in the highly polarized world of gun debating, but nobody seems to be able either to confirm or refute it. We see huge bodies of statistics with regard to how many crimes are prevented by armed citizens, how many guns are stolen from us, statistics with a huge percentage that can be spun by one side to say "see how useful guns are," but a large enough remainder for the other to say "see how dangerous guns are," and so on and so forth. So I figure some of you wise guys here might have the statistic I need. Either side may play on this.

Is there, anywhere, a reliable study or statistic that shows, specifically, what percentage of armed citizens have been disarmed and then victimized by their attackers? Home invasion is the principal subject, but street crime would be a good start too, if separate. Forget the usual overall statistics of how many people have prevented crimes with their guns, and all that stuff. We know all that. What I'm looking for is any reliable information, not extrapolated or spun off from those statistics, that shows whether the dubious statement at issue is actually true or not. I tend to doubt it myself, and agree in principle that the people who make the statement should be the ones providing the statistics, but I'd be glad to short-circuit that process and hand the debate a real live study that addresses the question either way.

Please remember, I'm not interested at this point in a pro-anti-gun debate in general. I just want a truthful answer to that one question. And yes, I know, as anybody should, that even a reliable statistic of this sort only works in one direction: even if it turns out that 75 percent of the armed victims were shot by their own guns, it is predictive only for the general population; it still doesn't mean that an intelligent, well trained, prudent person will be shot with his own gun. We'll deal with that one separately.

OK, fire away.

For that info, try visiting www.defensivecarry.com They have a whole section there devoted to Armed Citizen Success Stories. Topic is a bit broader then what you're looking for but it would be a good starting point.

In regards to statistics... FBI I think releases a report that might be useful. Can't remember the name of it.

Lastly, I can't honestly remember of a case where a person was shot by their own gun by someone who broke in. All those where the person was shot by their own gun were usually inside jobs: family member, friend and so on......

 

[Matthew Currie]

Thanks to sjkimmer for that can of worms.

I can see now where the figures that people bandy about come from, and it's clear that the figures don't say what they think they say.

I guess what we need is a study like the Kellermann study, only done properly.

The other statistics and stories are interesting, but they don't really quite answer what I'm hoping for: something that says basically: if you have a gun in the house, and someone attempts to victimize you, the chances are A percent that the criminal will shoot you with your own gun; B percent that you will successfully use the gun (firing not required); C percent that the gun won't be used at all; D percent that you'll lose the gunfight; E percent other (police get there in time, you're disarmed but not shot, you lose the gun but win anyway, etc.).

I'm guessing that B and C would be the largest figures, but I'd really like to see it done properly.

The Kellermann study seems to have included murders of all sorts, including non gun crimes correlated with gun owning households, and including domestic murders, etc. Aside from a number of other flaws, it doesn't address the question it is so often used to answer.

 

[XJ Dreamin']

The number I've always heard (gun control advocates in the family) was that a gun kept for home defense was more likely to kill a family member: either by mistaken identity (family member comes home at an unexpected hour and gets blown away as an intruder), accidental self-inflicted by a minor, accidental second party casualty by a minor, or family dispute. As I remember, the number was always 7 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. No study that I've ever seen to back that up.

I don't feel too bad cluttering up your thread with this 'cause I don't think you're ever going to see the study you're looking for. I don't think it's been done. However, with the rate of home intrusion on the Houston news every night, I would think it would not be that hard to collect some numbers in a fairly short period of time. I'll see if I can remember to pay attention to the news for awhile. Maybe I can jot down some figures.

Round 2: I just read some of the stuff in sjkimmers link. I think the issue there is that home dispute is way more common than home intrusion. If you look at all the households, instead of just all the guns, the incidence of home dispute is going to be way higher than the incidence of home intrusion. That's true for all homes, with and without guns. If you then take the subset of houses with guns and cross-tab that with houses with disputes you will get a lot of guns used against family members. Conversely, if you cross-tab houses with guns and houses with intrusion, you get a very small number of guns used against intruders. But that only reflects that family disputes are way more common than home intrusion. If you then factor in non-intruder related accidents in houses with guns the number gets even larger 'cause accidents are way more common than either disputes or intrusions.

But, accidents happen even without guns and people get hurt or killed: usually family members simply because that's who is usually at home. Likewise, disputes happen even in homes without guns. Again, it's usually family members who get hurt - even when there is no gun in the home. Finally, intrusions also happen in homes without guns. The real numbers you want to look at are: A) Homes without guns and with home intrusion - who was hurt? vs. B) Homes with guns and with home intrusion - who was hurt? That's the comparison that will tell whether a gun is effective against home intrusion. The other casualties, though relevant to gun safety in general, are irrelevant to the specific case of home defense.

 

[Matthew Currie]

The number I've always heard (gun control advocates in the family) was that a gun kept for home defense was more likely to kill a family member: either by mistaken identity (family member comes home at an unexpected hour and gets blown away as an intruder), accidental self-inflicted by a minor, accidental second party casualty by a minor, or family dispute. As I remember, the number was always 7 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. No study that I've ever seen to back that up.

I don't feel too bad cluttering up your thread with this 'cause I don't think you're ever going to see the study you're looking for. I don't think it's been done. However, with the rate of home intrusion on the Houston news every night, I would think it would not be that hard to collect some numbers in a fairly short period of time. I'll see if I can remember to pay attention to the news for awhile. Maybe I can jot down some figures.

Round 2: I just read some of the stuff in sjkimmers link. I think the issue there is that home dispute is way more common than home intrusion. If you look at all the households, instead of just all the guns, the incidence of home dispute is going to be way higher than the incidence of home intrusion. That's true for all homes, with and without guns. If you then take the subset of houses with guns and cross-tab that with houses with disputes you will get a lot of guns used against family members. Conversely, if you cross-tab houses with guns and houses with intrusion, you get a very small number of guns used against intruders. But that only reflects that family disputes are way more common than home intrusion. If you then factor in non-intruder related accidents in houses with guns the number gets even larger 'cause accidents are way more common than either disputes or intrusions.

But, accidents happen even without guns and people get hurt or killed: usually family members simply because that's who is usually at home. Likewise, disputes happen even in homes without guns. Again, it's usually family members who get hurt - even when there is no gun in the home. Finally, intrusions also happen in homes without guns. The real numbers you want to look at are: A) Homes without guns and with home intrusion - who was hurt? vs. B) Homes with guns and with home intrusion - who was hurt? That's the comparison that will tell whether a gun is effective against home intrusion. The other casualties, though relevant to gun safety in general, are irrelevant to the specific case of home defense.

I think you're right, and the study probably doesn't exist. Of course, if that is the case, then that by itself is a useful argument against making assertions for which no study exists, isn't it? Anyway, I just registered on the defensivecarry forum, so let's see what the hard core pistol packing community can come up with.

 

[XJ Dreamin']

I think you're right, and the study probably doesn't exist. Of course, if that is the case, then that by itself is a useful argument against making assertions for which no study exists, isn't it? Anyway, I just registered on the defensivecarry forum, so let's see what the hard core pistol packing community can come up with.

The simple fact remains that family disputes and accidents waaaaaay outnumber intrusions - like thousands to one. There are always going to be more family members injured by guns than there ever will be intruders: injured or not. The fact that the Kellerman study came out at only 43:1 is a resounding endorsement for the overall safety of guns. If every accidental or family dispute casualty was gun related, the number would have been 43,000:1. The fact is, very few dispute or accident related casualties are gun related, even given the number of guns out there (at least in America).

 

[5-90]

The number I've always heard (gun control advocates in the family) was that a gun kept for home defense was more likely to kill a family member: either by mistaken identity (family member comes home at an unexpected hour and gets blown away as an intruder), accidental self-inflicted by a minor, accidental second party casualty by a minor, or family dispute. As I remember, the number was always 7 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. No study that I've ever seen to back that up.

I don't feel too bad cluttering up your thread with this 'cause I don't think you're ever going to see the study you're looking for. I don't think it's been done. However, with the rate of home intrusion on the Houston news every night, I would think it would not be that hard to collect some numbers in a fairly short period of time. I'll see if I can remember to pay attention to the news for awhile. Maybe I can jot down some figures.

Round 2: I just read some of the stuff in sjkimmers link. I think the issue there is that home dispute is way more common than home intrusion. If you look at all the households, instead of just all the guns, the incidence of home dispute is going to be way higher than the incidence of home intrusion. That's true for all homes, with and without guns. If you then take the subset of houses with guns and cross-tab that with houses with disputes you will get a lot of guns used against family members. Conversely, if you cross-tab houses with guns and houses with intrusion, you get a very small number of guns used against intruders. But that only reflects that family disputes are way more common than home intrusion. If you then factor in non-intruder related accidents in houses with guns the number gets even larger 'cause accidents are way more common than either disputes or intrusions.

But, accidents happen even without guns and people get hurt or killed: usually family members simply because that's who is usually at home. Likewise, disputes happen even in homes without guns. Again, it's usually family members who get hurt - even when there is no gun in the home. Finally, intrusions also happen in homes without guns. The real numbers you want to look at are: A) Homes without guns and with home intrusion - who was hurt? vs. B) Homes with guns and with home intrusion - who was hurt? That's the comparison that will tell whether a gun is effective against home intrusion. The other casualties, though relevant to gun safety in general, are irrelevant to the specific case of home defense.

There seem to be an awful lot of people who don't realise (for whatever reason) that merely have a firearm available is enough. Training, planning, and an ongoing pattern of behaviour are all important.

When the boys still lived here, I asked that they tell me if they were going to be home after 2300 - and, if they had any idea, when. They asked me if I was trying to control them - my reply was "No. If I hear a noise in the middle of the the night, I tend to react badly to it. I'd just like to know if I should shoot to kill, or take a little more time to identify the target. Don't be surprised if you're blinded - I'll still be able to see..."

Problem solved - I always knew if they were going to be late.

A sidearm alone isn't enough - a quality compact light should be parked right next to it (and I recommend Surefire or Streamlight - with a distinct preference for Surefire.) You must be able to properly identify your target to reduce or eliminate "mistaken identity" shootings.

If there is a firearm in a home defense role, all present should know about it. Even if they aren't trained in its use, they'll know that trying to slink in after dark is a bad idea, and they'll know that there is a certain area they should keep away from (so as not to lead the bad guy on.)

Marksmanship is not the end of training, either. Once you've got the basics down, induce stress then shoot. Learn to shoot from a "position of weapon retention" (hip shots, covered shots.) Learn to shoot from behind a corner or furniture. Learn to shoot one-handed - with either hand. You might need to someday...

Having a firearm is a freedom usually taken for granted - but it's also the ultimate in authority over your fellow man. The converse of authority is responsibility - in exercising that authority, you have the responsibility to do so properly - or be able to do so properly, in as many situations as can be foreseen...

I've never had someone come back and say, "I think you trained me too much." Once they see what can be done, I'm more likely to get, "What else can you show me?"

 

[XJ Dreamin']

There seem to be an awful lot of people who don't realise (for whatever reason) that merely have a firearm available is enough. Training, planning, and an ongoing pattern of behaviour are all important.

When the boys still lived here, I asked that they tell me if they were going to be home after 2300 - and, if they had any idea, when. They asked me if I was trying to control them - my reply was "No. If I hear a noise in the middle of the the night, I tend to react badly to it. I'd just like to know if I should shoot to kill, or take a little more time to identify the target. Don't be surprised if you're blinded - I'll still be able to see..."

Problem solved - I always knew if they were going to be late.

A sidearm alone isn't enough - a quality compact light should be parked right next to it (and I recommend Surefire or Streamlight - with a distinct preference for Surefire.) You must be able to properly identify your target to reduce or eliminate "mistaken identity" shootings.

If there is a firearm in a home defense role, all present should know about it. Even if they aren't trained in its use, they'll know that trying to slink in after dark is a bad idea, and they'll know that there is a certain area they should keep away from (so as not to lead the bad guy on.)

Marksmanship is not the end of training, either. Once you've got the basics down, induce stress then shoot. Learn to shoot from a "position of weapon retention" (hip shots, covered shots.) Learn to shoot from behind a corner or furniture. Learn to shoot one-handed - with either hand. You might need to someday...

Having a firearm is a freedom usually taken for granted - but it's also the ultimate in authority over your fellow man. The converse of authority is responsibility - in exercising that authority, you have the responsibility to do so properly - or be able to do so properly, in as many situations as can be foreseen...

I've never had someone come back and say, "I think you trained me too much." Once they see what can be done, I'm more likely to get, "What else can you show me?"

Well, I thought I'd leave the safety pointers to the experts.

Fact is, behind every family dispute casualty, and behind every accident casualty you will find stupidity: with or without guns involved. An accident is always the result of stupidity - even when it's my own stupidity (which happens from time to time). Allowing a family dispute to escalate to violence, again with or without guns involved, is just plain stupid.

Stupidity is where you get the 43:1. There's a lot of stupidity out there. Even so, I still feel that given the number of guns out there, and given the embarrassingly high incidence of stupidity, combined with the relatively very low incidence of intrusion it's amazing that the gun casualty rate is only 43:1.

 

[DrMoab]

I think its foolish to make decisions based on someones "statistics" Especially when it comes to an issue like guns, where peoples emotions get in the way of looking at things from a truly logical stance.

Here is my "personal" take on the issue.

I keep a gun in my bedroom. Could someone come in, take it and shoot me with my own gun? I guess the possibility is always there. However if they are willing to take a life with my gun they most likely will have one of their own and take my life anyway. If I have it there, my chances of surviving are just that much better.

 

[Matthew Currie]

I think its foolish to make decisions based on someones "statistics" Especially when it comes to an issue like guns, where peoples emotions get in the way of looking at things from a truly logical stance.

Here is my "personal" take on the issue.

I keep a gun in my bedroom. Could someone come in, take it and shoot me with my own gun? I guess the possibility is always there. However if they are willing to take a life with my gun they most likely will have one of their own and take my life anyway. If I have it there, my chances of surviving are just that much better.

I absolutely agree (Oh my god, I'm agreeing with DR Moab? somebody take our temperature!) that such a statistic is worthless for making a personal choice. I tentatively agree with the logic of your decision as well, but I'd still like to see a statistic that would allow one to say outright that what has become a catchphrase of the anti-gun lobby is just plain wrong.

On the first point, it's not that the statistics aren't any good, but what they're good for. If I were writing insurance policies, or even legislation, such a statistic would be reasonably predictive for the overall population, and it would be useful. The insurer doesn't really need to care what percentage of accidents are due to stupidity, drunkenness, insanity and so forth - only how many to plan for. The legislator needs to weigh in many other factors, moral, political, constitutional and practical, but still is going to have to base some part of a decision on what the general population can be expected to do, whatever their reasons. But to be useful for an individual choice, a statistical study would have to quantify and filter numerous likely variations, such as the intelligence of the gun owner, the degree of training, the temperament of his immediate family, the physical layout of his bedroom, and who knows what else. If it were really finely tuned, you could use it as a guide to personal choice, but to be useful as a single basis of personal choice it would have to be a statistic of one, and based on precognition.

 

[RichP]

The percentage of police shot with their own weapons is also pretty high.
Kleck also had some numbers that might be useful.
The numbers are low though, they don't count the number of unreported uses and they don't count the number of people who consider concealed carry as a right and won't get a carry permit, therefore they would in no way report an incident. New York city is a prime example, since the city of new york banned handguns with the sullivan act in the 30's, so the police could collect protection money without fear of getting shot, there are probably more unregistered guns than most medium cities have registered.

 

[sjkimmel99]

"Kleck also had some numbers that might be useful."
Gary Kleck did a study on the number of times a firearm was used for defensive purposes. Defensive purposes covers everything from shooting someone to showing someone that you have a gun. He came up with something like 2.5million defensive gun uses per year. As you can imagine, he's quoted a lot by gun rights advocates.

There's a lot of new research (or maybe it's not so new) about how the brain functions in various situations, the role the different parts of the brain play in processing data - some parts trigger emotional responses (grossly speaking) while others are more cognitive. The former happen very quickly while the later take longer. An accessable book about this area is called "Deep Survival" by Laurence Gonzales. It uses the brain science to attempt to explain why people caught in outside / wilderness survival situations either survive or don't. Given that what a lot of people on this board do, I'd recommend it because of the frequency with which people find themselves in "out there" situations. Another book was popular a few years ago, pretty much the same brain function explination but without the survival twist, called "Emotional Intelligence" by Daniel Goleman.

Where this relates to gun control is that if you try to apply a statement like owning a gun makes you "43 more times to be the victim (or a family memeber)" what I think it's really saying is that of the general population some people are mostly able to control themselves and some are not. So spreading firearms evenly through the population you're going to pick up those people who can't control their emotional hijacking as the victims of being shot.

For the people who operate above some threshold of self control the likelyhood of their being involved in a shooting is very low. Owning a firearm may raise their probability of being shot with it or shooting someone in the immediate family some small amount but probably not greater than the probability of encountering many of the other hazards that exist. For people who don't make that threshold the probability increases. The further below, the higher the probability. There are other factors involved that create the circumstances that raise the odds - inability to control use of addicting substances be it drugs, alcohol (another drug,) laziness, or what used to be called "moral weakness." Get far enought into that and start associating with others of a similar bent and similar lack of control and wait for the shootings to begin.

In Phoenix the city publishes crime stats by square mile. I once took the map and for a several month period (forget how long) plotted the number of murders per square mile. Surprise, they were clustered. There are probably as many guns on my street and in my neighborhood as anywhere on earth. No murders. None for miles until you get to areas that have very low incomes and (although I didn't check it and just thought about it ) a collection of drug fuel stations - either bars or non-legal drugs.

You'll have to decide for yourself if there are social postitives that come from gun ownership. Should the government have a monopoly on violence? Should we be left with sharpened sticks as our defensive weapons. Is the law of "might makes right" better than Col. Colt's equalizer? I'm personally not in favor of being left with a sharp stick. I've lived near a couple drug dealers, the last one recently decided to move away - nothing anyone directly did, but the guy who lives between us packed openly all the time and I know Mr. Drug Dealer was aware that the rest of the street was armed. We kept waiting for the law to do something but in the end his mother got sick of the situation and kicked him out. Not a shooting story but maybe a shooting prevention story that didn't make it into the statistics.

Maybe if those with the bully pulpit started to preach self control, hard work and moderation. Don't know if it's too late for that.

I'm sure this clears things up now.

 

[Ralph]

I'm sure this clears things up now.

Oh yeah, lots.

 

[Kejtar]

The percentage of police shot with their own weapons is also pretty high.
Kleck also had some numbers that might be useful.
The numbers are low though, they don't count the number of unreported uses and they don't count the number of people who consider concealed carry as a right and won't get a carry permit, therefore they would in no way report an incident. New York city is a prime example, since the city of new york banned handguns with the sullivan act in the 30's, so the police could collect protection money without fear of getting shot, there are probably more unregistered guns than most medium cities have registered.

Well..... Police accidents and negligent discharges (there is no such thing as ACCIDENTAL discharge btw) are probably on top of the list of gun related shootings inside the house. Problem is most often complacency and lack of respect for the gun. This latter thing might sound stupid, but that's the truth. Firearm is a tool and one needs to use it wisely and respect it and accidents wont happen.....

Anyways, there is a lot that goes unreported or kept more or less on the quiet side as LEO's don't want vigilante's shooting up the neighbourhood. There are a lot of home shootings where they are defense shootings, which are succesfull and a homeowner with little or no training walks away. Sometimes the homeowner does not even have to hit the BG during a home invasion... the mere fact that someone is shooting in self defence at times makes people leave the premises and move on....

 

[ECKSJAY]

There are a lot of home shootings where they are defense shootings, which are succesfull and a homeowner with little or no training walks away. Sometimes the homeowner does not even have to hit the BG during a home invasion... the mere fact that someone is shooting in self defence at times makes people leave the premises and move on....

This is the cue for the Internet Rambo guys to come in talking about how the sound of a 12ga being racked is the universal sign to bad guys to leave the house. :twak:

Good points, Remi.

 

[Kejtar]

This is the cue for the Internet Rambo guys to come in talking about how the sound of a 12ga being racked is the universal sign to bad guys to leave the house. :twak:

Good points, Remi.

LOL... actually you don't want to that as that gives away your position..... your shottie better be racked and ready to rumble

 

[ECKSJAY]

LOL... actually you don't want to that as that gives away your position..... your shottie better be racked and ready to rumble

Indeed!

Oh, for positions...I don't care, really. I'm not sneaking around. I'll holler at 'em to leave, but if they come around the corner it'll be taken as a sign of aggession and they will be shot. "The police are on their way, step down the hall and you will be killed." Shotgun lying across the bed, pointed down the hall for the win.