"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 12:31 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message

...

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Actually the greatest danger from personal weapons is domestic
shootings...family members or friends shooting each other....not from
the crazy mall or church shooters.

Partly true if you're implying guns, however that ignores the fact that
nearly every one of those situations would still have happened if guns
were not available, just with different weapons. The presence of a gun
makes little difference in rates or outcomes.

That doesn't work, Pete. There are a few studies around that strongly
suggest it isn't true, at least in terms of outcomes.

What's interesting -- and I just saw this recently, so I think it's new
data -- is that the presence of a gun doesn't seem to have much influence
on
*rates* of violent attacks. But it does result in significantly higher
mortality rates from those attacks. I think that's about what common
sense
would tell us, too.

I also saw something recently that will make a lot of gun owners cringe:
it
appears that if someone pulls a gun on you while they're committing a
crime,
and you don't have a gun, your chances of surviving are some large
multiple
of your chances if you do have a gun. I'm not going to go explore that
data
but it was published in some peer-reviewed journal. I find it a little
suspicious but, who knows.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed is correct.

Ed is correct if 1) his recollection is accurate, because I was sifting
through data pretty fast and not recording it, and 2) if the sources of
data, assuming he recalls accurately what they say, are themselves accurate
and sufficiently complete to be a reasonable representation of the truth.

At this point, that is not a sufficient basis on which to conclude that I am
correct. d8-)


The powerful the weapon, the more likely the outcome will be fatal for
someone.

Assuming the more powerful weapon also is as likely, or nearly as likely, to
be used. That's what the data purport to show. It is not unreasonable, but I
would never accept data like that on face value. Never. Double-check.
Triple-check, if possible.


As I said elsewhere, a gun can be used in an instance and regretted
for a lifetime.

That's true, and they often are.


If you have a gun and use it, be prepared for all the consequences
whether or not they are favorable or not to you.

That is what RESPONSIBLE gun ownership is all about.

Well, that's a big part of it.

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying overall, but the studies and
reports on gun-related issues are so consistently biased and corrupted that
you have to read a lot of them before you gain any sense of what the truth
may be. The idea that the weapons used in crimes are completely
substitutable is pretty much debunked, and it has been for years. But the
data I'm talking about suggests that they're highly substitutable in *some*
crimes.

The ones Pete was talking about, which is family disputes that lead to
violence, do seem to have similar rates no matter what weapons are
available. What I was remarking about is that the mortality rates appear to
go way up when guns are available. I was talking about his comment regarding
*outcomes*.

--
Ed Huntress