The national debate over gun control was brought into question by a series of incidents. In July 2012 when a gunman opened fire inside a movie theater 12 people were killed and 70 were injured in Denver. That’s when the debate was revived. Five months later in Connecticut another incident at the Newton Elementary School in which 10 children and 6 other adults were killed intensified the argument.
However, while the trial of Aurora theater shooter James Holmes is due on Monday, the gun debate in Colorado has settled. Gun control supporters say they have found the best way to pass their policies in a libertarian state, while democrats forced new laws in the state legislature of 2013 which required banning storehouses containing more than 15 rounds.
Floyd Ciruli, a nonpartisan pollster from Denver, remarked:
“It’s in a sort of gridlock. The violence issue we’re playing out right now is the Ferguson issue of police shootings. You see nothing coming out in terms of gun control.”
Scientists have also tried to find an answer to this question. Professor David Hemenway of Harvard’s School of Public Health has shared the results of his survey which aimed to find out how dangerous it is to own a gun.
The author of the study acknowledged that scientific consensus may not always be right, but he said that it is the best guide scientists have to understand the world. He pointed out that reporters should stop speculating that just like politicians, scientists are evenly divided on guns because that is not the case.
Hemenway started his study almost a year ago. He sent monthly surveys to scientists who were involved in research on criminology, public health and various social sciences. The results of the study suggest that owing a gun makes homes more dangerous, it increases the risk of suicide and the number of women who are victims of homicide.
All the answers that the 150 scientists involved in the study gave indicate that over 60% of them are against gun ownership. The significant majority agreed that the strict gun control does not reduce suicide, that more permissive laws on guns have not reduced crime rates, that women in houses with guns are more likely to be murdered, that guns are used more often not in self-defense, but in crimes and that owing a gun increases the risk of suicide. All in all the results indicate that a home with a gun is not a safe one.
Image Source: Prinz-waffen
it me says
It is entirely possible to strike an effective medium of improving nationwide gun safety without supposedly annihilating your rights as NRA cronies would have you believe. They would also have you believe the matter is black and white, which it isn’t.
Also, a majority of the people obsessed with your supposed constitutional right to own a gun are of privileged classes. Minorities are less enthused, since simply having a gun automatically makes them both criminal and dangerous at face value to law enforcement.
mosahlah says
Cars do not make homes safer, but the problem with that observation and the question of safety vs security via private gun ownership lie more in the question rather than the answer. For example, many people I know value marksmanship and other facets of firearms, such as reloading, tactical customizations, etc at the same level as any other hobby. Arming someone who lacks the experience and social support network to know how to buy, prepare, and train to use firearms is much like giving a car to a caveman and expecting to get it back in one piece. I’ve carried a pistol more most of my adult life, including 5 tours in combat overseas. There’s nothing in these opinions of scientists that makes any sense to me, but then I guess what they are really saying is that the general public are completely incompetent idiots that are more likely to lose their firearm in a self defense situation, and somehow encourages their adversary to shoot them with their own weapon. I suppose it’s possible. How many people like that do you know?
Paid Commenter says
You sound like an experienced marksman and someone who knows how to handle himself in a ‘situation’. While the rest of us like to pretend we have the same skills, we probably don’t. And when that situation arises, us pulling out a gun is more likely to seal our own fate rather than get out alive.
Joe Bull says
@mosahlah:disqus are you really confused by what is being claimed? While it seems way more like common sense to me than ‘science’ it is hardly difficult to comprehend. Last year there were no (as is zero) recorded incidents of 5 year olds accidentally shooting their 9 year old sibling in homes without guns. Again, there were zero recorded incidents of a two or three year old accidentally shooting both parents in home without a gun, Finally, there were again zero incidents of a parent accidentally shooting a child in a home without a gun. Such stories are all over the news every month. You analogy to cars is also comical – the manufacturers of said product are routinely sued for not making their products safer. Try that on a gun manufacturer! Yet, there are many innovations that would be a HUGE improvement in their safety. However this would affect profit margin, so any such argument is wrapped up as a Second Amendment violation – even though almost no one knows that the 2nd amendment never mentions guns and only explicitly calls out the rights of the “state militia”…
mosahlah says
I’m confused by your post. What was your point?
R T Deco says
Argument by anecdote is not very convincing.
What is a “safe” gun? One that works as designed. It’s the same thing for cars. When someone wraps himself around a telephone pole, because he was driving 110 mph along a winding street, the car manufacture is not sued. The car did everything it was expected to do; the driver was at fault.
How is someone misusing a gun any different?
R T Deco says
There was no point — just hot air.
mosahlah says
Then perhaps you’ve arrived at the better question. Is John and Suzie Q Public properly prepared to use their firearm? They wouldn’t give up their car because of drunk drivers, so don’t expect me to give up my firearms because of idiots.
Klutoch Day Stroyer says
When did an opinion survey become scientific? This professor only mentions he does monthly surveys with 150 “scientists who were involved in research on criminology, public health and various social sciences.” An opinion survey given to scientists does not make it a scientific study. Then the reporter, Jakob Nielsen, speculates that 60 percent of those polled are against ownership. He gave no attribution for that statistic. That is his number and his opinion based on a vague opinion survey conducted by a professor with 150 unnamed “professionals in criminology, public health and various social sciences.” We don’t even know the fields of criminology, public health and social sciences in which these “scientists” are employed. Are they actively studying this topic? Or do they have a passing personal interest in this?
Klutoch Day Stroyer says
I don’t really see your point. Children who live in homes without electricity are not electrocuted inside, children who do not have bathtubs do not drown in them, children who do not have sharp objects are not stabbed with them and children who live in ranch homes on a slab do not fall downstairs and break their necks. I could keep going, but I think you got the point.
Lets get this out of the way. You don’t want “safer” firearms. You want firearms manufacturers to be sued out of existence. Do you even have a working knowledge of how a firearm is manufactured? Do you even know how to operate a firearm yourself?
Your argument regarding the 2nd amendment only applying to a “militia” was settled and re-affirmed with the Supreme Court cases of Heller and McDonald respectively. Please educate yourself on this matter before you post on whose rights the 2nd amendment supposedly protects in the future.
Klutoch Day Stroyer says
Don’t make broad generalizations to support your stance. You end up sounding foolish. There are many people who can (and in my case) have had to handle themselves in a “situation” and walked away. According to the CDC, there are as many as 2.5 million instances in this country every year where a firearm is used in self defense when a shot isn’t even fired. In my personal opinion that shows extreme restraint. It also runs contrary to your opinion that a firearm pulled out in self-defense “seals our fate.”
Klutoch Day Stroyer says
The gun prohibitionists would have you believe this is a “black and white” issue. Former New York Mayor Micheal Bloomberg has come out in support of disarming minority males between the ages of 15 and 25. That is almost a direct quote, by the way. He went on to say that 95 percent of all murders in this country are perpetrated by by black males. Bloomberg has started groups that support firearms restrictions and even outright bans including Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Everytown For Gun Safety, and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.
I am obsessed with my constitutional rights. That “obsession” isn’t limited to the second, by the way, and it is my firm belief all people should be obsessed with our rights. Frankly, I don’t understand why people still support politicians who attack our rights.
ZekPolit says
Interesting observation, particularly when we apply it to sex, health, and drivers education in schools. There’s no need for our citizens to be ignorant about good driving skills, sex safety, and other things important to healthy living, indeed, that’s why we include it in their High School education. Perhaps we should similarly remove the taboo regarding firearms to the young adults about to receive full protection for their fundamental and civil right to keep and bear arms and provide them with meaningful training about the morality, law, and techniques for safely exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Then perhaps you wouldn’t have to worry about people “pretending to have the skills”.
Paid Commenter says
I think a better word than “pretending” is more along the lines of them being deluded that they have the skills. Right? But if people are going to have guns, yes I agree on all your points on training, including morality. In a ‘stand your ground’ world, people need to debate what that means similar to any other debate we have in America when growing up.
Paid Commenter says
Did you read something in my text that said you should give it up?
ZekPolit says
Me thinks Joe is very confused about actual “product safety” vs. abuse of product. Auto makers are responsible for a safety issue when a design flaw causes people to be injured. Likewise a firearms manufacture is liable when a design flaw causes people to be injured. To suggest that a car maker is liable when someone either willfully or incompetently runs someone over is as ridiculous as suggesting a firearm manufacturer is liable when someone abuses one of their products.
I also call B.S. on the suggestion that there are “many innovations that would be a HUGE improvement”… nonsense. Likewise, trying to resurrect the “only explicitly calls out the rights of the ;state militia'” argument is pure Derp. First of all “State” never appears in the amendment. Volumes of writing from the founding make it clear that it is an individual right not specifically connected with militia service. Heller put this one in it’s grave but people keep carrying around this dead idea like it’s a remake of “Weekend at Berine’s”
mosahlah says
You are participating in a larger discussion.
Paid Commenter says
So that would be a “no” then, if you’re going to be honest about it.
mosahlah says
Not everything is about you.
Paid Commenter says
Still avoiding the question, cupcake.
williamdiamon says
About 600 deaths are related to accidental or negligent gun use per year.
About 34,000 are related to car accidents.
Do the math.
Still want to claim cars are “safer”?
SeeThroughYou says
100 million Gun Owners, 320 million guns produce 600 accidental deaths and 8700 homicides and 80% of the “victims” have extensive criminal arrest records.
60 million Car/Truck Owners, 253 million cars produce 34,000 accidental deaths and over 50% of the victims are minors.
Guns and Gun Owners are almost twice as safe as Cars/Trucks and Car/Truck Owners and what little risk they do pose is carried mostly by criminals not regular people.
williamdiamon says
Correct, it all comes down to intent. Accidents are the only valid comparison to make between cars and guns, 97% of gun deaths are in the commission of murder or suicide. Both intensely intent driven acts that have occurred since Cain, long before there were firearms.
Remove that intent from the picture and you are left with cars killing 56 people for every one killed with a gun.
SeeThroughYou says
The US ranks lower in suicides than many 1st world countries with strict Gun Control. The use of guns for suicide is incidental so I completely discounted those from my assertion since countries like the UK and France have similar numbers and demographics with almost zero access to guns of any kind.
williamdiamon says
The US ranks 43 to the world in suicide, While owning 1/3 of ALL guns in the world. It ain’t the guns.
Self hanging is the most common method worldwide, Cleopatra used poison.
Now consider we are speaking of a total of 1% of all death in this country. Combined murder, suicide, accidental and negligent amount to – 1.134% – of our death toll. Gravity causes more harm as most people injured or killed, fall.
But let’s not give them any ideas, or we may hear of a gravity tax soon, for our own good, of course.
SeeThroughYou says
True, no matter how you look at it it’s the same deal. The hand-wringing and shrill chanting of emotionally driven slogans doesn’t change the fact that we are talking about a problem that comprises less than 1/10th of 1% of all guns and gun owners and isn’t even 1/4 of 1% of all US deaths.
A complete nonsense ideology driven by liberals watching too many movies and fearing that people who oppose them politically wield something they imbue with mythical powers thanks to Hollywood.
williamdiamon says
Right, they take their view of the Nation and world from comedians with disingenuous political agendas, lack of reasoning skills from watered down “educations”, sense of culture and societal norms from a morally bankrupt Hollywood…OK, come to think of it, that’s all they have.
There is no need to wonder why they have failed to make a single complete and valid argument for the enactment of a single gun-control law not already remedied by current law now. The only plea they can make is to emotion, and even that is misdirected at the law abiding, they in fact refuse to address gangs or mental health care, the two elephants in the room.
Now notice their presentation, self appointed gun-control czar napoleon Bloomberg denouncing firearms, while surrounded by his paid security detail 24/7. He brings new depth to the term “hypocritical bigot”. All the way down to the gun-con-trolls we encounter in these threads, week intellects, no natural curiosity, and inflicted with the malaise mentioned above, and it’s not a pretty sight.
Jed says
A gravity tax? Now there’s a massive undertaking.
williamdiamon says
Yes, but if you like your planet, you can keep it, and I really mean it this time.
sgthwjack says
It is about control, guns are simply one of many “hobgoblins.”
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken
Paul says
An attractive proposition.
Jed says
You mean gravity doesn’t really suck?
Paul says
I think that’s part of its attraction 🙂
Jed says
No, Paul. I’m not going there.
DB52 says
Scientists may be highly educated in their fields, but as a group they are no better than anyone else at making judgments on social and political issues. And our rights are not subject to a utility test. A free press brings us sedition, slander and pornography; freedom of religion brings us cults and radical Islam, but most of us would never want to do without the incomparable benefits that come from protecting these rights. So it is with the right to keep and bear arms.
Finally, comparing the number of uses of guns in crimes versus self defense is utterly spurious. A gun can protect without being brandished or fired. My burglar alarm has not been used in over a decade, but it has certainly deterred burglars.
Paid Commenter says
Yep – thought as much. If you’re going to say something then can’t even stand by your own words…you’re not much of a man. And not much of a man with a loaded gun is a bad, bad combo.