www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:No. I think (correctly) that my kids have a greater chance of getting shot with guns in the neighborhood than with no guns in the neighborhood.

Do you have any statistics to back that claim up? That lawful gun ownership increases the chance of what I'm going to have to assume is accidental shootings in a neighborhood. I'd also ask if those issues with guns can directly be attributed to an actual increase in violence or if say a guy commits suicide by gun instead of hanging/electrocution/whatever which is pretty much a wash in terms of statistics.

A Tsuki said, I'd be far more concerned about the people who don't live there who bring their guns with them than those that live there and own them lawfully.

My new neighborhood is fairly upscale, and statistically pretty safe. Not a ton of gangbangers walking around, or hanging out in parking lots around here. The flipside of that? Guess where those gangbangers come when they want to rob someone. Generally not the poor neighborhoods they live in.

Here's an example. Since I've been down here, I've seen all of one cop car in town, and zero patrols on my street. I'd rather not have to hope the cops can show up in time.

Do you have any statistics to back that claim up? That lawful gun ownership increases the chance of what I'm going to have to assume is accidental shootings in a neighborhood.

Lets see. Zero guns in town vs. some guns in town.
While the zero guns in town means zero percent chance of accidental shooting, the some guns in town has a chance of accidental shooting (it has to be higher than zero for the simple fact that they are there).

While it may not be high, there is an increased risk of accidental shooting, simply because of the existence of said weapons.
And you shouldn't need a study to show it.

stitch626 wrote:Lets see. Zero guns in town vs. some guns in town.
While the zero guns in town means zero percent chance of accidental shooting, the some guns in town has a chance of accidental shooting (it has to be higher than zero for the simple fact that they are there).

While it may not be high, there is an increased risk of accidental shooting, simply because of the existence of said weapons.
And you shouldn't need a study to show it.

Well he's not talking about the presence of any guns, just the lawful presence of guns. A community could have 0% lawful gun ownership, but tons of illegal guns floating around.

And, since there are never zero guns in town, there is always some chance of an accidental shooting yes. Though, you're probably more likely to be injured or killed driving in your car than by some neighbor's AD (accidental discharge) somehow going through his wall, the fence between houses, and your wall while remaining at high velocity and in a single piece. We aren't talking about cannons here. People overestimate penetrating power; even a shrub will stop or deflect the strongest rounds I own.

Lazar - exactly.

stitch626 wrote:Lets see. Zero guns in town vs. some guns in town.
While the zero guns in town means zero percent chance of accidental shooting, the some guns in town has a chance of accidental shooting (it has to be higher than zero for the simple fact that they are there).

There are always guns in a town. Either legally owned by citizens or illegally owned by criminals. There's never a zero chance you'll be shot.

While it may not be high, there is an increased risk of accidental shooting, simply because of the existence of said weapons.
And you shouldn't need a study to show it.

Since said weapons are always present in a city I'd have to say that yes, a study is needed to confirm whether or not the presence of a law abiding armed citizen living next door as opposed to a street over actually does increase the danger to those living around him.

Sorry, I hadn't seen the legal part.

That said, there have been instances of people shot by a nearby accidental discharge, so I'd say that an increase in the number of guns (legal or otherwise) would increase the chance of someone being injured by an accidental discharge.

And the odds of an AD in someone's house on on their property actually causing injury to someone else? What are those? I ask because are we talking real odds or things so incredibly out of left field that they aren't a factor in daily life. People have been hit by lightning traveling through their plumbing and hitting them in the shower, people get attacked by sharks at the beach, people die from bee stings. Do these things happen? Sure. Are the odds of them happening so incredibly low as to have no effect on your day to day life, yeah.

I get it. You like guns. That's fine. But stop being intentionally obtuse (because you are NOT obtuse, Tyyr.) Let's see:

"x" = number of legal guns in an area.
"y" = number of illegal guns in an area.

Correct my math if I'm wrong, but since we both agree that these can't be negative figures, the way I see it is that "x+y" is greater than "y."

In other wods, I can't control the number of illegal firearms on my block. Of course there will be some variation based on location, but as a generailyt to speak of, I can't control the number of illegal firearms on any block. I can, however, choose to live on a block without an additional number of firearms.

I'm not being obtuse. I get what you're saying, however I want some proof that you're talking about a "real" risk. My kids running around with a metal toy held in the air probably increases their risk of being struck by lightning on any given day but I don't take their metal toys away because it's not a '"real" risk. It's something that is so unlikely to happen that getting uptight about it is just ridiculous.

The odds of someone owning a gun, having it AD, having that errant round leave the gun owners house, having the round leave with enough velocity to do damage, and then have the path of that round intersect a person... I don't even know how to quantify those kind of odds. If the guy likes to wave the guns around and fire them off into the air at random, or hand them to neighbor kids to let them get a feel yeah, the guy's an idiot and probably poses an actual risk. However the idea you've put your children at risk by having a gun owner move into the neighborhood is ridiculous.

I can, however, choose to live on a block without an additional number of firearms.

And you'll pull this magic trick off how? None of my neighbors know I own a firearm and if the asked I wouldn't answer.

The lightning example is a little off-kilter. Playing with toys is sort of an assumed risk of childhood. Getting shot accidentally isn't. Since that's the case, it doesn't matter how small the chance is of getting shot accidentally is; if it's (hypothetically) 10% to get shot accidentally by an illegal firearm, and 0.5% for getting shot accidentally with a legal firearm, why would I take 10.5% when I could have 10%?

Tyyr wrote:And you'll pull this magic trick off how? None of my neighbors know I own a firearm and if the asked I wouldn't answer.

What now? I wasn't talking about moving, I was talking about your and Tsu's discussion of the choice to use firearms vs. the choice to not.

I just realize that my safety is my own responsibility, and relying on police that are often incompetent, if not flat-out dangerous is not an option for me. If others want to wait 20-30 minutes for someone to come to their aid, that's fine.

20-30 minutes? Here I was, giving Houston the benefit of being a real city, even though it's in Texas.

Anyway, I'd be one of those people. If I ever have to keep a firearm in the same house as my children, I'm doing something very wrong.

Mikey wrote:20-30 minutes?

One night, a gunfight broke out just outside of my apartment, so I hit the floor and called 911.

The police showed up the next day.

Mikey wrote:Here I was, giving Houston the benefit of being a real city, even though it's in Texas...

Har har.

Speaking of guns and the gun debate, did they ever have to prise the gun from Charlton Heston's cold, dead hands?