First, I'd like to comment on a well thought-out and well-structured post. It's refreshing to see a cool, rational analysis of the implications of gun ownership instead of the usual hysterics about how "guns kill people". You raise some good points
Thanks.
...and made some burglaries more dangerous to substance addicts
Yes, although you seem to present it as a negative side-effect. I don't understand why we should worry about burglaries carrying more risks to the burglar any more than commiting murder carrying more risk to the murderer. Surely, if anything, that's a good thing isn't it?
Drug addiction that leads its sufferers to criminal acts to fund it is dangerous enough as it is. Personally I don't relish in the thought of making it more likely a young person will die or be seriously hurt as a result of becoming addicted to drugs.
I very much would not regard an increased mortality in young deprived people as a good thing.
The ones who are compulsed to do it (e.g.kleptomaniac) but are essentially harmless run a greater risk of getting shot. I file that under the 'unfortunate but so what' category.
Fair enough. Once again, I'd personally prefer for mental illnesses to be less lethal rather than more.
From a game theory perspective it seems that if two opposing 'players' have a firearm, the chances of somebody getting injured or killed is vastly higher than if only one has or if both parties have knives or the like.
That's generally true although it's a very broad statement to be of any use in this debate. Yes, the presence of more firearms in our society will result in more deaths by firearms: some by accident, some by aggressive action, some by defensive action. That, in itself, shouldn't be a reason to totally reject gun ownership just as the number of car or alcohol-related deaths hasn't led us to reject either. There are two issues we need to consider:
My apologies, there has been a misunderstanding. I was referring specifically to two people, not a society at large concept.
If two people who are in a position of antagonism face off from each other and both have loaded guns the chances of injury or death occurring has increased as compared to only one party having a gun or both parties with hand held weapons.
That would be true in a situation where guns were freely carried, fully loaded. However, we're talking about allowing citizens to have guns in secure places at home. We all have arguments and can lash out in anger but I don't think that anyone who kills someone by walking over to the locker, unlocking it, removing the gun, loading it and then pointing and shooting can be justified as having done it in 'the heat of the moment'.
If we could guarantee that people would keep their weapons unloaded and locked in a locker you might have a point. In this reality, though, they often don't and instead keep them in a drawer or other unsecure location.
If someone wants to kill you -for whatever reason- they'll find a way, guns or no guns.
This strikes me as a fallacy - it might be true, but it isn't necessarily so. I'd suggest that there exists some people that are capable of the brutality of beating somebody to death. There are some people who might want you dead, but can't get that brutal but could stab you. Maybe all people are capable of beating someone to death - but only if they really really want you to die. If someone wants to hurt you, maybe kill you for a split second and they have a knife and are close - it is much easier for them to do it. I suggest that the presense of blades results in more people being killed in arguments, robberies, brawls etc.
I suggest that a gun, which requires minimal effort to use and can be done at a distance (a psychological benefit - there are concerns that modern warfare is 'too distant' making it much easier to condemn innocents to death) - is such an effective tool at hurting and killing that more people who want you dead will follow through with the act.
I would have thought that pulling a trigger is easy compared with stomping on someone's face repeatedly.
By 'least harmful', you mean least likely to result in violence, which is true but doesn't necessarily mean that they have the least impact on the victim. I've heard the impact of burglary being described as 'second only to rape' wrt the sense of personal invasion and humiliation. As a victim myself I wholeheartedly concur with this assesment
You've been raped and burgled? I agree that being burgled is deeply unpleasant having been burgled on a number of occasions and I speak to people who have been burgled on a regular basis as part of my job.
As for the increase in likelihood of death or serious injury for the remainder we have to remember that on a level-playing field (both parties armed) this will equally affect both parties. If anything, the advantage lies with the homeowner who have the defensive position.
But, if the burglar is aware that the homeowner likely has a weapon and still commits the crime the burglar is forced into two positions:
1) Wait for the house to be empty (A more common tactic in the US than in the UK).
2) Take the homeowner by surprise, with a weapon already drawn and take steps to ensure the homeowner can not get to their weapon and load it at any point (by either tying the homeowner and other occupants up, or injuring them).
With the first tactic the feeling of humiliation remains, with the latter, the physical danger to the homeowner is increased. Granted - there are occasions where the homeowner will beat the thief and succesfully defend their home.
To summarize: we've saved 653767 victims from the trauma of burglary and 3878 from violence or the threat of violence. We've also saved some victims from being injured or killed during home invasions. On the other hand, we've caused 283 victims to be injured or killed. There will also be some number of accidental deaths which shouldn't be more than a few hundred, at worst. We've also slightly increased some other crime like theft or robbery. Overall, I see this as a net benefit to society.
An interesting analysis, and I thought I'd complement you back for well thought out and structured post. I would like to take issue with the 38% figure, or more specifically your handling of it. First of all, it assumes that the burglar knows that you are armed and that you are at home. It also assumes that being deterred is the same as being so deterred so as to not commit the crime.
But rather than quibbling over figures, let us assume they are at least in the right order of magnitude and say, for ease, that 300,000 people are saved having a burglary and 300 extra people are killed or injured during a burglary per year.
It seems in that case that you are making the judgement that it is worth killing/injuring 1 innocent person to prevent 1,000 burglaries. Even if only 10% of those are actual deaths then it is still 1:10,000. And that, as you say, discounts the people that are killed who are guilty only of being desperate.
It is a moral value judgement - and if you are prepared to accept those numbers then so be it. Personally, I don't think such a policy is something to be pleased with and it certainly isn't as crystal clear a benefit as some have trumpeted in this thread.
And of course, it assumes that the only thing to be affected are the burglary statistics. With more guns around - there will likely be an increase in other armed robberies (personal and commercial) as well as the heat of passion type murders.
I don't have the figures to hand, but I think it hardly controversial to claim that something like 40% of all murders are during an argument and, in a country with ready access to guns, a large percentage of those murders are committed with guns.
I'd wager that the price of reducing burglary rates using your analysis is higher than 1 death and 9 injuries per 10,000 burglaries prevented.
While your opinion may be that it is still worth it - I'm sure you'd agree that many others might not like paying that price. And since it then becomes a subjective judgement as to the value of human life and the quality of that life, no statistics or empirical figures are going to save us.
Which is why I don't actually attempt to debate the issue. I just try and encourage people to open up discourse so they can arrive in a place like this. Thanks for responding well to my post.
Edited by Modulous, : clearing up my figures
™ Version 4.2
