Another study again shows having a gun in the home puts you, your family and friends in more danger than not having a gun in the home. The "self-protection" excuse is bogus. https://www.newsweek.com/states-mor...urders-home-women-most-common-victims-1450162
It doesn't distinguish between the source of the guns--i.e. it lumps all gun owners as being equal. My bet would be that if you looked at it, almost none of those deaths (except the suicides) are by legally owned guns. The other thing is that the study included one of the most violent times in this country--the early 1990s. Not sure why they chose such an arbitrary sample dates. Maybe they looked at just the later ones and didn't find the correlations they wanted, so they moved the study back until it proved their point. It's just junk science, with the goal to prove a point not to find the truth.
"Research suggests states with more gun owners have higher numbers of partners and family members killing each other in the home, with women in particular danger of being victims of violence." Oooh. A claim of correlation. Whoopee. Where do they discuss the causal relationship?
Then disarming police officers would make them safer, right? These studies are made to recruit the gullible.
Are you all done rationalizing? https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858 https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...icide-murder-risk-study-idUSBREA0J1G920140120
Let's see, having a gun in the house increases your chances of being shot, got it. Might I add, that having a pool on your property increases the chances of drowning in a pool. And owning a car increases your chances of dying in a car accident.
lets not forget that having electricity in your home increases the chances of being electrocuted far more so than being shot by your own gun in the same home...
If by rationalizing, you mean examining a scientific study for it's flaws, yes, we are finished for now. I have yet to see an anti-gun study without an agenda. Science is supposed to be non-biased, without an intent. This crap has a definite intent. If you want to find something with statistics, you can.
The only thing "bogus" is the supposed "study" being presented. A "study" that does not separate legal firearm ownership from illegal firearm possession, legal use from illegal use, and is loaded with words such as "suggest" which admit they are merely guessing and cannot provide a legitimate, credible, definite answer either one way or another on the matter.
Well sure...just as working with power tools increases ones chance of getting injured by one. Just as having a pool increases ones chance of drowning. Just as driving a car increases ones chance of getting into an accident. Just as climbing a ladder increases ones chance of falling and getting injured. Just as using a knife for preparing food each night increases ones chance of getting injured. There are lots of things we all do, some on a daily basis, where we put ourselves at rick of injury or death. Should we all just live as shut-ins wrapped in bubble wrap to keep safe from everyday life?
Everything we do/use is a cost benefit analysis. People get electrocuted. Do the benefits of having electricity out weight it's costs? Cars can kill. Do the benefits out weigh the risks? On and on. The benefits of owning a hand gun are logically negligible and the costs are high, but then who said logic was involved?
On an individual basis, sure. What about the home invaders who didn't invade a home because they thought the occupant(s) was armed?
