How do you logically justify owning a gun for self defense?

owning a knife increases the risk that you will be stabbed with a knife.

 

Some anti-gunners are outright ego-centrix cowards who would never come to the rescue of anyone - and want guns outlawed to make excuse for that cowardice.

- - - Updated - - -

If you own a car you chances of dying in a car accident increase.

If you have a bathtub, your chances of dying in a bathtub increase.

If you are attacked by a murderer and are unarmed your chances of dying increase.

If you are attacked by a rapist and are unarmed your chances of being raped increase.

 

What stupid study. Suicide by firearm is easier than suicide by knife or hanging one's self, so a person planning to commit suicide then buys a gun. This does not prove in the slightest the gun increases the chance of suicide.

How did Robin Williams commit suicide? It wasn't with a gun, was it? Maybe they should do a study on suicide and owners of heavy rope to determine if heavy rope ownership contributes to suicide. Afterall, if Robin Williams didn't have anything to hang himself with he'd still be alive today, wouldn't he?

 

You may never need to use a gun in self defense, but if you do need to use a gun in self defense, you are going to need it very, very badly.

I am a retired police officer, and I am a big supporter of law abiding citizens being in possession of guns for self defense.

 

So you don't care what the statistics say?

No one has been able to answer my question. How does it make sense to own something (which increases your overall risk of being murdered) for self defense?

 

I will put it to you like this. Since you don't fear the typical murderer, how about disarming all cops and removing all guns from all of our military. Think that might make us safer?

I assure you I am armed and am highly trained to hit a target.

 

Powerful case made Jake. I once learned when Germany some German guy planned to fight me. I found this girl working for the family laundry fascinating and pretty. She enchanted me. I did what guys do and flirted.

I was invited to the xmas party at the laundry. Family and friends were there and I did not know them. I was approached by either the girl or somebody close to her and was told my flirting had made her "boyfriend" angry.

I huddled with the informant and told him the other guy needed to be warned that I was a black belt Karate master who could kill him with a single blow and that it was only fair to warn the guy,

I never heard another word nor did the guy try to fight me. (Ps, had he fought me, who knows who would have won. I had never trained in Karate. )

A gun also can bluff an attacker.

 

As with flying airplanes, driving cars, trucks and busses, the best way to start is by being trained. I got my training in the Army. Now, I have owned guns till this moment. IF you try to murder me, and I show you my gun, do you think you still want to murder me?

I am safer with my semi automatic than you are should you show up to murder me.

 

Having a gun has saved my life more than once. I am still alive. I'd say my personal stats are working for me.

 

I 'logically' have a gun or two because when seconds count the police are minutes away ( more like 20 mins).

 

Please explain how owning a gun makes it more likely for them to be murdered.

Walk us through a scenario.

I'll go ahead and point out a few things out which you clearly haven't thought out.

First of all, being murdered with a firearm is particularly rare. According to Pew research, we have a firearm murder rate of 3.4 per 100k people.

Your odds of being murdered with a gun are only slightly twice that of choking to death.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...y-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

Clearly this shows that we would need two HUGE groups of people. You'd need to have one group with several million gun owners, and another group with several million non-gun owners, then compare the results of the two.

Your study is garbage.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah our Armed Forces having firearms makes it more likely for us to get invaded

That makes as much sense as what he's claiming.

 

Exactly. The apparent threat of greater defensive capability is often more effective than actual force.

- - - Updated - - -

It is personal stats that matter as is the right to make the decision about risk factors for your life for yourself.

 

I've counted nearly a dozen logical answers to your question in this thread alone.

What does your inability to recognize that fact, say about your argument?

 

Gosh, of that were true why don't we arm all criminals and wipe out crime?

 

Why do individuals who own motor vehicles choose not to use their seat belt while operating them? Why does a large percentage of the united states public continue to indulge in alcoholic and tobacco products when such increases their overall risk of getting cancer, and experiencing a shortened and painful life? There is no benefit to the continued existence of these products. The only reason they continue to exist is because past experience has proven that efforts at eliminating them have exacerbated the problem, and made it even worse.

There are those who do not care for what statistics say, regardless of what they may say. Ultimately it is their own choice to make.

 

I would like to address the interesting inclusion of the word, 'logically' in the OP.

IF.. your goal is 'self defense', as is stated in the OP, THEN possessing a firearm is one of the best proven methods.. much better than a knife, club, or fists.

So, logically, having a gun is the best, most superior means of self defense.

And, IF 'owning' a gun is the best way to possess a firearm, rather than borrowing one, or relying on somebody else's firearm, in order to be sure to have it on hand at critical times, then that is the most logical way to possess & bear a firearm.

So my question would be,

'How do you LOGICALLY justify NOT owning a gun, if your goal is self defense?'

If you want to leave that with the state, or some other public institution, fine. Self defense is not really the goal. But if you take a personal interest, & personal accountability for yours & your family's self defense, a concealed carry firearm has been proven to be the best, most effective solution for that.

It is like a seat belt or motorcycle helmet. You wear then because they have been proven to save lives, & minimize injury in crashes. Many people have never needed a seat belt, because they have never been in a serious car crash. But they still wear them, just in case. In the same way, a concealed carry firearm is an 'ounce of prevention' factor. Hopefully, you will never need to use or even brandish that weapon. But if a serious crisis situation arose, it is better to have it as an option.. Logically, that is.

 

I will assume the bolded portion can be substantiated somehow and answer thusly: Because it increases my ability to defend myself x1000, while only increasing my chance of being shot .001%. And so I'm willing to accept the slight risk of danger for the overwhelming returns in security. There are literally thousands of similar risk/reward decisions everyone makes every day.

 

How much risk does having one gun in one's home increase one's chances of being murdered in the US? What the risk in X/per 100,000 people?

How much risk do 2 guns in a home have? Twice the risk? How about 100 guns? Would that not be 100 times the risk?

 

yip,

Owning a dog increases your chances of being bitten

Owning a cat increases your chances of being scratched

Cooking at home increases the chances of a house fire.

Riding a skate board/driving a boat/changing your tire/ the list is endless.

Shall we go on ?

 

Freedom of Choice is not something -those whos mission is to save us from ourselves- believe adults should have.

They epitomize psuedo-intellectual superiority bigotry and will be the root cause of Rome's next fall.

.

 

Your OP begins not with a statement of fact, but a conclusion that is frequently cited by gun control advocates that was reached in the highly biased and flawed 1993 Kellerman Study. There are dozens and dozens of critiques illustrating the flaws in his study, the following just on that pops up on a Google query of the topic...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1996/05/14/kellermann-00005/

This study has been discussed and debunked many times on this forum, but still surfaces from time in attemp to legitimize an anti gun opinion.

The Kellerman/Lott debate is a continuing theme among those debating the 2A topic.

Interestingly, regarding the topic, the last CDC report that was issued, from a study done in 2012

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...ma-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative

( note elsewhere under the gun control topic it was stated funding for such research was supposedly blocked by the NRA)...concluded....

The study was funded (10mil) under the Obama Admin by executive order because the Admin hoped for different conclusions to support Obama's anti-gun agenda. By the way Kellerman, Lott and Klect studies were reviewed and they were consulted. Reading the actual report is of value.

As I previously stated, having a gun has saved my life more than once, so security was not a Feel Good illusion for me.
By the way, I consider the use of a gun is a last resort tool; I have over 40 years of martial Arts study in more than one style and I have extensive skill with knives and even a simple pen and I have multiple means of countering threats with appropriate levels of force... a gun being a defense tool last resort, the use of one I can only justify to meet the threat to me or someone else of great bodily harm or death.
Many animals, sheep, fish, and many others without defense against predators rely on numbers and the statistical chance that they won't be victims... I don't prey on others, but if preyed upon, I sting, I have the right and I made my choice. You are free to make your choice and free to adopt the profile of a victim waiting the roll of the dice with little chance of controlling your destiny if eyed by a predator...

 

those who outsource their personal safety to big brother often try to eliminate things that will accentuate their own feelings of inadequacy. Armed citizens who make individual safety a personal duty accentuates those feelings of timidity in gun banners.

 

How can you logically justify having car insurance, do you go out looking to get in an accident? These studies you are not referencing have been widely discredited...And I have guns for many reasons...Hunting, self-protection, enjoyment...Yes I enjoy shooting, I relish the accomplishment of putting 3 rounds at less than a six inch spread at 1000 yards... I am proud of the fact that I can go out and hunt deer and hogs and put meat on the table without going to a grocery store. You know what, that's real free range meat.
I know that if the world goes to crap, or a civil war, I can protect my family. Oh, I also reload my own ammo.

 

It has been answered just not in a manner that's satisfactory to you.

If you own a pencil, you are more likely to die by a pencil than without.

If you own a car, you are more likely to die from a car than without.

If you own a pillow, you are more likely to die from a pillow than without.

That statement is true for ANY object you wish to put in there.

The moral of the story is: don't own a damned thing or you're more likely to die from it.

Ill take my chances, thank you very much. I don't want to live in bubble wrap. Wait, I could die due to the bubble wrap. Crap.... what to do, what to do....