I expect the Hemenway article to become another round in the belt used by anti-gunners defending their position. It is thorough - 101 citations - and focused on accidental injury and suicide, but snarky. For example, in his conclusion:
"There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home. For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns. However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit."
And the last sentence, "Indeed, after weighing the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) decided that guns do not belong in households with children ..."
Ironic, given that the Florida senate passed Thursday a bill (HB155) designed to keep pediatricians from routinely entering data on firearms possession into the medical record.
ArsTechnica has a very recent, balanced review of the article, but rules don't allow an excerpt or even a link.
I guess burglars now know it’s safe to rob a pediatrician.
“scientific studies”
done by libs, of course.
We all take risks.
I pity the fool that takes the risk to break into my house. If I get the first shot he will probly get winged. If the Mrs. or the 13yo opens up on him he is definatly going to need a coroner.
So?
Since the scientific community has lowered itself to the same level to a well directed late night infomercial lately, their studies are hardly held to the highest esteem.
>>The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide
Whatever happened to “my body, my choice”? In what passes for a lib’s mind, suicide should be the ultimate “choice”, a reason to celebrate gun ownership for making suicide quick and painless and not a reason to limit it.
>> and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns
Just like auto accidents are mosly likely to occur when you are in an automobile and table saw accidents are most likely to occur where a table saw is present. Duh!
Of course statistics show that MOST gun accidents occur in homes with guns.... how can they occur without guns, a gun accident needs a gun to happen.
It's in no way believable by anyone but the criminally insane.
Well to these people I say, “If guns kill people, then forks made Micheal Moore and Rosie Odonnel fat”!
We’ve heard all this horse sh1t before.
For most contemporary Americans
So now we're picking and choosing vague subgroups already... do we mean "urban" by that?
scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit.
Please publish said studies o that we might judge for ourselves their scientific methods and merits.
The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide
This seems to presume that the suicide would not occur without the gun in the home, which is patently false. The suicide would simply find another option. Ergo, the presence of the firearm adds nothing to the "health risk" of potential suicide. Next?
and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns.
Gee, ya got us there. Without a gun, a gun accident likely won't happen. Well done. *applause* Drownings don't happen without water. Want to ban water? Got any reasoning that isn't axiomatic and empty?
There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes.
Firearms only intimidate those who do not have their own firearm... and any moron who uses his home firearm to intimidate his family is clearly an abusive jackal who would use a table lamp to effect the same terror and control. The presence of the gun, again, does not actually alter the landscape of the situation. It merely puts a different tool in the hand of the wrong-doer.
On the benefit side, there are fewer studies
Most intelligent people do not need a study to tell them that a useful tools for emergencies, like a fire extinguisher, is handy to have round, just in case. We hope to never have to use it... but we're glad it's there. No study required. Just 3 seconds of clarity.
and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms
That's odd. Police seem to carry them as a way to deter bad people from doing bad things. Is that not evidence in your "scientific studies"?
or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.
Possibly true (and congrats on getting to your fist potential point!!!), but this does not specify who the injured party is. I, for one, will be more than happy to have an altercation or break-in end with injury to the parties who are intending to commit criminally violent acts against my loved ones. If the presence of the firearm increases the likelihood of THEIR injury, and reduces the likelihood of OUR injury as opposed to when we do not have said firearm (and I suspect it might!), then this turns from a point in your favor to (yet another) counterpoint against your "argument".
Thus, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to have guns in the home.
How did you go form "most contemporary Americans" to all "parents"? Those are two different groups. Again, some very seriously flawed leaps in logic. Care to address ANY of them, oh dear AAP? I'll look forward to ant reasoned arguments. I have yet to see one in this article.
This is equivalent to saying that milk spilling is most likely to occur in homes with milk.
DUH!
I didn't find it particularly "balanced".
"Worse still, using a gun in self-defense is extremely rare (most instances involve using a gun to defend against animals): studies place defensive gun use at about one percent in home invasions and 0.1 percent in sexual assaults. Moreover, police reports suggest a lot of these uses involved inappropriate use of the gun."
Using a gun in self-defense is NOT "extremely rare". Both Ars Technica, and the original article repeat this BS. The ONLY source mentioned by Hemenway is the "National Crime Victimization Survey", which has more holes than a Swiss cheese, and is so far an outlier among the MANY studies of defensive gun usage as to be obviously wrong by anyone who understands statistics.
Now, perhaps the intent is to focus tightly on "defensive use" IN THE HOME, rather than defensive use in total. But that is pure crap, because how is one going to possess a firearm for defensive use away from home and NOT have it in the home. Store it outside in your car??? I think not!
Guns are an efficient way to commit suicide, but their existence isn’t what causes suicide.
Funny, I’ve got over 60 sitting less than 10 feet away from me, which means I should have 60+ times the health problem associated with guns.
Nope no health problems because of guns.
Maybe it's because I feed them so good I got happy guns, so they don't attack me and cause me health problems.
They need to cut through the crap...give me the quantified statistical facts of bad gun incidents per gun owner. It will be infinitesimal!
This is great example of the saying “figures don’t lie but liars figure” the typical commucrat sewage.
“gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns”
So would I be safer if I lived in a tent or my car or a cave?
I never considered having a gun in the house until a mentally ill person knocked on my door at 1 am. Last thing in the world I want to do is shoot someone, but there’s a loaded shotgun in my bedroom closet now.