PROBLEM: Keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of injury and death. Gun owners may overestimate the benefits of keeping a gun in the home and underestimate the risks.
DID YOU KNOW? Where there are more guns, there are more gun deaths.
* Gun death rates are 7 times higher in the states with the highest compared with the lowest household gun ownership. (Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009).
* An estimated 41% of gun-related homicides and 94% of gun-related suicides would not occur under the same circumstances had no guns been present (Wiebe, p. 780).
* Household gun ownership levels vary greatly by state, from 60 percent in Wyoming to 9 percent in Hawaii (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001).
DID YOU KNOW? Keeping a gun in the home raises the risk of homicide.
* States with the highest levels of gun ownership have 114 percent higher firearm homicide rates and 60 percent higher homicide rates than states with the lowest gun ownership (Miller, Hemenway, and Azrael, 2007, pp. 659, 660).
* The risk of homicide is three times higher in homes with firearms (Kellermann, 1993, p. 1084).
* Higher gun ownership puts both men and women at a higher risk for homicide, particularly gun homicide (Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009).
DID YOU KNOW? Keeping a gun in the home raises the risk of suicide.
* Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17 (Kellermann, p. 467, p. Wiebe, p. 771).
* The association between firearm ownership and increased risk of suicide cannot be explained by a higher risk of psychiatric disorders in homes with guns (Miller, p. 183).
DID YOU KNOW? A gun in the home is more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.
Every time a gun injures or kills in self-defense, it is used:
* 11 times for completed and attempted suicides (Kellermann, 1998, p. 263).
* 7 times in criminal assaults and homicides, and
* 4 times in unintentional shooting deaths or injuries.
scott wrote:Bottom line: If I didn't feel safe here, I would not be here.
Remigius wrote:scott wrote:Bottom line: If I didn't feel safe here, I would not be here.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I seem to remember saying just that, 2 days and 23 posts ago.
There are some on this site who should of either stayed home, or seriously consider going home for the sake of their own sanity.
iron butterfly wrote:Regarding tupacperus account of Washington, D.C. in that it is against the law to have a gun and at the same time having one of the highest crime/murder rates in the nation, there is another a city in the U.S. that is in complete contrast. 28 years ago Kennesaw, Ga. enacted an ordinance requiring that each head of household own and maintain a gun. As I said this city is in complete contrast to Washington, D.C. so you can probably guess the result, if you can not here is a link to one story: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196
Ron wrote:Having had my house robbed and a gun pointed at me (both in Calgary, AB, Canada) I still feel very safe here. When I am in Lima I do things to limit my attractiveness to would-be thieves. I am a 6'3 white guy, so a very easy target to spot. When I go out I usually do so with a purpose and only carry what I need for the day (cash, keys etc.) I do the same in Canada and the US. If I am to get robbed I will lose a minimum and be very happy to give it up without a fight or struggle. I don't want to get beat up/shot/stabbed over some cash and petty items. I guess the bottom line is that if you don't look like you have anything easy to steal the criminals will move onto someone else. If someone wants to break into your house/business, they will find a way. As for violent crimes (rapes/murders etc...) I cannot comment on. I not sure how you would get around those, but I feel that these are by far the minority of crimes committed, and no I have no stats to back that up.
As far as carrying a gun, that is a personal decision and should not be debated on this forum.
Alan wrote:Let´s bear in mind that we are on the doorstep of a municipal election, and as always, security is one of the main rallying point. I suspect that the flames are being fanned by the politicians, making a not-great safety scenario seem much, much worse.
Kelly wrote:While I don't personally feel like I'm in any greater danger than I was 6 years ago when I arrived, I don't remember seeing news stories like that robbery on the Via Express back then, either.
americorps wrote:There have been 3 or 4 HEAVY violent incidences in San Borja in the last year. All 4 have been caught on camera, all 4, the suspect has been captured by the police within 2 hours of the event. 2 of the criminals are dead and the others are in jail.
Much better than when I lived in DC.
asgoodasitgets wrote:I'm with the pro gun side of this issue.
1. Self Defence. How did you or the government rightfully attain the right to deny someone this right? Through what mechanism? There isn't one. It's natural and inalienable.
2. Only dictatorial and consequently genocidal states (Mao, Hitler, Stalin) actively disarm citizens.
3. States have killed more people and committed more acts of terrorism than any collection of individuals.
4. Statisics are very clear. Guns deter violent crime. If a couple of kids at Virginia tech had weapons do you think that the shooter would have had time to harm so many? ( before anyone responds stupidly we're talking about older kids over the age of consent). Or at least a teacher?
This disagreement about who can have what or that guns are a crime... The corporate lackey media never tells you about the cases where guns have saved lives prevented horrific crimes and so on. The corporate media has a definite agenda.