The most awkward moment in the CNN “Guns in America” town hall last night: when the President of the United States tried to segue from commiserating with an unarmed woman who was raped in her own home to the “fact” that a gun in the home is more likely to lead to tragedy (an accident or suicide) than be deployed to defend innocent life. There it is, the uber meme used to attack your gun rights (e.g., BusinessInsider): your gun is a curse not a blessing. How do you refute that “argument”?

113 Responses to Question of the Day: Is Having a Gun like ‘Bringing a Time Bomb Into Your House’?

  1. Hell no it isn’t. Now if stolen while Im not at home is another story. That would do some serious damages to my home. Where they are if my safe is ripped out.
    Otherwise my carry gun is on my hip 20/24 – 7 days a week. I home carry religiously too.

      • Yup, not a time bomb. I grew up in a house with handguns, rifles, & shotguns. No trigger locks, no safes (it was a different time, for certain) and never were any of these firearms turned against me or my family, nor did any of us “snap” and hurt ourselves or a family member.

        A couple of would-be intruders, on the other hand, did have revelations while staring down the barrel of one or another of the aforementioned firearms…

      • No thumbs up icon here that Im aware of?? Im not exactly a keyboard wizard with these things. Worse with a phone.

      • time to get over that birther crap. we will find out who shot JFK before we ever see an authentic birth certificate.

        • Not if Trump goes all the way, he was the one riding that birther stuff like a rented pony.

        • “Birther”? Are you kidding? Until that POS produces a REAL piece piece of paper issued at his birth not some computer copy that can only be viewed in an online file he has NO right to demand we produce ID or undergo background checks. I’m still waiting for the former gay bathhouse towel-boi to explain his trip to “Pook-E-Stan” as a college student when U.S. citizens were barred from traveling there. Did he use his Indonesian passport, did he claim Indonesian citizenship to get college scholarships and just what were the “Constitutional Law Professor’s” grades? We all know George W.Bush was a “C” student in college, the Liberal media NEVER let him or us forget it. BTW What Marshall-Davis/Soetoro/Obama/Suharto’s health records? Is he infected with HIV from his drug use, his creeping in alleys with old men? Has it advanced to full-blown AIDS?

        • Seriously its been beaten to death. Besides my dad was looking for his birth certificate the other day and man that was a bitch to find! When he did come across it it was a copy made in 1982 and it was beat to hell, the hospital he was born in is now I believe a high rise low income project so good luck with that paper trail back to the dinosaurs. I can assure you my dad is as American as apple pie though.

    • I fisked this subject on my blog. I hope it’s okay to link it here. Basically, this is a misconception due to a simple error in data interpretation. It’s rather like saying owning a car puts you at risk of driving drunk, simply because most drunk drivers are “car owners”. Similarly, since Bad Guys kill Good Guys more often than the reverse, since they’re all “gun owners”, being a gun owner puts you at risk. Silly, but that’s what lots of people would prefer to believe.

      I might also add, it’s “the right of the people to keep and bear”, not “the job of the people to shoot and kill” enough Bad Guys to make the right seem worthwhile to the Orwellian Left.

      http://peopleofarms.com/does-having-a-gun-make-you-less-safe/

    • Again and still I ask:

      WHERE ON THE INTERNET can I buy a gun with NO records or background check?

      I seem to have missed that link.

        • Still required to follow current laws. If they do not, then they are law breakers and no amount of new gun control laws will change that or stop them

        • That’s not the point. The entire position of the pro-gun crowd is that law-breakers will not follow laws, so more (and current) laws do virtually nothing to stop criminals. The point of anti-gunners is that the internet facilitates more illegal gun sales than would happen without the internet. Remove the internet, and there is no place for illegal gun sales to be conducted. Therefore, criminals cannot break the law using a non-existent method (internet).

          You gotta understand logic plays no part in the argument. If you require internet sales to only be conducted in concert with a background check, bad guys will decide not to do that. That’s what laws are for. And even if the law prevents one bad guy from getting a gun (they will not go elsewhere to acquire a gun), and prevents one murder, it is worth any cost in treasure and freedom.

      • No I don’t. Its on the bed under the pillow though. Plus a Canik in the nightstand. Im never less then a foot away from a firearm.
        2 Kalifornia queen beds……….

  2. someone on this blog already gave the best response:
    “people who travel in aircraft have a higher rate of death by airplane crash than those who do not travel in aircraft”.

    • Yes – thank the illustrious Dr. Hemenway for this idiotic talking point they keep parroting.

      People who own motorcycles are more likely to be killed on a motorcycle.

      People who own hair dryers are more likely to be killed by hair dryers.

      People who own stairs are more likely to be killed by stairs.

      • I have a pool, and I know that, statistically, it is trying to kill me and my family.

        I’m keeping a watch on that evil pool

  3. Sorry you had to go through that, lady. But if you have serious mental problems, i would rather you not having guns, because it’s more likely you may hurt your kids and yourself with guns than protect them.

    • According to the Democraps, anybody who likes guns has a “serious mental problem.” That is their new foot in the door, call everybody (except them of course) crazy and take their guns. Slippery slope.

      Until a so called crazy person actually commits a crime with a gun it should be hands off their 2nd Amendment rights. Because its way too easy for the leftist judicial system to rule you “mentally unstable” nowadays. Especially with the pharmacide doctors handing out psychotropic meds like candy.

      • No. Because the majority doesn’t like it.

        And in the future if you ever get a prescription of anti-depressants you can kiss your gun ownership privileges goodbye.

      • Uh… In America, Mentally ill people are allowed to live in peace like everyone else… There is no law precluding a mentally ill person from defending themselves if attacked. Where are you from?

        • They can have any tool they want, so long as it is not a firearm. Thus sayeth the moral superiors.

        • A country in which “Objective Gun Owner” typed “But if you have serious mental problems, i would rather you not having guns” and I wanted his and/or her input on the rights of the mentally ill.

        • Oops, I should have read more closely. I fell for the Socratic Method question. Carry on 😛

        • He should have asked, “Do mentally ill people have the right to defend themselves with a firearm?” Or maybe, “Do mentally ill people lose their 2A rights just because they suffer from a medical condition? ”

          Asking about 2A in specific, or self-defense in general are, admittedly, two different questions. But on this blog, most will/would understand (given the name of the blog), questions about “self-defense” are questions about self-defense with a firearm.

    • Objective gun owner? Yeah, right.

      If the women has mental problems enough to keep her from owning a gun, then she needs to have her kids taken from her, because more kids drown in bathtubs and buckets than are killed by guns. Per the CDC website of all the ways people die.

      So try again, Objective Gun Owner. Geez, you should change your name to “common sense gun control” , you would be in better company.

      • About the same number of those that die from the flu or in traffic accidents as do those that die from guns.

        Drowning and related boating accidents kill about 3,800 yearly. As for 5 gallon buckets CDC has, since 1984 tracked about 300 deaths or hospitalations.

        • But how many GUNS die in tragic boating accidents each year? It is probably an epidemic! If it saves one black gun right?
          #BlackGunLivesMatter

        • Those guns don’t die at the bottom of that body of water.

          They’re waiting patiently until found again… 🙂

  4. i did so in the comments section of that article. i’ll sum it up: i don’t care what shitty people do with guns, that is a false equivalency to my behavior with them.

  5. Aaand this is exactly what the recalled representatives in Colorado said.. This smug attitude got the ball rolling.

    Good ol’ Evie “lookin’ at pictures of Patrick Swayze on Facebook during an official hearing” Hudak, for your viewing, uh, pleasure:

    http://m.therightscoop.com/colorado-democrat-tells-rape-victim-that-a-gun-wouldnt-have-helped-her/

    (Note: Evie was third in line to be recalled after CO was successful with Giron and Morse. The petitions were done and it was about to happen – but she resigned rather than face the music.)

    This seems to be a go-to theme for the antis, who usually tout themselves as pro-woman.. But apparently these women who were raped are helpless idiots.. I mean golly, you’ll shoot your eye out, kid!

    Talk about patronizing.

  6. Its time to stop refuting these straw man “arguments” by the communist leftist Democraps, and simply ignore them. You cannot change the minds of these demonic death cult Democraps. Why bother trying?

    Molon labe. Come and take it. Until then, %$#@ off.

    • Disagree.

      We are not refuting them to convince them. Refutation gets heard/read by people they are trying to convince. If we go silent on stuff like this, the Regular Joes that do have functioning brains will only hear one message…repeatedly.

      And, Cognitive Dissonance is a real thing. All those people that read this tired tripe over and over again eventually will ask themselves…”300 million guns, 50 million or so gun owners, yet gun owners’ guns going ‘time bomb’ pretty much near zero? Some is lying to me.”

      Refuting the claim helps them along that path to realization.

      • Right. Like Larry Correia says, internet arguing is a spectator sport.

        You’ll never convince the fool/tool you’re arguing with, but some of the people who are following the argument might be persuadable; if nothing else, the unavoidable fact that so many of the people on the anti-gun side of the argument are vindictive and trollish can cause some useful cognitive dissonance.

      • Nope. Liberalism is a mental disorder. You cannot even hope that one mentally deranged Liberal will ever reach even the lowest threshold of mental awareness required to make logical decisions. The “fence sitter” is a myth. Statistically, the number of “fence sitters” cannot change the tide, even if all of them come over to our side. Spend your time and effort supporting people and organizations that defend our rights through the courts (even if they lose more than they win). It’s a fighting retreat.

        • So what’s your long term solution, outbreed them?

          There are plenty of fence-sitters and most of the population can follow a rational train of thought with enough hand holding.

        • Gun ownership is a losing proposition….there, does that fire up the meat eaters?

          In 2015/16, a 53% approval for owning/carrying a gun is not a victory march; it is a number within the margin for error. Essentially, all the reliable polling groups averaged together leave us with 50-50, at best. This is a terrible place to be. Gun ownership is on the rise !. Yeah ?
          I see these numbers and ask, “Is the overall number of gun owners on the rise in equal proportion, and how do we know that ?” Meaning, gun people may own many guns, and buy many more when faced with more regulation. We see, “300 million guns in the country”, and 100 million+ gun owners; neither number is rock solid because the quality of data is poor and/or elusive. Of those numbers of gun owners, how many are committed to defending the right of all citizens to keep guns ? How many of those 100 million gun owners are otherwise committed leftists/statists who will deny rights to the non-special people they despise ? And it goes on.

          Trying to find and persuade the minimal number of “fence sitters” who will declare for us gun owners cannot amount to an overwhelming majority favoring gun ownership of any any kind. If you find one, great…but don’t celebrate. The only way to impressively beat the anti-gun crowd is by replacing almost every leftist/elitist/statist public official in every jurisdiction. And by such numbers that 85–90% of the populace favors gun ownership, and use for self-defense. Even that margin will require serious effort to maintain…after all, it used to be that way.

          Solution ? Stop trying to find the unicorns, and realize talking to ourselves does not sway the political drift of the nation. Support people and organizations who are pushing back hard on the maroons who think the world should be cuddly and cozy, and gun owners are as dangerous to society as pedophiles.

  7. The next person should have had the balls to say “Mr. President, if having a gun in the home is going to cause an innocent person to be killed, why on earth do you allow the SS to carry guns in the White House and risk the lives of your daughters? Do you not value your daughter’s lives?”.

  8. Easy one. All the studies used to show that you are more likely to die with a gun in the house then use it for self defense omit the fact that their data includes homes where a prohibited person, i.e., a felon, lives and that death usually occurs through someone else’s gun. The real lesson is don’t live with a felon. Including suicide in the data is also a red herring since you can substitute a rope for a gun just like they do in the UK.

    • An arsenal… a real one! Not the “arsenals” that the news media tries to portray as 2 guns an 150 rounds either, but a full-fukn’ fledged arsenal with actual machine guns, explosive ordinance, and enough ammo to fight a small war.

      Nothing to see here, move along. ~ Obama

  9. Didn’t get my reaction recorded because my memory card was full, but the worst part of that exchange is when Obama said “by making it harder for the person that attacked you to get a gun, it will prevent him from doing it again”.
    I screamed, (warning, ear muffs) “he raped her with his dick, not a gun!”
    I guess it okay to rape women as long as you don’t overpower them with a gun. Knives or bare hand brutality have the Presidential seal of approval.
    I can’t imagine the blood boiling contempt for that waste of humanity pretending to be a President that she must have been feeling after her one time to speak had expired.
    I don’t blame the NRA one bit for not subjecting their representative to the same nonsense.

    • “by making it harder for the person that attacked you to get a gun, it will prevent him from doing it again”.

      WTF! now THAT is just stupid.
      Of course this is from the man that said raising the debt ceiling won’t raise the debt.

    • Worse, what do I have in my bathroom?!? It’s not a Bathtub – killer of Waaaayyyy more children than guns or knives – its a time bomb!

  10. The anti’s belief is that a gun is some special device that greatly increases the danger if brought into the home. But the reality is that a gun is no different than any of a number of things that can increase the chance of injury and/or death if brought into the home, for example household chemicals, matches, lighters, knives, power saws, and living in a multi-story home (could fall down the stairs). All need to be stored properly to avoid children getting access to them and all require the use of adherence to basic safety principles when using them.

  11. They can refute it by changing the rules.

    You see everyone here sees themselves as individuals with rights. Change that view to a collective (like an ant farm) with no rights. What matters then is the collective and not the individual. Let’s face it – some gun control works – just look at China or North Korea. Then it is better for a person to get raped and inseminated with STDs that shorten their life so long as no one dies and the survival of the current governing methodology stays intact. People are reduced to numbers on a spreadsheet and those numbers are utilized to make the decisions rather than the rights of individual people.

    • As Spock said” the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”. Our schools, movies, media, news, culture, ect have been socially conditioning us with this kind of collective thinking , agitprop, where the individual has no rights against the mob.

      • Nerd moment here. When Spock said that, he had just sacrificed himself to save the ship from destruction. He made the choice to give up his life so that everyone else on the Enterprise could live.

        But that’s the key point. He CHOSE to die so that others could live.

        By contrast, the Antis would sacrifice everyone and anyone necessary to achieve their gun free utopia. For the greater good. And they don’t plan to give you any choice at all. You need to sir down, shut up and accept you role as the sacrifice to The Greater Good.

  12. The same stupid argument can be used for a kitchen knife, a swimming pool, stairs or string. You are more likely to be hurt by any of these things than if you don’t have them. And statistically its true that you’re probably not likely to be attacked, but the risk of accident with the gun is still there.

    But here’s the thing: We don’t live in a world of random accidents- you CONTROL how careless you are with the dangerous objects around you. Act stupid, get hurt. Act with an abundance of caution, mitigate your risk. This is more an argument about being safe with all of the potentially dangerous objects around us than an argument towards living in a padded cell.

  13. This claim is based on the “Three Times Fallacy”

    It stems from 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article by Arthur Kellermann, et al., ( http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=abstract ).

    “Having a gun in your home makes you three times more likely to be a homicide victim”. Hence, the “three times” fallacy, which has been repeated endlessly ever since in the media and by gun prohibitionists. It’s based on this conclusion from the abstract of the article, which actually claims an odds ratio of 2.7, not 3:

    “After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).

    Kellerman’s article has fatal flaws that have been roundly criticized by numerous commentators:

    1) Inappropriate use of the case control method. This is an epidemiology research tool used to roughly identify possible connections between population characteristics and pathogens. It is not conclusive, and is not designed to study criminology questions such as firearm crime. But using the case control method, an epidemiology tool, makes crazy sense in the context of the public health’s politically motivated tactic of “reframing the debate” to consider guns a deadly virus.

    2) Generalization from a highly crime-prone inner city population of people who were murdered in their own homes to American gun owners in general.

    • With regard to (2), it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that a large number of the Kellerman’s victims were criminals themselves. He would also have found a strong positive correlation between becoming a victim and engaging in criminal activity or associating with criminals whether or not the victim was armed.

      • Well yeah. Statistically, in these exact impoverished inner-city ghettos that Kellerman ran his study in, as much as 80-90% of homicide victims are themselves criminals. The parts of the study that they don’t quote put ‘drug user in the home’ and ‘someone with a criminal record in the home’ and even ‘rents the property’ as a significantly higher risk factor than firearm possession.

        So according to the Kellerman study, living somewhere where you don’t pay rent will make you safer than getting rid of your gun.

  14. I question whether the arrow of causation runs in the direction that the President would like us to think here.

    Are people more likely to commit suicide because they have guns in their home, or are people who kill themselves more likely to have guns in their home because guns represent a very effective means of suicide?

    • Sam I Am

      Doesn’t matter. Guns alone cause people to do bad things. Probably even seeing television shows, produced by the anti-gun special ones in LA, where guns are prominent drives people to do things with guns they would not do if there were no guns. Without guns available, good people would just continue to live in their misery, knowing there is no other convenient and effective way to end their lives. My position remains, “Why do we insist on trying to prevent people from doing what they want with their bodies?” Oh wait, we only allow people to do what they want with a body not their own.

  15. “And having a fire extinguisher in your house will increase the odds of your house burning down?”

    How about “being a minority urban youth in a Democrat-controlled city will increase your odds of being a crime victim by 43 times?”

    When will Obama make the White House a gun-free zone and disarm the Secret Service?

  16. The meme is based upon cherry pick stats: people who shoot and kill assailants vs being killed by a gun in your home.

    First of all, you don’t have to shoot someone much less kill them to defend yourself from serious bodily harm. Those incidents (non fatal shots fired or no shots fired at assailants) aren’t included in the meme. Rarely do self defense situations result in death of the assailant.

    Second, 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so naturally, you’re gonna use your own gun or one in your house. That’s a lot of deaths by your own gun, according to the meme.

    As we all know, suicide rates are unaffected by gun ownership. So to include them in “gun violence” debate is ridiculous.

  17. As we continue to swirl around the dogma drain. No amount of logic short of barbarians surrounding the town will get anti guners even consider the collective nonsense spewing from their mouths.

    Blog comment and vote 2016

  18. No more than bringing bleach or a car or a knife or any other number of scary items.

    Really the most scary thing in your house is the people.

  19. Ignoring the fact that there are at least tens of thousands defensive gun uses more than true accidents and suicides does not make your supposition true Mr president.

  20. Theres a very slim chance your house can start on fire, so we install smoke detecters. Theres a slim chance someone may break into your home so we keep guns very simple. Rather have it, and not need it, than need it, and not have it!

  21. There are risks in life. Some can be avoided, some can be mitigated, some are accepted. Worry about your own risks and leave mine to me.

    • Exactly, which is why it is being pushed as a public health issue, because like those who don’t vaccinate, a person carrying a gun puts those who are not carrying at risk. See how the logic works?

      • Except if I choose to carry a firearm I willfully accept responsibility for any personal injury that may occur as a result of that choice and my own negligence. If I choose not to vaccinate I willfully spread disease without being responsible to anyone.

    • “…some risks in life….”

      Are you seriously thinking the majority of residents in this country do not believe they have a right to a life without risk, other than that they choose for themselves?

  22. Leftists don’t generally do well with logic so I try not to argue with them. A friendly debate will always turn into an angry argument when one party uses emotion to decide everything.

  23. Some clown I know takes it a step further. He claims that people who carry a gun in public, whether openly or concealed, are basically “punching him in the nose” every time they leave their home.

  24. 60 years od anecdotal experience growing up with em, raising my kids with them indicates that either its s very long fuse or the argument is a dud

  25. Of course it’s the other way around: those more likely be victims of tragedy are more likely to then own a gun.

  26. Refute? “fact” that a gun in the home is more likely to lead to tragedy (an accident or suicide) than be deployed to defend innocent life.”

    Maybe their words can be used against them?

    One could agree and say, thank goodness this is true!

    It proves how seldom the average American is faced with a self-defense situation where a firearm is required.

    We know suicide is a health related issue, unpredictable and proven to be nearly unstoppable. Suicide is possible without a firearm. True firearm accidents are quite rare. So then self-defense situations are lower than even the very rare firearm accident. This would support the long term data displaying the descending homicide rate and a more safe American society.

  27. Accidents involving guns in 2010, 606 people died, roughly 1 in 500,000. That’s a pretty poor time bomb. If it’s a suicide then it’s the person that should be described as a time bomb not the instrument of their own death.

  28. Prove my gun is a time bomb and I’ll happily turn it over to the SS, or ATF, “in due time” if you catch my drift.

  29. Well, President Analogy, apparently not carrying a gun is like wearing an “abuse me” sign, or at least it was for this woman. And it seems a number of women in Europe recently.

    So, women not carrying guns risk getting raped, groped and abused … happened once, so the risk applies to anyone.

    Also, letting a policeman near your dog is like asking for a goodby trip to the vet.

    At least some of the time,which means there’s risk all of the time, which means stay away from policemen. That’s your point?

  30. I’m sorry, I just can’t help myself…

    OK, so, occasionally a bad thing happens with dangerous things. This is why you can’t have dangerous things.

    (Also if those doctors didn’t want to get blown up, they should have stayed within out borders. When we make a mistake … it isn’t on.)

  31. By that logic, no one should have a car or a swimming pool!

    Moreover, the study they cote is only justifiable homicides. Few criminals die when guns are employed. Most cases the criminal flees when a gun is presented (no shots fired), or gets arrested when seeking treatment for gunshot wounds (Criminal is shot, but survives).

    They are just typical cherry-picking liberals who need to take their blinders off. Google the phrase “confirmation bias”. That is exactly how these libs think.

    Their argument against the rape victim sounds a lot like what got Evie Hudak a forced resignation in Colorado (the alternative being a recall election).

    They went full libtard man. Never go full libtard.

  32. Does anyone know if the animal that attacked that poor lady had a gun when it attached her? Obama seems to be assuming it used / need a gun. If it did not have gun Obama’s “argument” ascends to new levels of worthless.

  33. The only way to control this and allow people to protect themselves by the means possible to be efficient and effective is proper training and constant awareness of mental state in what is around you. You have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen for the same reason people have a firearm in their house somewhere you may never use it but it is there just in case

  34. Why would it be a bomb, we are safe ,legal, responsible gun owners. If anti gun nuts would spend one day shooting targets they would be hooked forever.

  35. Somewhere else in the firearms blogosphere I saw a comment that this reasoning is an example of the “ecological fallacy” (Wikipedia has an article if you’re curious). In a nutshell, you can’t reason from population statistics to individuals.

    Yes, as a matter of averages, having a firearm at home seems to put people at risk. But only if the home has certain risk factors:

    1. Somebody in the home is suicidal.
    2. Somebody in the home is an alcoholic or drug addict (intoxication and powerful tools don’t mix).
    3. Domestic violence
    4. Children have access to firearms and lack safety training.

    As others have noted, lots of us grew up with firearms in the home and the only thing that ever got shot were some tin cans.

  36. your gun is a curse not a blessing. Sooo….Obonzo and Hitlery are going to get rid of their armed guards?

  37. Answer:

    Aha! So you really are for total civilian disarmament!

    Because that is what it would take prevent death by suicide which is the main issue here. Any gun can kill a human being at point blank range to the head. All the nonscary bolt-action rifles and break open shotguns have killed loads of people. A boyscout’s snakecharmer shotgun would do the job just as well as an AR, AK, Tavor, etc. The “gun friendly state” argument does not cut it as even the states w/ the strictest gun laws still allow guns that would do the job.

  38. Lets follow the logic for a moment. If a gun is more likely to injure someone in an accident or used in suicide than defend an individual then we can assume we are extremely safe. Consider the number of accidents involving guns are minuscule and the suicide prevention network has stated while guns are effective in terms of suicide removing them would not avoid the suicide.

    Oh wait, there is the DOJ estimate of 55,000 defensive gun uses per year while others take the maximum up to 2.5 million. Even if you put suicides, homicides, and accidents in one category (which they do) it is still more likely a gun will be used to save a life than take one. Last I checked 55,000 is greater than 33,000, but I don’t think that’s common core math. Maybe they just don’t think the DOJ or CDC are reputable sources.

  39. I know of someone who has several guns, and tried to commit suicide. They didn’t use any of their guns. They went out to their garage, closed all the doors and windows, got in their car, then started it up and just sat there. Had it not been for a friend showing up unexpectedly, they’d have been successful. And before you ask, yes, their guns had to be removed from the home, but they have them back now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *