centralmaine.com: Pay No Attention to That Sexual Assault, Your Gun Puts You in Danger!

Mark Halle (courtesy pressherald.com)

“It’s natural in the event of a horrific crime to look for a way that it could have been prevented,” centralmaine.com‘s editorial board opines, “and it doesn’t get much more horrific than last week’s brutal, and seemingly random, assault of an elderly Waterville woman.” A sexual assault in her own home, I might add. [Perp above.] “But in the wake of the attack, Joe Massey, the city’s police chief, came to the wrong conclusion” . . .

“It’s one of those cases where you could make a good argument for citizens arming themselves,” Massey said four days after the assault. “Someone said, ‘A gun in hand is better than someone on the phone telling you police are on their way.’ In cases like this, you wish the homeowner had a weapon and was capable of defending themselves.”

That way of thinking may satisfy a very real human need to feel protected, and appeal to a certain sense of justice, but it also puts more people in danger.

And there it is. And here we go . . .

People may buy a weapon to protect themselves and their families against assaults, home invasions, or public mass shootings, but in reality — and thankfully — only a very small percentage of Americans will ever come face-to-face with those tragedies.

More likely, the presence of a gun in a household will make that household less safe.

Research has shown again and again that people who own guns or those who live in proximity to guns are more likely to die by firearm or commit suicide than people who do not.

I don’t need research to tell me that people who own guns are more likely to “die by firearm” or commit suicide with a gun than people without guns — in the same sense that I don’t need a study to prove that people who own cars are more likely to die in a car accident than people who don’t own cars.

I would like to read a study that lays out the odds of successfully using a gun for self-defense. The lowest estimate of defensive gun uses (DGUs) in the U.S. is 55k per year. If we define failure as the defender’s death, how many DGU’s fail? That stat would offer a far better indication of the risks of using a gun for self-defense (noting that the individual right to keep and bear arms does not depend on any risk calculation, personal or societal).

Here’s what’s really important: who were those people in these studies who “die by firearm” and are they like me?

There are subsets of gun owners, ranging from highly responsible, mentally balanced, well-adjusted gun owners all the way to completely irresponsible, mentally ill gun owners. Lumping all of them together, “spreading” the risk factor throughout the entire gun-owning population, and then asserting that everyone is at the same level of risk is entirely misleading. In fact, it’s a lie.

Gun owners get it. Sensibly enough, they say/think, “You’re not talking about me. I exercise my right to keep and bear arms without endangering myself or my family.” The anti-gun rights jihadis have a simple answer to this obvious disconnect between anti-gun rights statistical manipulation and gun owners’ personal experience: you’re in denial! Sure, you think you’re a responsible mentally balanced gun owner, they say, but . . .

. . . in most cases, gun owners are responsible until they are not, and it only takes a momentarily lapse to allow a child to pick up an unsecured gun and do themselves or others harm. Accidents happen, and when they happen around a firearm, they are often tragic.

It could happen to you! Or worse, a child! An innocent child! So we, the caring statists intellectuals at centralmaine.com, gently recommend that you don’t own a gun, despite the horrific [we’re not going to say sexual] assault on an unarmed elderly woman, chosen randomly. Like this:

But when an act of violence leads a police chief to say more people should be armed, it is important to point out that a weapon is more likely to be used against one’s own family than an intruder.

There’s your Big Lie (a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”): a self-defense gun is a liability, not an asset. Of course a firearm can be a liability, just as a kitchen knife can be a liability. But depending on personal circumstance, firearms ownership’s positive benefits far outweigh the potential dangers. Which is why so many Americans own them, despite the antis’ sanctimonious, transparent lies and distortions.

comments

  1. avatar Mark N. says:

    How many children did this elderly woman have living in her house? None you day? Hmm. And how many years did she survive without committing suicide? All THAT many? So why is it you think that if she had a gun it wold present an increased to anyone but an intruder? Hmm?

  2. avatar Jeffro says:

    So….anti’s lie. Through their lying liar holes. When their lips move. Of course I love you. Sure, I’ll respect you in the morning. I’ll pull out in time. The check is in the mail.

  3. avatar Joe R. says:

    The endangered “More people” can go F themselves. Maine has already done so.

    Big lberal_progressive_communist (D) fing up America state by state.

  4. avatar Ian in Transit says:

    CineSport auto-play adds are still a boon on this website.

    1. avatar Benzo says:

      “Adblocker” is free software and takes care of them nicely.

    2. avatar alex says:

      Boon or bane?

  5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Yes sir, they managed to cover all the gun-grabber talking points.

    Now let’s add a few additional talking points:
    (1) The odds of your firearm causing harm to anyone in your house is absolutely, precisely zero (not close to zero, ZERO) if you secure your firearms and handle them properly at all times.

    (2) It is exceedingly easy to secure your firearms at all times. You can keep your firearms in a quality safe. Or, you can keep a long gun on a rack near the ceiling where small children cannot access them. Or, you can keep a handgun in a holster that covers the trigger guard strapped to your hip.

    (3) It is exceedingly easy to handle your firearms properly at all times. Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, always keep your finger off the trigger (unless you are shooting at an attacker), and always make sure that the magazine and chamber are empty (inspect them visually) before handling, cleaning, practicing, etc.

    About suicides with firearms: a person who is determined to kill themselves can do it easily without a firearm. Suicide risk is independent of firearms and availability of a firearm does not increase nor decrease the risk of harm in your home from suicide.

    1. avatar pod says:

      Japan has a higher suicide rate than we do, and guns are pretty hard to come by in the island nation. So you can’t necessarily link suicide to firearms availability.

  6. avatar Hannibal says:

    Wow, he really took a sharp left turn away from reason.

  7. avatar Felix says:

    “It’s natural in the event of a horrific crime to look for a way that it could have been prevented.”

    Yes, like Sandy Hook and all the other gun-free zone spree shootings, where the gun grabbers can only think of expanding the gun-free zones.

  8. avatar Bob says:

    “There are subsets of minorities, ranging from highly responsible, mentally balanced, well-adjusted gun minorities all the way to completely irresponsible, mentally ill gun minorities. Lumping all of them together, “spreading” the risk factor throughout the entire minority population, and then asserting that everyone is at the same level of risk is entirely misleading. In fact, it’s a lie.” I could write out the same about homosexuals, and half a dozen other “fringe” groups.

    In nearly all those cases it would also be discriminatory and unacceptable. But somehow when applied to another group of people who make a choice, to own a firearm, its encouraged and acceptable.

    The anti-gun groups are the KKK equivalent of our particular civil right.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      At least he didn’t call them “mud races.” That is pretty much the most bigoted anti-gun screed on minorities since Bloomberg’s thing. Oh, the ‘good’ ones are alright, it’s all the other stereotypical wild-eyed degenerates we have to watch out for. We must all be treated like this cartoonish strawman character in order to ensure fictitious victims are ‘saved’ from themselves.

  9. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Of course, the author is preaching to the choir here. As to the anti-liberty article that is referenced, it helps to keep this in mind:

    The vast majority of anti-“anything” articles – anti-gun, anti-Jew, anti-soup – the subject is less important than the technique – the author will often assert three things fundamentally.

    1. Why you should FEAR the thing
    2. Why you should HATE the thing
    3. If you do not fear or hate it, why you should be ASHAMED

    This is a proven technique that goes back at least as far as Hitler’s Germany. Appealing to people’s EMOTIONS to sway their opinion is far more effective than appealing to people’s intellects especially when most of your “facts” are unsubstantiated, weak or simply made up out of thin air.

  10. avatar joe3 says:

    “I don’t need research to tell me that CRIMINALS or SUICIDAL people who own guns are more likely to “die by firearm” or commit suicide with a gun than people without guns…”

    /fixed it.

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    Amazing, isn’t it, that the same people who hate our guts are so deeply and touchingly concerned about our safety? I find myself thoroughly moved by their concern.

    My suggestion to people who think that a gun in their home will make them less safe is: don’t have a gun in your home. In fact, I don’t want you to have a gun in your home because I’m so concerned for your welfare.

    Just keep your fukcing hands off of my guns and we’ll get along real fine.

  12. avatar Rick in NH says:

    My grandmother lived in Oakland, ME (a suburb of Waterville), in the ’60’s and ’70’s. She rented space from her brother who was a gun collector. He was better armed than the local police, yet she was scared to death that she would be robbed or brutalized. Maine today is a safer place, but it still has its violent miscreants.

  13. avatar J says:

    Same liberal tripe about what is good for you. An elderly lady may or may not be capable of using a gun, but she should have the choice. Worst thing to do is create a gun-free zone where no criminal is deterred. Ban guns and you may elminate suicide by firearms, but you won’t eliminate suicide.

  14. avatar Jaffas says:

    Cars, airplanes, trucks, knives, bows and arrows, and guns all are capable among other things,,,of killing. They however in the possession of even basically responsible people DON’T.
    With the exception of transportation, all are capable also of being a deterrent in again responsible hands.
    None of the above do the damage without the help of humans.
    Law enforcement that I am in contact with hate gun free zones. They call them criminal opportunity zones.

  15. avatar Stuart K says:

    The real issue here is we have so many people who are capable of accepting what someone else tells them is good for them without any consideration on their part. I guess another is that they can vote.

    I might be ok with these folk refraining from carrying, for the rest of us.. KCCA

  16. avatar Mk10108 says:

    The bigger lie is LEO’s care about your safety.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Well, in this case it’s a LEO telling folks to tool up. Kinda goes against the narrative, huh?

  17. avatar Stuki Moi says:

    If I was retarded, i could probably reason that cops carry guns more often than San Francisco trustafarians, and are more likely to die from gunfire. So, statisticamelly, cops are less safe because they carry guns. So, they should stop carrying them. It feels good to be retarded. Everyone should be. And heck, the way this hellhole is going, pretty soon everyone will be.

    1. avatar Jaffas says:

      I have read a lot of comments on various subjects here and have put more than my two cents worth in so guilt lies in my direction as well for what I am about to say.
      There have some valuable discussions on here but a lot of just venting sometimes pointless opinions. What I am wondering is where does all this ” discussion ” lead us???
      I’ll stop here.

  18. avatar JoeVK says:

    If self-defense guns are a liability, then why cops do need them? If they’re so terrible, then why does every anti and/or politician parade across the country with armed guards?

  19. avatar fishydude says:

    These morons always lump in suicides because their argument doesn’t work without it. They ignore all the data from strict gun control countries show that availability of guns doesn’t impact suicide. In Australia after the massive gun confiscation suicide number stayed the same. The only thing that changed was the method.
    Guns are nearly impossible to get legally in Japan but they have a suicide rate higher than the US.
    People that want to off themselves do it. They do not ‘attempt’ suicide in a cry for help.
    The only injury the guns in my home have caused is a pinched finger from improper slide rack technique.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email