Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

But if guns were not in the house in the first place that means the chances of death and accidents are lessened even moreThat’s true, but here is the point of all of my stats. The increased danger by a gun in my house in negligible, as the number have shown. And that danger can be brought even lower by simply being responsible. The danger is certainly there, but there are many dangers out there and guns aren’t even at the top. Your more likely to drown. Alcohol is more likely to kill you. We aren’t talking about alcohol because we both value having it in our lives. We are talking about guns because only I value it in my life. But the reasoning you apply to justify me loosing my gun is equally applicable to other products, such as alcohol and pools. But people like those things. The gun homicide rate is pretty high. As are all crime rates in the US. Our jails are a revolving door and we cannot effectively disincentivize criminality. That fact is not justification for my gun to be taken from me. Switzerland and Finland are European countries with very high gun ownership (Though less than the US) and very low crime. That’s because guns aren’t the problem. Not there and not here. Crime is. Around 43% of households have guns. Those guns are rarely used in murder. Rather the murder rates come from inner cities, where guns are already significantly restricted and the people using them are already barred from having them. It is not reasonable to address gun violence by taking guns from 43% of the households when they aren’t the source of our problems. If guns were left lying around and had the same level of supervision that pools do, then there is a good chance that children dying by guns would increaseThere is a reason you will never hear a gun advocate say that gun owners should leave their guns lying around. Gun advocates are gun safety advocates. When states began requiring young hunters to take a safety course before receiving a hunting license, shooting accidents decreased significantly. It’s always gun and hunter enthusiasts who teach those classes. In my state it is always gun enthusiasts that provide the course required for a concealed carry permit, and they have denied to pass people they thought to be unsafe.It compares the number of homes with pools with the number of guns. The problem is that while almost all homes only have one pool while most homes with guns have more than one gunYes, and they concluded the danger of any given gun to any given pool. I didn’t do that though. I compared the households with guns compared to the households with a pool. I’m sure my findings appeared less significant than Levitt’s, but they nonetheless illustrated more danger from pools than from guns. Drowning has a 45% chance of death. That’s higher than the odds of death from being shot, even assaultively.There have been several more recent studies strongly indicating that not all child deaths by gun get reported as suchSince the CDC goes off official reports, that would mean a significant number of investigation into a shooting would have to get it wrong. I don’t know how a study could arrive at that conclusion. But if it were true, then our real problem is retarded investigators.It would be nice if the anti-gun control groups were not so afraid of what further research would showWe aren’t. Taking the data already available makes a strong enough case. Another study will only confirm my bias. Literally no one is blocking this kind of research. The lack thereof is more likely due to researches not wishing to be called unprofessional or dishonest, as will happen such a polarizing issue regardless of the outcome.Given what I just wrote, then the simplistic comparison done by Levitt is really not validGood thing I didn’t present his analysis. I found the greatest source of inaccuracy to be comparing number of guns rather than number of households with guns. I adjusted for that and the numbers still support my position.So what’s the point of all my stats? Well, I am using the same stats commonly used to make a case against gun rights. But I am providing some context to make a case for gun rights. Guns are dangerous, but let’s keep some perspective. Guns are used in murder and suicide, but my gun isn’t. The vast vast majority of guns are not. I don’t want to take away anyone’s alcohol, nor their pool, nor their dogs. I am simply pointing out that a consistent application of the logic used against gun rights would necessarily go against a number of things that people value.