Gun Control Myth O' The Week

  I've been a bit slack on keeping up with the Gun Control Myth O' The Week. I apologize for my laziness.

  "A firearm in the home is more dangerous to the owner than it is to a criminal, or home invader." That's what the media tells us that the "studies" show.

  Let's break down the actual facts about the studies.

  First of all, there are about two thousand counties in the United States. The researchers select one county, instead of using a state or nationwide average for their information gathering. I suspect that you could literally find any facts that you want when picking one county out of about 2,000. When you compare the places where the wealthy live to somewhere like Appalachia, you begin to see my point on how different areas vary in everything from income to crime rates.
  I consider using one small area out of the USA as gaming the system, or cooking the books. I'm sure that you have your own little euphemisms for BS.

  Secondly, suicides are the leading cause of gun deaths in America. This is the biggest factor regarding firearms being more dangerous to a homeowner than an intruder.
  It is probably true that someone is more likely to kill themselves with their own handgun than it is that they will use it to kill a home invader. What's overlooked is that firearms aren't the only means of committing suicide. It's also never mentioned that countries like Japan have a higher suicide rate than the US (even with their strict gun laws).
  I'll concede that if you're suicidal than your gun is probably more dangerous to you than a criminal. Of course we have about 80 million gun owners in America and the vast majority are not suicidal.

  So what about the homeowners that use their firearms to defend themselves?
 
  Most of them aren't counted. Only fatalities are counted in the research that most of the anti-gunners cite. If you kill an intruder, it ends up in the data. On the other hand, if 1,000 people in a county wound, or simply apprehend a home invader then it's not mentioned.
  Isn't that odd?

  That seems a bit unfair to me. I suppose that if your goal is giving the anti gun movement a research paper to quote from then the studies are a job well done. If the goal is to produce a legitimate study then I think it fails the test.
  That's just my opinion. MSNBC, CNN, countless politicians, and anti gunners apparently disagree since they constantly tell us how dangerous our firearms are to those that own them.

  Remember this when some talk about the need for the government to fund more research.

This is actually a superior write up on the topic. I'd recommend it.