Which number is higher; the number of lives protected by people who own guns or the number of lives lost?

Question

It's a serious question looking for hard statistics to support your answer. I don't know which is higher. Pro gun folks claim that owning a gun protects people from criminals - how many lives have been saved - what's an estimate?
Gun control advocates say that guns end up causing more loss of life through homicides and suicides. What are the numbers?

Answer 1

How can we know for sure?

How many people defend themselves with a gun and thus don't feel the need to call police? And how many lives did those people save?

Answer 2

The US has the highest gun ownership per capita. El Salvador has the highest gun murder rate, followed by Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Swaziland, Columbia, Brazil, and several other countries before reaching the US. But if you're looking for the murder rates per capita, the US would be way down on the list (below many of the European countries). Why? The US has a constitutional amendment protecting our right to guns. We use these guns to keep us safe. This is shown by how our crime rate (both violent crime and murder rate) are some of the lowest in the world. Other countries restrict guns so many of their citizens are left defenseless and that's why they have much higher crime rates (both violent crime and murder rate) than the US does.

Answer 3

Since crimes prevented by merely displaying a firearm and not discharging it are rarely if ever reported, it is impossible to compare frequency of the two events. You cannot compare a hard statistic, homicides and suicides, with an event that is immeasurable, crime prevention.

I can say from personal experience that I have owned and shot regularly many different firearms throughout my life and not one single time has a gun inspired me to commit or even contemplate committing a crime. I also know many gun owners (hunters, target shooters, collectors, etc) and not a single one has committed a grievous act with their firearms nor expressed the desire to do so.

If guns cause crime, mine are broke.

Answer 4

Maybe you should change your question to ask about people who CARRY guns, primarily police officers and armed forces. They save your bacon every day, by being prepared to use their weapons when necessary.

Private individuals typically don't carry, and most lawful owners have their guns for sport, not protection, otherwise they would be carrying them or at least have them loaded and ready to use. My small collection is all unloaded, locked up, and ammunition locked away separately. No one has been hurt in over half a century. I'll carry one if and when there is a likely need.

Answer 5

I would think that the number of lives protected by someone with a gun is higher. What we have is a government that is out of control and people who are actually educated to be terrified of guns. OK, fine, but isn't it time that people actually fight back? Once we no longer have guns, only those that SHOULDN'T HAVE GUNS WILL HAVE THEM. When will Americans start getting smart?

Answer 6

Good question but I have no stats and don't know if there would be any good ones available. I'm not sure anyone ever measured the number of lives saved with guns.

Answer 7

I don't care what the statistics say. I do know that the people who will be dis-armed are those who, like myself, have been legal about this and are registered.

If they're so worried about gun control, they should be going after those who aren't legal.

They leave our borders wide open with absolutely no intent to close them (yes, we've been lied to), thus allowing anything to be smuggled and including weapons and then turn around and take arms away from the law abiding citizens? I think NOT!

Answer 8

It doesn't really matter,every life that is saved by a gun counts just as much as any other. And perhaps more since a large number of the "gun deaths" are gang members,drug dealers etc killing each other. Want stats ask the justice dept or look up FBI stats,it doesn't matter to me. I'm not going to allow myself to be killed by a criminal,who will still be armed regardless of the law,just to help feed some morons idea of a utopian society. Of course if they break into my home I suppose I could always sneak up on them an chop them up with a very nice Cold Steel Katana I have,would that be preferable? Point is that the method of death is irrelevant,if people are going to kill each other they're gonna do it.

In addition do a google search,gundeaths per state and a very interesting thing comes up,a breakdown of gun deaths per state,California incidentally in 1996 7.72 gun deaths per 100,000 people, TX 5.58 gun deaths per hundred thousand.And DC was off the charts with 57 per hundred thousand! It fluctuates state by state,much of it is probably cultural rather than gun ownership unless you just choose to ignore certain states.Makes you wonder what they're teaching people in DC,that's for sure.For instance S. Dakota shows one of the lowest murder rates in the country with .58 per hundred thousand,yet has a very large gun ownership rate,perhaps because they teach people to be respectful and because the state doesn't have cities inhabited by large groups of what can only be described as barbarian thugs,like LA,DC,Detroit etc.



AD

Answer 9

Drew Blood said: "Dallas TX for example, you can still carry a gun. I wonder what the crime rate is in Dallas versus someplace like Los Angeles or Detroit?"

Dallas is a more dangerous city than Los Angeles and NYC at this time, unfortunately, but is still slightly safer than Detroit.

yetti, *more* people are killed in auto accidents annually than are killed by guns.

Answer 10

You will find gun homicide statistics easily using Google.
I'm not sure that you will find "number of lives protected" statistics so easily.