Was just pondering the point while waiting for the system at work to come back up.

I am not sure if any kind of science can be levied here, but I think it could make for an interesting debate?

There is a free lolli-pop for all replies ;-)

Thanks,

Q

my vote is they have taken more than saved

Yup, taken a lot more than they have saved.

Pity. They were a great invention.

Ahhh the timeless debate. This has been argued forever. I assume we're discounting guns used in a military context and are focusing on civilian use of firearms. That being the case there are inherent problems in collecting meaningful data.

First, nearly 100% of the time a person is killed with a firearm the data is collected. A body is found, cause of death is readily determined, chalk one up in the 'lives taken' column. Not so for a 'life saved'. Clearly, how often does someone pull a gun, thwart an attack and report that? And if it is reported is it collected as 'lifes saved by firearm'?

Arguably, take the case of a gang banger. How many times (totlal) has he pulled his weapon? Has he killed someone every time? Or is it more likely that he backed someone off more often than he killed someone? Forget that he's a 'bad guy' unless we're counting firearm use in a subjective moral license context.

Second, if the presumption is that more people (again we're talking civilian use here) are killed than saved, then more guns are raised and fired lethally than raised period. An unlikely assumption.

Third, if we consider police and security professionals in this discussion then the argument is a no-brainer. Far more saved than lost.

I believe that the significant under-reporting of people defending themselves with firearms tends to skew the public perception.

a daft question

first off how do you tabulate " i shot him because .. "

or other take one life to save another situations

the " problem " of who gets to choose whoes life was more important - is worth debating - but the OP question - is IMHO daft

also there is the situation where NOTHING happens - and conflict is avoided because one side is armed to the teeth

i have personally been there , done that

a vicious brawl with bats , knives and such can be lethal - but what if just drawing a FOBG makes the otherside blink , and bavk down ?

guns have definatly killed more people than saved, thats there perpose. however, i think that they are nessesary. yah kinda confusing.

Let's think in broader terms, as I believe that's the original intent of this post.

What of the guns that saved Britain?
Or the guns that saved the survivors of the Holocaust?
The guns which saved France?
The guns which saved Russia?
The guns which saved Israel?
The guns which saved Iran?

Like has been previously mentioned, it's easy to tell when a life is taken by a gun, but much harder to show empirically when a life has been saved.
In the USA, statistics show that approximately 2-2.5 million crimes are prevented annually by gun owners, though how many of those resulted in a life being saved is unknown.

It's easier to find statistics for how many people were killed by handguns .. since every death is recorded. It's also easy to catch the justified homicide defenses since they are also tracked.

What is hard to quantify is the robber that is interrupted by a homeowner with a gun ... if he ran away and wasn't caught ... did he have a knife, would he have used it if the owner was unarmed and tried to resist?? There are too many variables to know for sure how many lives were saved but isn't 1 enough??

I care not how many lives were saved or taken. Only that I have the ability to defend my life if the situation presents itself.

You could round up all the guns in the US but that would just leave the criminals and street gangs with the guns because most of the people have registered guns. I don't think the guy holding up 7-11 bothered to register his gun with DOJ.