Shouldn’t we be arming criminals? Self magazine seems to indicate so…


Self Magazine is telling women about the danger of owning a gun using well-worn statistics.

Living in a home with a gun doubles your risk both of being murdered and of committing suicide, evidence from the 2011 analysis indicates. Living in one of the states with the highest rates of household gun ownership makes you and your kids seven times more likely to die in a gun accident. And merely living in the United States makes you 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in the other 25 highest-income nations.

See? If you have a gun, you are twice as likely to be murdered and seven times as likely to die in a gun accident. Wow. That’s pretty deadly, isn’t it? I mean, we are always hearing numbers regarding how much more likely it is that you will be a victim of your gun rather than a beneficiary of its self defense value.

This is why I am advocating giving criminals guns. If we arm criminals, they will all be dead due to murder, suicide and accidents in no time. In fact, they will be dead much faster than if they don’t have guns. You know it’s true. A 2001 Self Magazine analysis indicates it.

So let’s get busy arming the bad guys for a safer world.

Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Shouldn’t we be arming criminals? Self magazine seems to indicate so…

  1. R.D. Walker says:

    Seriously, that gun ownership makes you and your kids seven times more likely to die in a gun accident is meaningful? Not really.

    Yeah, I suppose your odds of dying in a gun accident are more likely in the presence of guns than in a place with no guns present. If you fly in airplanes, you are more likely to die in a plane crash than if you don’t fly. Hardly profound, is it?

    Still, what are the chances, if you aren’t an idiot, of dying in a gun accident? Infinitesimally small. Do you know what seven times infinitesimally small equals? Infinitesimally small.

  2. R.D. Walker says:

    Set #1 is gun owners which includes two subsets: Subset A, people who use guns to commit crimes and Subset B, those who don’t.

    Set #2 is non gun owners none of which, by definition, use guns to commit crimes.

    Theorem: Those who use guns to commit crimes are far more likely to to die by gun fire than those who don’t.

    Corollary: Only those in Set #1 use guns to commit crimes and are, therefore, more likely to be killed.

    Conclusion: Those in Set #1 – gun owners – are, on average, more likely to be killed than those in Set #2 – non gun owners.

    This tells us absolutely, positively NOTHING about Subset B of Set #1 who, very likely, no more likely to be killed than those in Set #2.

    In other words, statistics lie.

    • Notamobster says:

      These points don’t even consider the 230,000 times annually that possessing a firearm – potentially saves a life.

  3. R.D. Walker says:

    Swimming across the Mississippi is very dangerous and, statistically, you have a 1 in 120 chance of drowning when you attempt it. That may very well be true.

    Still, if you are at the headwaters at Lake Itasca, the river is 15 feet across and ten inches deep. It is still true that, on average, swimming across the Mississippi is dangerous, but the headwaters are not an average part of the Mississippi.

    Statistics lie.

  4. Uke says:

    Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    • Doc says:

      …I believe we should OUTLAW STATISTICS! BAN ‘EM! Form a Senate committee! Henry Waxman can chair it! THIS STATISTICLE MADNESS HAS GOT TO STOP!

  5. RJ says:

    I can only add…. :-) hot chick with shotgun…

  6. rj says:

    Hotter than a two dollar pistol for sure… I’d say even up with Angelina though….. smooookin

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *