Firearms, self defense & qualifcations/training

[Gordon Nore]

Originally Posted by thardey
Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.112 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.

A totally unsubstantiated claim.
There is no documentation mechanism in use here. That number comes from a self-reporting survey. Identical methodology will also tell you that roughly 5 million Americans have been abducted by aliens.

Fact: if you publish enough bad statistical analysis together in one place, people will believe it.

The stat posted above caught my eye too. America is not under terrorist rule. It is not at war at home. And yet, 6500 times a day, a good guy, in fear of his or her safety, pulls a gun and at least shows it to a bad guy. Assuming this to be true, what's the good side? Where's the upside to guns coming out every thirteen seconds?

I'm really not trying to insult responsible, legal gun owners. But this is kind of creepy that somebody actually published this as the 'good news' and that it brings a twinkle to anyone's eye.

15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives

What did the other 84.4% say? "It was just cool watching the perp shart himself."

 

[elder999]

A totally unsubstantiated claim.

There have been a dozen or so major surveys taken on this topic. The values returned run from 20% to 70%. The big outlier is John Lott's "survey" (around which there is substantial debate as there is a fair amount of evidence that it was made up to suit his purposes) that put the number above 90%.

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

Seen here, with, I might add, substantial annotation as to sources.

A rather substantive source that they attribute on that page is a study for the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University, entitledArmed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self Defense with a Gun. This can be seen in its entirety here.

It states, briefly:

Eleven of the surveys permitted the computation of a reasonable adjusted estimate of [Defensive Gun Use] frequency. Two surveys for which estimates could not be produced were the Cambridge Reports and the Time/ CNN. Neither asked the [Defensive Gun Use] question of all [respondents]; thus, it would be sheer speculation what the responses would have been among those [respondents] not asked the [Defensive Gun Use] question. All of the eleven surveys yielded results that implied over 700,000 uses per year.”

The surveys indicated are available in table form. (Table 1). THey indicate that defensive gun use occurs between 760,000 and over 3,000,000 times per year. Keeping in mind that "defensive use" could merely be brandishing, rather than firing, this is not at all unreasonable. One only has to look at the monthly collection of news stories in the Armed Citizen page in the NRA's Rifleman magazine to recognize this.

There are, of course, other statistice. The United States Department of Justice puts the annual average much lower:

Average annual number of victimizations
in which victims used firearms to defend
themselves or their property
________________________________________
Attacked Threatened
Total offender offender
________________________________________
All crimes 82,500 30,600 51,900
Total violent crime 62,200 25,500 36,700

With injury 12,100 7,300 4,900
Without injury 50,000 18,200 31,800

Theft, burglary,
motor vehicle theft 20,300 5,100 15,200

Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Includes
victimizations in which offenders were unarmed. Excludes
homicides.

*In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
or armed with weapons other than firearms. On average between 1987
and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime
victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who
also had a firearm. (Because the NCVS collects victimization data
on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for
self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms.
Questionnaire revisions introduced in January 1993 will permit
separate consideration of police and civilian firearm cases.)

With, of course, a variety of caveats for their data. Seen here

Of course, we could always just use those deadly hot dogs to defend ourselves....:lfao:

 

[thardey]

Originally Posted by thardey
Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.112 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.

A totally unsubstantiated claim.

There is no documentation mechanism in use here. That number comes from a self-reporting survey. Identical methodology will also tell you that roughly 5 million Americans have been abducted by aliens.

Source:Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (The source document's source document.)
The burden of proof is on you, go for it.

Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

Fact: if you publish enough bad statistical analysis together in one place, people will believe it.

There have been a dozen or so major surveys taken on this topic. The values returned run from 20% to 70%. The big outlier is John Lott's "survey" (around which there is substantial debate as there is a fair amount of evidence that it was made up to suit his purposes) that put the number above 90%.

Source:Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Again, the burden of proof is on you, go for it.

Also, please don't ignore this one as well:

Fact: When using guns in self-defense:
• 83% of robbery victims were not injured.
• 88% of assault victims were not hurt.
• 76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot.
National Crime Victimization Survey, 1979-1985

I Believe that "survey" is by the US Dept. Of Justice.

You can't quote statistics that only suport your position, then simply dismiss other statistics when you don't like them. We either use them, or we don't. I'm not qualified to judge statistics, and I didn't attack yours. I simply looked at them from a different perspective. I ask for the same respect.

Or, put another way, I could attack your statistics, but we wouldn't get anywhere. It would simply degenerate into some sort of name calling. Unless we can get some expert statistician in here, I'm not qualified to argue how the statistics were figured, I just have my ideas on how to interpret them.

Either way, my original point still stands: Gun deaths are vastly overrated, and the defensive uses of them are vastly underrated.

I remember back when I was a kid there was a big push on to make kids safer against poisonous materials in the house. (Anyone remember the "smiley face" and "green nasty face" stickers that they passed out?)

I haven't heard anything since then. Are we still investing time and money to make kids safe from poisonous household cleaners? Why don't we ban them! They're not even constitutionally protected! Or maybe they should require all new cabinets to be installed with keyed child-safety locks so that they detergents can be kept from the kids?

When you drop your kids off at a friends house, are you more likely to ask them how they store their guns, or how they store their chemicals?
(I can tell you, I ask about the chemicals, and the pool!)

It's simple: Guns were designed to kill people, unlike swimming pools, detergents, cars, horses, hotdogs, and bicycles. Therefore, it's a much more emotionally-attached argument behind them. But, guns were also designed to protect people.

 

[thardey]

The stat posted above caught my eye too. America is not under terrorist rule. It is not at war at home. And yet, 6500 times a day, a good guy, in fear of his or her safety, pulls a gun and at least shows it to a bad guy. Assuming this to be true, what's the good side? Where's the upside to guns coming out every thirteen seconds?

I'm really not trying to insult responsible, legal gun owners. But this is kind of creepy that somebody actually published this as the 'good news' and that it brings a twinkle to anyone's eye.

Yeah, 6,500 people a day didn't become victims when they could have.

You're right, that does give me a warm glow.

What did the other 84.4% say? "It was just cool watching the perp shart himself."

Perhap "probably" instead of "almost certainly?"

Again, this could be a simple as allowing the would-be attacker to see your holster.

I know one man who "almost certainly" protected himself, and his wife from an attacking group of thugs by simply unzipping his fanny pack. He had a gun inside, and they figured that out, right quick, and left him alone.

It doesn't have to involved sticking the barrel between their eyes and cursing them out, like in Hollywood.

Another thing -- if you do "brandish" your weapon to scare off an attacker, call the police to report it ASAP. I know of one guy who did that, while out of cell phone range (he was protecting his six-year old son). The group of teenagers drove back to town first, and called the cops on him.

Guess who had to go to court? Yep, the guy had to answer for his "threatening behavior."

 

[KP.]

You can't quote statistics that only suport your position, then simply dismiss other statistics when you don't like them.

In your post you make two statements separated by only a few lines of text. You state that

Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

and

76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot.

Now, wanna explain how that works?

We either use them, or we don't. I'm not qualified to judge statistics, and I didn't attack yours.

I wouldn't mind if you did -- i can point to studies that back them up, and to the critiques that followed.

Those papers that are oft quoted which appear in the various criminology journals all more or less fall from the pens of a few well publicized, but highly criticized individuals, such as Lott. And they are criticized by folks who know what they're talking about.

The National Academy of Science put together a 15 person panel to look at the question. You can find their work here:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881

The long and the short of it is that Lott is wrong wrong.

Even Gary Kleck, who believes strongly that armed defense is useful and for that reason gun ownership is a good thing, stood against Lott when it came to Lott's conclusions on concealed carry laws:

Lott and Mustard argued that their results indicated that the laws caused substantial reductions in violence rates by deterring prospective criminals afraid of encountering an armed victim. This conclusion could be challenged, in light of how modest the intervention was. The 1.3% of the population in places like Florida who obtained permits would represent at best only a slight increase in the share of potential crime victims who carry guns in public places. And if those who got permits were merely legitimating what they were already doing before the new laws, it would mean there was no increase at all in carrying or in actual risks to criminals. One can always speculate that criminals' perceptions of risk outran reality, but that is all this is--a speculation. More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis.

 

[Deaf Smith]

In the light of what has happened in India for the last three days, several blogers are now pointed out an armed populance (CCW) would have made it much harder for them to take over so many places.

A case in point is Israel. Such an armed takeover would have been almost impossible.

Here in Texas accidenal deaths by guns is fairly rare. Hunting accidents mainly (last one fell out of a tree and got impailed on the deer feeder stake..) Murders do happen with guns here just as they do with knives, clubs, choakings, beatings, and other ways that have been available since Cain and Able. There also, happly, have been many good CHL holders who have stopped robberies and murders, something unheard of in gun banning countries.

And KP, the "92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot" includes firing and not firing the gun. The "76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot" involves just not firing the shot. So, as you can see, the higher figure includes both, the lower figure just the ones not firing.

Deaf

 

[thardey]

In your post you make two statements separated by only a few lines of text.

Now, wanna explain how that works?


I wouldn't mind if you did -- i can point to studies that back them up, and to the critiques that followed.

Those papers that are oft quoted which appear in the various criminology journals all more or less fall from the pens of a few well publicized, but highly criticized individuals, such as Lott. And they are criticized by folks who know what they're talking about.

The National Academy of Science put together a 15 person panel to look at the question. You can find their work here:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881

The long and the short of it is that Lott is wrong wrong.

Even Gary Kleck, who believes strongly that armed defense is useful and for that reason gun ownership is a good thing, stood against Lott when it came to Lott's conclusions on concealed carry laws:

Have you looked at my source?

Once you do, you'll see how it is laid out, and that it is not a study, but rather a collection of facts related to various ideas about gun ownership.
It contains hundreds of different sources -- it quotes them, and then cites them. It doens't analyze them.

What I did was to quote my source, with the understanding that if you wanted to question it, you would look at it, and then see where they got their information from.

I don't even know who this "Lott" character is, but I traced one of the quoted sources to Gary Kleck. Lott's name hasen't come up yet.

Take a look at www.gunfacts.org it will save us both a lot of time.

 

[KP.]

H

Take a look at www.gunfacts.org it will save us both a lot of time.

I'm not sure how looking at a "domain for sale" page will help

The NAS study found that guns do nothing to help reduce crime. The 15 person panel came to that conclusion by doing a comprehensive examination of available peer reviewed studies.

 

[Tez3]

On the subject of the Mumbai attacks and people saying that if people had been armed it wouldn't have happened. The most obvious thing there is that if Indians had been armed the attack would have been planned in a totally different way! Perhaps suicide bombs or other explosives devices or a 9/11 type attack instead of gunmen so it's not a good argument for arming people.

 

[elder999]

I'm not sure how looking at a "domain for sale" page will help .

I think he meant http://www.gunfacts.info/

 

[Deaf Smith]

On the subject of the Mumbai attacks and people saying that if people had been armed it wouldn't have happened. The most obvious thing there is that if Indians had been armed the attack would have been planned in a totally different way! Perhaps suicide bombs or other explosives devices or a 9/11 type attack instead of gunmen so it's not a good argument for arming people.

They already have suicide bombings in India and in Pakistan. THAT kind of thing happens quite often there now. This, a takeover, is what is new.

It's also why armed takeovers don't happen much anymore in Israel as even many school teachers are armed.

Deaf

 

[Tez3]

They've had a few shootings in India before, the Amritsar temple was one, there have been shootings between Sikhs and Hindus, Hindus and Muslims and Muslims and Sikhs. India and Pakistan have already been at war in 1965 and 1971, it's nearly broken out a few times since, most notable in 1999.
There's been caste massacres as well as regional ones, in August 14 protestors were shot dead by the Indian army in Kashmir.
India is a troubled and violent place, this attack in Mumbai has attracted world attention, the other attacks tend not to as they aren't targetting Americans and British.

 

[thardey]

I'm not sure how looking at a "domain for sale" page will help

The NAS study found that guns do nothing to help reduce crime. The 15 person panel came to that conclusion by doing a comprehensive examination of available peer reviewed studies.

Oops, sorry, thanks for the correction, Elder.

We will all agree that guns are dangerous. More specifically, guns are powerful.

There will never be easy answers about who should possess that amount of power.

Stupid people who don't respect the power of any firearm, and who don't take responsibility for that kind of power should not own guns.

Smart people who do are opposed to having amount of power, whether for religious, philosophical, or personal reasons should not own guns. Both for thier own conciences' sake, and for the sake of others around them.

However, power should never be limited to one group of people, whether the ruling class, the criminal class, or the rich class. As part of that, that means that people have to have their rights to that power protected, even if it makes others uncomfortable.

The Bill of rights is more than just about rights, but it is, along with the rest of the constitution, about the distribution of power.

When anything powerful is not given its proper respect, people will be hurt. But we can't enforce that without upsetting the proper distribution of power, therefore, we have to live with that risk.

However, in the US, gun control only affects the "common" class of the population. Gun control would force more power to the government, to allow them to enforce the gun control, and it would not affect the criminal class, who would have guns regardless.

So, the question ends up being a very personal one: Is it worth the risk? For myself, and others, the answer is "yes, for me the benefits outweigh my perceived risk of having a gun accessible." For some people, the answer is "no, the risk of having a gun accessible is too dangerous for the benefits."

But it has to be, and it has to remain, a peronal choice. And we have to accept the price of allowing others to have that choice.


As far as the presence of guns lowering crime, I have to be honest. I don't think it works. Especially if we're talking about concealed carry.

Maybe it is disturbing, but I don't carry a gun for the good of the community. I don't carry to lower crime in general. I carry a gun for myself, and my family. No, I am not expecting to chase the criminals out of America with my little 'ol .45. I just want to chase them as far as next door. What my next door neighbor choses to do is up to him. All I need to do is to be less of a target than the next guy. The next guy is on his own.

Fortunately, I know my next door neigbor is also armed, so it's his neighbor that may become the prey. I hope not. I would like my street as a whole to be less of a target than the street next to us. I would like my neighborhood to be less of a target than the next neighborhood. Same for my city, my county, my state, my country, etc.

But it's not my responsibility to protect my whole street, and that's a good thing. It is my responsibility to protect my house, and my family. I choose to do that in a certain, legal way, that doesn't intrude on other's rights. However the next guy chooses to handle his responsibility is up to him.

 

[Gordon Nore]

thardey,

You make some really unique points that I usually don't hear when gun rights come up for discussion.

Stupid people who don't respect the power of any firearm, and who don't take responsibility for that kind of power should not own guns.

And, alas, as you have also pointed out, smart/stupid can't be legislated.

Maybe it is disturbing, but I don't carry a gun for the good of the community. I don't carry to lower crime in general. I carry a gun for myself, and my family. No, I am not expecting to chase the criminals out of America with my little 'ol .45. I just want to chase them as far as next door. What my next door neighbor choses to do is up to him. All I need to do is to be less of a target than the next guy. The next guy is on his own.

I think your statement is refreshingly honest. I've nothing invested in debating gun rights with Americans; however, the subject comes up here north of the fortieth once in a while. I grow ever tired of the idea that my neighbour keeps a gun in his kitchen drawer to protect me. He keeps it there for himself.

 

[KP.]

The Bill of rights is more than just about rights, but it is, along with the rest of the constitution, about the distribution of power.

The Bill of Rights was also written in a very different age. When the second amendment was penned, the purpose of arms was precisely to ensure that the population had in their possession the means to oppose the government should the need arise.

But weapons which are effective at doing that are no longer allowed to be owned by the public, and for good reason. A small canon and a couple of dozen muzzle loaders no longer represents a significant show of force.

Now, I fully respect the SCOTUS ruling on the interpretation that the second amendment is a personal right. I disagree that a handgun represents "arms" in anyway that meaningfully represents the intent of the amendment authors.

Add in the reality that much of the lethality of American crime results in the easy availability of handguns does represent a real social problem.

Now, that problem is largely theoretical in those areas largely protected from the reality of violent crime -- largely white suburban neighborhoods don't tend to see much in the way of violent crime, yet white middle class males represent the vast majority of conceal carry permits across the nation. However, for those to whom the problem is not theoretical, it is clear that hand guns are a problem -- and not merely in terms of the small number of crime victims. They are a problem because the psychological impact on the neighborhoods involved lowers moral and causes suburban flight of the most economically needed community members. The publicity of such events impacts the desire of outsiders to invest in the economic future of such neighborhoods. The combined economic and psychological effects makes it that much harder on the citizenry, and tends to drive the crime rate. It is a vicious cycle.

Now, there are no 'easy' answers, but the simple reality is that the easy availability of hand guns are a part of the problem. They aren't the biggest problem, eliminating them isn't some magic bullet solution. But to ignore the impact is as naive as suggesting crime would go away by removing handguns.

However, in the US, gun control only affects the "common" class of the population. Gun control would force more power to the government, to allow them to enforce the gun control, and it would not affect the criminal class, who would have guns regardless.

While guns would still be present (after all anyone with a drill press or lathe can make a one shot pistol) the idea that they would remain in the criminal population in anything close the current levels is simply not particularly respectful of other examples of disarmament efforts around our world.

But it has to be, and it has to remain, a peronal choice. And we have to accept the price of allowing others to have that choice.

It has to be that at present as that is the current state of our laws. It need not remain that way, and the discussion around if it should remain that is rarely held in anything resembling reasoned discourse -- from those on either side of the debate.

As far as the presence of guns lowering crime, I have to be honest. I don't think it works. Especially if we're talking about concealed carry.

That has been the finding of the vast majority of research into that very question.

But when it comes to the question of if guns reduce crime, the answer should be obvious -- of the first world nations we are the most heavily armed, but a wide, wide margin. Yet we have a significantly higher violent crime rate. Our murder rate is around 0.045 per 1,000 citizens. By contrast, England, Spain, Germany, New Zealand and other countries with far fewer guns have murder rates below 0.015 per 1,000. Even though we imprison far more of our population.

Is the contention really that without guns our murder rate would be even higher?

But let's assume that it is true that guns have a net positive effect on violent crime. Then let's look at the ratio of gun homicides to all homicides. If the US is lower than those other nations, then there is good reason to suspect that gun ownership actually reduces murder rates.

US .036 / .042 = .85

UK .0015 / .014 = .10

But maybe it really reduces other violent crimes?

Rapes, the US sees about 3 times the per capita rate as the UK.
Robberies, the US is abou 11% lower than the UK (1.4 per 1,000 compared to 1.57 per 1,000).
Assault is nearly identical at right about 7.5 per 1,000 for both, with the US just slightly higher.

The US sees about 20% less property crime than the UK

The US sees about 1.4 robberies per 1,000 people while the UK sees about 1.6 per 1,000.

What it comes down to is simple -- guns are about power, and the presence of guns does not reduce crime. If it did, we'd be better than other nations in terms of personal safety.

If guns make us safer from crime, we should be the safest nation on earth. But compared to our economic peers, we're clearly not.

 

[thardey]

The Bill of Rights was also written in a very different age. When the second amendment was penned, the purpose of arms was precisely to ensure that the population had in their possession the means to oppose the government should the need arise.

But weapons which are effective at doing that are no longer allowed to be owned by the public, and for good reason. A small canon and a couple of dozen muzzle loaders no longer represents a significant show of force.

"A small cannon and a couple of dozen muzzle loaders" never did represent a significant show of force. It took a lot more than that to overcome the Government that the US resisted. Then, as now, the military had access to weapons that the common man legally did not. That's not a reason to ban the rest.

The right to own a firearm was, and is seen, as "Self-evident." If it wasn't in our Bill of Rights, it would still be our right. It may not even be legal, but we will always have the right to the means to defend ourselves, either from predators, or the Government.

That's why, in any state that I know of, using a gun, or any weapon, in self defense is against the law. (Yes, you read that right.) However, it can be justified under certain, very narrow circumstances. That is because it is self-evident that we have the right to defend ourselves. Exactly what kind of weapon that gives us a right to is a moving target throughout time.

Now, I fully respect the SCOTUS ruling on the interpretation that the second amendment is a personal right. I disagree that a handgun represents "arms" in anyway that meaningfully represents the intent of the amendment authors.

So . . . are you saying that handguns are too anemic to qualify as "arms?" Are you saying that we should have the right to something more powerful, like machine guns and grenade launchers? Because you're probably right. I wouldn't turn to a handgun first, if for some reason the Government totally fell apart and became something akin to what the Founding Fathers resisted, I would grab my hunting rifles, and my shotgun, and head for the hills. If I was out to resist some sort of hypothetical government, I would need access to anti-tank weapons, and anti-arcraft weapons. (BTW, I would still carry a sidearm, and a knife.)

But I don't think that's what you're saying. But that's where the logic leads.

Add in the reality that much of the lethality of American crime results in the easy availability of handguns does represent a real social problem.

Now, that problem is largely theoretical in those areas largely protected from the reality of violent crime -- largely white suburban neighborhoods don't tend to see much in the way of violent crime, yet white middle class males represent the vast majority of conceal carry permits across the nation.

And, that's not suggesting anything to you?

However, for those to whom the problem is not theoretical, it is clear that hand guns are a problem -- and not merely in terms of the small number of crime victims. They are a problem because the psychological impact on the neighborhoods involved lowers moral and causes suburban flight of the most economically needed community members. The publicity of such events impacts the desire of outsiders to invest in the economic future of such neighborhoods. The combined economic and psychological effects makes it that much harder on the citizenry, and tends to drive the crime rate. It is a vicious cycle.

Prison does all that, and more.

Since most gangs where I live are originally based in Prison, and the support system that keeps those gangs supplied, and, of course, Prison makes it hard to get a job afterward, and affects the families, making them poorer, meaning the children of prisoners are more likely to go to prison, and that is a viscious cycle on its own, why don't we eliminate prison? Prison obvously isn't enough of a deterrent, and it ends up ruining lives, so why not get rid of it? Then there would be no prison gangs, and therefore less crime! Plus, we wouldn't have to worry about the innocent suffering caused by mistakes in sending the wrong people to prison! (I Actually know more people in prison, than have been shot.)

(of course, I'm kidding.) Unless I'm reading your argument wrong, this is the conclusion it takes me to.


This conversation started about guns in holy places. There was at least one law placed in the Bible because of "The hardness of men's hearts." Probably many more. It would be great to not need prison anymore. It would be great not to need guns, or knives (except for cooking), or any kind of weapon. But I'm convinced that humanity as a whole will always have people who are "hard-hearted" and who will attempt to make prey out of other people. Because of that, there are things that have to be done, which we don't like, to counter that.

Now, there are no 'easy' answers, but the simple reality is that the easy availability of hand guns are a part of the problem. They aren't the biggest problem, eliminating them isn't some magic bullet solution. But to ignore the impact is as naive as suggesting crime would go away by removing handguns.


While guns would still be present (after all anyone with a drill press or lathe can make a one shot pistol) the idea that they would remain in the criminal population in anything close the current levels is simply not particularly respectful of other examples of disarmament efforts around our world.

As long as there is a market, there will be somebody to provide for it. Yes, stricter gun laws will reduce the numbers of guns on the streets, and it will reduce the access criminals have to guns. But proportionately, it would affect law-abiding citizens much, much more.

It has to be that at present as that is the current state of our laws. It need not remain that way, and the discussion around if it should remain that is rarely held in anything resembling reasoned discourse -- from those on either side of the debate.

Again, that personal choice is a "Self-evident right" regardless of the law. The Law needs to form itself around that right, not the other way around. If it were absolutely illegal to own any form of personal firearm. (Which would be very extreme, indeed) it would still be my right, and my personal choice to have one.

That has been the finding of the vast majority of research into that very question.

But when it comes to the question of if guns reduce crime, the answer should be obvious -- of the first world nations we are the most heavily armed, but a wide, wide margin. Yet we have a significantly higher violent crime rate. Our murder rate is around 0.045 per 1,000 citizens. By contrast, England, Spain, Germany, New Zealand and other countries with far fewer guns have murder rates below 0.015 per 1,000. Even though we imprison far more of our population.

Is the contention really that without guns our murder rate would be even higher?

Again, I'm not out to reduce the crime in the US, or even Oregon, or even my own city. I'm out to reduce crime against myself, and my family. No disarmament program out there, no amount of police funding, and no prison rehabilitation system will be as effective as a personal firearm carried in my holster (Which is, statistically, the safest place to have it.)

But let's assume that it is true that guns have a net positive effect on violent crime. Then let's look at the ratio of gun homicides to all homicides. If the US is lower than those other nations, then there is good reason to suspect that gun ownership actually reduces murder rates.

US .036 / .042 = .85

UK .0015 / .014 = .10

But maybe it really reduces other violent crimes?

Rapes, the US sees about 3 times the per capita rate as the UK.
Robberies, the US is abou 11% lower than the UK (1.4 per 1,000 compared to 1.57 per 1,000).
Assault is nearly identical at right about 7.5 per 1,000 for both, with the US just slightly higher.

The US sees about 20% less property crime than the UK

The US sees about 1.4 robberies per 1,000 people while the UK sees about 1.6 per 1,000.

What it comes down to is simple -- guns are about power, and the presence of guns does not reduce crime. If it did, we'd be better than other nations in terms of personal safety.

If guns make us safer from crime, we should be the safest nation on earth. But compared to our economic peers, we're clearly not.

I'm not sure if you're trying to convince me, or someone else, but I've never argued that point.

I'm out to make my house an unappetizing target. The risks outweigh the benefits. I would prefer if my whole neighborhood was less appetizing than others. I would prefer if my whole City was an unappetizing target. Same for my State. I don't hold out hope for my country: it's too big. Eventually, the theives are going to find their target. That's why guns won't reduce crime overall. Thieves will be thieves, and they're not going to leave the country to do it.

I do live in a mostly white, middle-class surburban neighborhood, but this is not a "theoretical problem." And it is not clear that hanguns are the issue.

We have a problem here: it's called Meth. Home invasion robberies are on the rise. So far, the majority of the robberies have been "friends of friends" who strike at houses that are known to be unarmed. About four months ago the richest, "safest" neighborhood was hit hard by a home invasion robbery. A relative of the owner was one of the group that decided to rob it. The man was unarmed, and the theives knew it.

Another lady was robbed in her house, in a quiet little countryside neighborhood -- you know, the kind that are used in lemonade ads. She sold things over the internet out of her house. Guess who robbed her? A relative and his buddies. They held her at gunpoint, then tied her up. She also was unarmed, and the thieves knew it.

Both of these were meth-related.

Taking the guns away from "white middle class males [that] represent the vast majority of conceal carry permits across the nation" will not help the poor neighborhoods that you obviously care about. But it will certainly hurt the neighborhoods that I care about.

In talking to the young "homeless" lady I mentioned before (she's staying in Salvation Army housing right now), guns were mentioned. She said "I don't know anybody who has a gun legally, and I know a lot of people who have guns." I had to remind her that I carried legally. She replied that she had forgotten that, because I was an exception.

I don't live in a place where this is a theoretical issue. Right now, my city is getting involved between the Nortenos (the current prison gang in power) and the Surenos (the incoming, larger prison gang) because this is a strategic place to control the manufacture and distribution of Meth. We're starting to get our share of drive-by shootings, gang related assaults, and graffitti. The response of the law abiding citizens is not to move out, but to arm ourselves, and let it be known that certain neighborhoods are ready to resist with deadly force. No, we don't expect to drive out the gangs, but we do expect to contain it.

Even though we're only 30 miles from the California Border, and we have the same gangs here that they do down there (the Nortenos and Surenos refer to Northern and Southern California), the gangs in Oregon behave a lot differently than the ones in California, because we do have so many concealed weapons permits here, and they don't know which normal looking, Norman-Rockwelesque family might just be armed to the teeth. So, they only rob people who they know, and who they know to be unarmed.

This isn't just my idea, either. This is actually the plan of the local police department. It was in talking to the police about this that finally conviced me to start carrying. It was their encouragement that changed my mind.

It's just a part of their plan, but it's a part that I can do.

Now, I realize that there are some parts of this country that would not do well with relaxed gun laws, even some parts of Oregon. (I know, I might get crucified for saying that.) Mostly heavily packed, urban areas tend to do better with stricter gun control. But in my sub-culture, they work for what they are intended. They are not evil here, but useful.

I also realize that in many places, an armed citizentry is not part of the police's plan. Here, it is. That's part of the reason why owning and carrying a gun is personal. What is needed in Southern California is not what's needed in Southern Oregon, and vice-versa. What's needed in the U.K. is not what's needed in the Northwest US.

States need to have the rights to make their own gun laws, because each state is dealing with different types of crime, and different sub-cultures deal with it differently.

 

[Tez3]

In the Uk we don't have 'robberies' as such, we have burglaries which means breaking into property and stealing, theft which is stealing from shops, employers etc. Burglers tend to go for properties where the residents are out, we tend not to get the home invasion thing you get in the States. A colleague of mine remarked recently that it's a sign of the times that we have thieves who are lazy and just go into empty homes who leave windows and doors open. The 'profession' of burglar used to have a high status here among criminals, planning and skill went into it and no householder ever saw them let alone be hurt by them!!

The biggest thefts are probably shop lifting which costs millions of pounds a year and 'twocing' ( pronocued twok ing) taking without owners consent, car theft. Joy riding is a problem, more so in Northern Ireland where it used to get you shot. The police and army were armed there but crime figures never went down.

In the UK the perception of crime is bigger than the actual crime, the firures are bandied around by political parties all promising to reduce crime so people have the percetion that we are all in danger. Of course the cities have their share of crime, what city doesn't but on the whole we don't need to carry guns.

Gangs are a problem in the inner cities but that too is a far older problem than people think, it's improved considerably from Victorian times when to go out on the street was definately risking your life! if anything crime figures are down from previous eras but of course we only worry about our safety now.

 

[KP.]

"A small cannon and a couple of dozen muzzle loaders" never did represent a significant show of force. It took a lot more than that to overcome the Government that the US resisted. Then, as now, the military had access to weapons that the common man legally did not. That's not a reason to ban the rest.

It would have been enough force to represent a significant threat to the powers that be in a small area. Enough of that spread around and the sum total would have been fairly significant.

The right to own a firearm was, and is seen, as "Self-evident." If it wasn't in our Bill of Rights, it would still be our right. It may not even be legal, but we will always have the right to the means to defend ourselves, either from predators, or the Government.

The right to defense does not lead necessarily to the right to arms. Moreover, the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is that a significant number of people who were directly responsible for ratifying the Constitution did not in fact believe that the rights in those first 10 amendments were clearly reserved to the people. So the claim that "it would still be our right," is a bit fragile. That may have been the case, but there were certainly plenty who feared that it would not.

So . . . are you saying that handguns are too anemic to qualify as "arms?" Are you saying that we should have the right to something more powerful, like machine guns and grenade launchers? Because you're probably right. I wouldn't turn to a handgun first, if for some reason the Government totally fell apart and became something akin to what the Founding Fathers resisted, I would grab my hunting rifles, and my shotgun, and head for the hills. If I was out to resist some sort of hypothetical government, I would need access to anti-tank weapons, and anti-aircraft weapons. (BTW, I would still carry a sidearm, and a knife.)

But I don't think that's what you're saying. But that's where the logic leads.

Actually that's more or less what I'm saying. "Arms" today, to be understood equivalently to what 'Arms' were understood at the time of the penning of the amendment would need to include fully automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds, incendiary rounds, grenades, M160's, .50 cal sniper rifles, and so on. I don't know if it would include things like tanks (since it's hard to ascertain how a vehicle is a personal arm), but it certainly should include anti-tank weaponry.

Prison does all that, and more.

Since most gangs where I live are originally based in Prison, and the support system that keeps those gangs supplied, and, of course, Prison makes it hard to get a job afterward, and affects the families, making them poorer, meaning the children of prisoners are more likely to go to prison, and that is a vicious cycle on its own, why don't we eliminate prison? Prison obviously isn't enough of a deterrent, and it ends up ruining lives, so why not get rid of it? Then there would be no prison gangs, and therefore less crime! Plus, we wouldn't have to worry about the innocent suffering caused by mistakes in sending the wrong people to prison! (I Actually know more people in prison, than have been shot.)

(of course, I'm kidding.) Unless I'm reading your argument wrong, this is the conclusion it takes me to.

Here's a question, why is it that we imprison more of our population than any other first would country but have a much higher violent crime rate? Your factitious reply is more or less correct. By imprisoning non-violent offenders, failing to have any meaningful out-of-prison rehab programs for non-violent offenders, by permanently disenfranchising people from meaningful employment for even small infractions, we do a great deal of damage to our society.

We don't need to get rid of prisons, but we do need to seriously redesign our penal system, and seriously rethink who it is we imprison.

Again, that personal choice is a "Self-evident right" regardless of the law. The Law needs to form itself around that right, not the other way around. If it were absolutely illegal to own any form of personal firearm. (Which would be very extreme, indeed) it would still be my right, and my personal choice to have one.

That gets into a semantic argument about what constitutes a right. We've already expanded this discussion, do we really want to get into philosophy of law?

We have a problem here: it's called Meth.

Symptoms are problems, but if we keep trying to treat the symptoms, the disease will continue.

Taking the guns away from "white middle class males [that] represent the vast majority of conceal carry permits across the nation" will not help the poor neighborhoods that you obviously care about. But it will certainly hurt the neighborhoods that I care about.

Home defense is not impacted by conceal carry laws. One needs no conceal carry permit to be armed within one's home.

 

[Archangel M]

I used to waste my time debating 2nd amendment issues with people on the internet, but it just gets tiring typing the stuff all over again everytime some new "anti" shows up. Best wishes to those of you with the "fire in the belly" to continue the good fight.

 

[elder999]

I used to waste my time debating 2nd amendment issues with people on the internet, but it just gets tiring typing the stuff all over again everytime some new "anti" shows up. Best wishes to those of you with the "fire in the belly" to continue the good fight.

In other words::trollsign:lfao: