An Apology for Trying to Start a Discussion

[sandorski]

And harm to criminals attempting murder is a bad thing? Or it's better that a victim get stabbed than the stabber get shot?

I'm just trying to understand your mentality here.

The presence of Guns in Society is a worse problem than your Criminal with a Knife.

 

[irishScott]

The presence of Guns in Society is a worse problem than your Criminal with a Knife.

The numbers would beg to differ. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, a government survey that examines crime victimization, as quoted by the Violence Policy Center, a pro-Gun-Control lobbyist group:
http://www.vpc.org/press/1304self.htm

For the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense.

So from 2007 to 2011, the survey found an average of 47,140 defensive gun uses. Contrast that to the number of gun homicides recorded by the FBI over that same span:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Which give us an average of 9262.6 firearm homicides per year.


Given those numbers, there are approximately 5 defensive gun uses for every single gun murder. Assuming 60% of respondents to the survey are lying or mistaken (a ridiculous margin of error) there are 2 defensive gun uses for every single gun murder.

This would appear to corroborate what most avid gun users simply know from personal contact with those with the experience. There are many cases of guns used in self defense where the guns are never fired, and the police are never notified.

 

[waggy]

The presence of Guns in Society is a worse problem than your Criminal with a Knife.

lol

so many are afraid of the tool when its teh Criminal you should be afraid of.

 

[sandorski]

lol

so many are afraid of the tool when its teh Criminal you should be afraid of.

Strawman. It has nothing to do with "fear". It has to do with reducing Death and Harm.

 

[monovillage]

He should have known better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Zumbo

Jim Zumbo is a prominent firearms and hunting commentator and writer. Until February 2007, he was the Hunting Editor for Outdoor Life magazine and host of the television program Jim Zumbo Outdoors on The Outdoor Channel. He was removed from both positions after he condemned the use of common semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 for hunting in his blog.

If your business and paycheck depend on the good opinion of pro-gun people, you should be cautious about voicing the argument of the people that are trying to destroy them.

 

[John Liberty]

Violence of all kinds, gun, knife, ball bat, tire iron, automobile, fists, etc., is horrible. The solutions mentioned so far only consider restricting guns. How would all of you like the future victims of violence to protect themselves from said violence? Call the police? Ok, except if the perpetrator is standing five feet in front of the potential victim, is it possible for the police to arrive in time to protect the potential victim? Obviously not. Having access to a firearm gives the potential victim at least a chance to protect themselves.

Then there is the primary problem with all of the suggested solutions to 'gun' violence in this thread. The Second Amendment. That part that says, 'shall not be infringed'. Many commenters would have us believe the 2A only applies to 'militias' or or that arms be 'well regulated'. You can look up the definitions of these terms yourself. The terms do not mean what those commenters think they mean. Ultimately, the 2A is a guard against those who would take a persons property. This includes our own selves and our own government. After all, are we not our own most important property?

For those of you who do not agree, which other rights would you consider restricting? Speech, religion, association, self-incrimination,trial by jury, cruel and unusual punishment?

 

[schmuckley]

^and that's real.

 

[sandorski]

Violence of all kinds, gun, knife, ball bat, tire iron, automobile, fists, etc., is horrible. The solutions mentioned so far only consider restricting guns. How would all of you like the future victims of violence to protect themselves from said violence? Call the police? Ok, except if the perpetrator is standing five feet in front of the potential victim, is it possible for the police to arrive in time to protect the potential victim? Obviously not. Having access to a firearm gives the potential victim at least a chance to protect themselves.

Then there is the primary problem with all of the suggested solutions to 'gun' violence in this thread. The Second Amendment. That part that says, 'shall not be infringed'. Many commenters would have us believe the 2A only applies to 'militias' or or that arms be 'well regulated'. You can look up the definitions of these terms yourself. The terms do not mean what those commenters think they mean. Ultimately, the 2A is a guard against those who would take a persons property. This includes our own selves and our own government. After all, are we not our own most important property?

For those of you who do not agree, which other rights would you consider restricting? Speech, religion, association, self-incrimination,trial by jury, cruel and unusual punishment?

"Self-Defense" does not require a gun.

 

[Doppel]

The balance is already moving in favor of reduced gun violence. Despite gun sales strong year after year gun violence in the US is way down over recent decades.

It is a balance. There are MANY people who support massive gun control--I assume sandorski is an example--who drink alcohol. Alcohol is directly responsible for many deaths each year not just of the practitioner but also his victims in the case of DUI and other violence.

Guess what? I don't drink. If alcohol was removed from society it would only benefit me. Perhaps it should be outright banned. Alcohol is responsible for more deaths than firearms. Further, it isn't even a constitutionally protected right.

With modern technology a prohibition should be easier to enforce. Anybody caught manufacturing alcohol even for private use will automatically have a felony. Those not behind this are tacitly endorsing the deaths of tens of thousands of people a year.

We could have a registry of people who drink.

 

[irishScott]

The balance is already moving in favor of reduced gun violence. Despite gun sales strong year after year gun violence in the US is way down over recent decades.

It is a balance. There are MANY people who support massive gun control--I assume sandorski is an example--who drink alcohol. Alcohol is directly responsible for many deaths each year not just of the practitioner but also his victims in the case of DUI and other violence.

Guess what? I don't drink. If alcohol was removed from society it would only benefit me. Perhaps it should be outright banned. Alcohol is responsible for more deaths than firearms. Further, it isn't even a constitutionally protected right.

With modern technology a prohibition should be easier to enforce. Anybody caught manufacturing alcohol even for private use will automatically have a felony. Those not behind this are tacitly endorsing the deaths of tens of thousands of people a year.

We could have a registry of people who drink.

Indeed. And every bottle of alcohol should be fitted with computerized "measuring tops" that only dispense a safe dosage per hour, "safe dosage" being defined as a dosage where one maintains a BAC within the legal limits to drive. Whether one is planning to drive or has arranged alternate transportation is irrelevant; if it saves one life, it's worth it.

 

[irishScott]

"Self-Defense" does not require a gun.

So if I attacked you with a kitchen knife, and you don't have a gun, exactly how are you planning to not be severely injured or killed? If I attack you with a baseball bat? With a rock? "Lethal force" in US law is defined as (among other things) "a blow with a blunt object above the shoulders" for good reason.

It's not just hypothetical either. I once fainted while caroling with my high school choir at a local mall (I was in a full tux, under a heating vent, for an hour), and snapped the back of my head against the slate floor. I couldn't move for 30 seconds after I came to. That was an innocent fall that only involved gravity. I can only imagine how bad it could be if someone was intentionally slamming my head into the ground.

Sorry Sandorski, but it appears most of your beliefs on this matter are not backed up by reality.

 

[Doppel]

Indeed. And every bottle of alcohol should be fitted with computerized "measuring tops" that only dispense a safe dosage per hour, "safe dosage" being defined as a dosage where one maintains a BAC within the legal limits to drive. Whether one is planning to drive or has arranged alternate transportation is irrelevant; if it saves one life, it's worth it.

We can start with some common-sense rules to make it such that dining establishments cannot serve alcohol. Get some quick wins reducing DUIs. Reasonable, common-sense reform on alcohol.

 

[Fenixgoon]

We can start with some common-sense rules to make it such that dining establishments cannot serve alcohol. Get some quick wins reducing DUIs. Reasonable, common-sense reform on alcohol.

good thing there are no bars in the US?

 

[Doppel]

good thing there are no bars in the US?

Well of course nobody is saying shut down bars. Just saying they cannot serve hard alcohol or beer with an alcohol content more than 2%. Nobody is shutting down anything. This is part of some common-sense reform that will save lives, and if it saves just one life it will be worth it. It is time pro drinkers came to the table so that we can find a practical middle ground.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Well of course nobody is saying shut down bars. Just saying they cannot serve hard alcohol or beer with an alcohol content more than 2%. Nobody is shutting down anything. This is part of some common-sense reform that will save lives, and if it saves just one life it will be worth it. It is time pro drinkers came to the table so that we can find a practical middle ground.

ok now i follow you. my sarcasm meter is due for calibration

 

[dank69]

"Self-Defense" does not require a gun.

This is ridiculous. You are shitting up the DC with these one-liners. Support your positions or go back to P&N and troll there.

 

[TerryMathews]

"Self-Defense" does not require a gun.

No, but it is often the best tool for the job.

 

[AViking]

This idea that you need a weapon to defend yourself is based on what reality? Sorry but I've been face to face with the Taliban and was perfectly capable of talking my way out of that altercation. A firearm gives a false sense of bravado and an entitlement to escalate. Does anyone have the statistics on the number of firearms that were turned upon their owner? I distinctly recall law enforcement telling me that unless you are well trained, like the military or law enforcement, a weapon is not that great of a tool. Running is far more effective. How many idiots have a rifle for home defense? How many truly can use a carbine, shotgun, or handgun for proper home defense? How many can truly defend their family, in the dark, with moving subjects, while not shooting the wrong person or getting shot themselves?

This appears to be an imaginary threat. If you live in South Central Los Angeles, sure, I can completely buy the argument. That place is fucked up after dark. However I can also buy the argument that it makes a lot more sense to sell your over priced property and move to a better part of the country with a cheaper cost of living. Live in Memphis? Move. New Orleans? Move. It makes way more sense to use your feet for self defense rather than a weapon.

Show me where lots of women are shooting rapists and murderers. It's not happening. Those few cases are far overshadowed by firearm accidents. They have done studies that show that those that have a firearm are far more likely to be injured by one whether in an accident or simply getting shot.

 

[irishScott]

This idea that you need a weapon to defend yourself is based on what reality? Sorry but I've been face to face with the Taliban and was perfectly capable of talking my way out of that altercation. A firearm gives a false sense of bravado and an entitlement to escalate. Does anyone have the statistics on the number of firearms that were turned upon their owner? I distinctly recall law enforcement telling me that unless you are well trained, like the military or law enforcement, a weapon is not that great of a tool. Running is far more effective. How many idiots have a rifle for home defense? How many truly can use a carbine, shotgun, or handgun for proper home defense? How many can truly defend their family, in the dark, with moving subjects, while not shooting the wrong person or getting shot themselves?

This appears to be an imaginary threat. If you live in South Central Los Angeles, sure, I can completely buy the argument. That place is fucked up after dark. However I can also buy the argument that it makes a lot more sense to sell your over priced property and move to a better part of the country with a cheaper cost of living. Live in Memphis? Move. New Orleans? Move. It makes way more sense to use your feet for self defense rather than a weapon.

Show me where lots of women are shooting rapists and murderers. It's not happening. Those few cases are far overshadowed by firearm accidents. They have done studies that show that those that have a firearm are far more likely to be injured by one whether in an accident or simply getting shot.

I don't define talking one's way out a situation as "self defense", and neither does the law. Talk is talk. "Self defense" is what happens when talk/avoidance is no longer an option.

As I stated earlier, the National Crime Victimization survey found that on average 47,140 people defend themselves with a gun every year from 2007-2011. If you have some evidence that the number of firearm related accidents/injuries outweigh this number, or that this number is wrong I'd like to see it.

Imaginary threat? I live in a medium sized town of ~35,000, college town. Crime rate is slightly above the national average, but nothing horrible. One night a couple of years back I was walking home from the library at 2AM, on a route I'd taken literally hundreds of times without issue. On my way back I passed by two black stereotypes, didn't think much of them at first, but they reacted rather interestingly to me. They started as I overtook them (I was walking slightly faster), looked at each other, then dropped back. So happens at this point I had to make a turn, so I did, and I noticed they turned very awkwardly to follow me. Now at this point I was getting concerned, but they were still maybe 40 feet behind or so. They followed me along the straight-away for about 30 more feet, then I heard their pace spontaneously double and they started to close. I had a heavy backpack on, no chance of running. So I held my pace, turned my head to let them know I'd seen them, squared my shoulders and made a show of shoving my hands into my pockets. They SLAMMED on the brakes and dropped back to about 50 feet. Didn't bother me for the rest of the walk.

There you have it, imaginary my ass.

Likewise a couple of months ago we had an armed robbery where 5 guys mugged and beat the crap out of a guy at an intersection I walk through every day.

Now granted none of this is a regular occurrence, and a couple handfuls of victims a year out of 35,000 is extremely low odds, but it does happen; and I was almost one of the handful a couple years back. Answer me this, do you have insurance, for anything? Because that's all my gun is to me, and I pay my premiums in ammo bills and range time.

As for that study you mention in your last paragraph, I assume you're referring this study (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full)? All they did there is chase down death certificates to find out if people who had been shot owned guns. Turns out gun homicide victims owned guns more often than not. It means absolutely nothing when applied to any given individual. It's like saying someone who owns a car is more likely to drive drunk, simply because they have a car. It's technically true, but ultimately meaningless.

 

[poofyhairguy]

This idea that you need a weapon to defend yourself is based on what reality?

The reality where I am small, not that strong, not trained in martial arts, but trained in handgun use and is an excellent shot.

Guns are the great equalizer. Without them brutes would still rule and a guy like me would have been Darwined at a young age.

How many truly can use a carbine, shotgun, or handgun for proper home defense? How many can truly defend their family, in the dark, with moving subjects, while not shooting the wrong person or getting shot themselves?

So because some people can't no one should be allowed to?

However I can also buy the argument that it makes a lot more sense to sell your over priced property and move to a better part of the country with a cheaper cost of living. Live in Memphis? Move. New Orleans? Move. It makes way more sense to use your feet for self defense rather than a weapon.

So basically run away rather than stick up for yourself or your community? Are you French?

 

[AViking]

I don't define talking one's way out a situation as "self defense", and neither does the law. Talk is talk. "Self defense" is what happens when talk/avoidance is no longer an option.

As I stated earlier, the National Crime Victimization survey found that on average 47,140 people defend themselves with a gun every year from 2007-2011. If you have some evidence that the number of firearm related accidents/injuries outweigh this number, or that this number is wrong I'd like to see it.

Imaginary threat? I live in a medium sized town of ~35,000, college town. Crime rate is slightly above the national average, but nothing horrible. One night a couple of years back I was walking home from the library at 2AM, on a route I'd taken literally hundreds of times without issue. On my way back I passed by two black stereotypes, didn't think much of them at first, but they reacted rather interestingly to me. They started as I overtook them (I was walking slightly faster), looked at each other, then dropped back. So happens at this point I had to make a turn, so I did, and I noticed they turned very awkwardly to follow me. Now at this point I was getting concerned, but they were still maybe 40 feet behind or so. They followed me along the straight-away for about 30 more feet, then I heard their pace spontaneously double and they started to close. I had a heavy backpack on, no chance of running. So I held my pace, turned my head to let them know I'd seen them, squared my shoulders and made a show of shoving my hands into my pockets. They SLAMMED on the brakes and dropped back to about 50 feet. Didn't bother me for the rest of the walk.

There you have it, imaginary my ass.

Likewise a couple of months ago we had an armed robbery where 5 guys mugged and beat the crap out of a guy at an intersection I walk through every day.

Now granted none of this is a regular occurrence, and a couple handfuls of victims a year out of 35,000 is extremely low odds, but it does happen; and I was almost one of the handful a couple years back. Answer me this, do you have insurance, for anything? Because that's all my gun is to me, and I pay my premiums in ammo bills and range time.

As for that study you mention in your last paragraph, I assume you're referring to the Oxford study? All they did there is chase down death certificates to find out if people who had been shot owned guns. Turns out gun homicide victims owned guns more often than not. It means absolutely nothing when applied to any given individual. It's like saying someone who owns a car is more likely to drive drunk, simply because they have a car. It's technically true, but ultimately meaningless.

I have a lot of anecdotal evidence too. Like I said I have worked in some really bad places. I was able to avoid all problems by simply going home from work before it got dark. Much tougher to do in a place like Stockholm, and I'm not sure where you're from, but I just don't have problems. It's still anecdotal and really nothing more than you and me trading campfire stories.

I have to make dinner and statistics are something I'm wary of from poor studies. I don't recall which one specifically I was referring to. I was mentioning it in passing but I can look at the oxford study. Is it correlation not implying causation? I never dug deep into it. I did want to throw out solid numbers though since you did.

If 47,140 people defended themselves each year how do we compare that to the 80,000 injuries? 10,000 murders? Hundreds of accidental deaths? Etc. My point is that people use guns incorrectly a little bit too often. We have a problem. I'd also be interested to see how they got that 47K number. I once was passed by a jackass on the road who felt I was driving too slow. I happened to be driving 35 in a 35 zone. I ended up passing him back when we got to the 55 zone and he passed me again just to be a jerk and slammed on his breaks. As I sped up to give him the finger he pulled a handgun out of his glove compartment and waved it at me. I of course slammed on my breaks and ducked out of there. Was that guy defending himself or was he just being a douche?

We have solid numbers on things like the number of murders, accidents, suicides, unintentional death, etc. Those numbers are very high.

I'm not for banning guns. I think education is important though. A prime example would be after the loony batman theater killer people were saying that if a good guy had a gun they could have saved lives. As if someone else in that dark and smokey theater shooting a firearm was a good idea with multiple people wearing costumes. No!

Mental health checks. Mild depression is stupid and I would never support that. I'm talking about people who are genuinely mentally not fit to carry a weapon.

Basically loonies shouldn't have weapons and the rest of the population should get trained. An anti-fear mongering class would probably do people some good.

 

[AViking]

So basically run away rather than stick up for yourself or your community? Are you French?

No. I simply would rather live someplace safe and nice than somewhere that I have to be armed. Quality of life is pretty poor when you live somewhere that has high crime.

It's a common sense solution in my opinion.

 

[jackstar7]

No, but it is often the best tool for the job.

That depends entirely upon the user. Or do you have something to back up your opinion?

Or was "often" your rhetorical wiggle room?

 

[irishScott]

I have a lot of anecdotal evidence too. Like I said I have worked in some really bad places. I was able to avoid all problems by simply going home from work before it got dark. Much tougher to do in a place like Stockholm, and I'm not sure where you're from, but I just don't have problems. It's still anecdotal and really nothing more than you and me trading campfire stories.

I have to make dinner and statistics are something I'm wary of from poor studies. I don't recall which one specifically I was referring to. I was mentioning it in passing but I can look at the oxford study. Is it correlation not implying causation? I never dug deep into it. I did want to throw out solid numbers though since you did.

If 47,140 people defended themselves each year how do we compare that to the 80,000 injuries? 10,000 murders? Hundreds of accidental deaths? Etc. My point is that people use guns incorrectly a little bit too often. We have a problem. I'd also be interested to see how they got that 47K number. I once was passed by a jackass on the road who felt I was driving too slow. I happened to be driving 35 in a 35 zone. I ended up passing him back when we got to the 55 zone and he passed me again just to be a jerk and slammed on his breaks. As I sped up to give him the finger he pulled a handgun out of his glove compartment and waved it at me. I of course slammed on my breaks and ducked out of there. Was that guy defending himself or was he just being a douche?

We have solid numbers on things like the number of murders, accidents, suicides, unintentional death, etc. Those numbers are very high.

I'm not for banning guns. I think education is important though. A prime example would be after the loony batman theater killer people were saying that if a good guy had a gun they could have saved lives. As if someone else in that dark and smokey theater shooting a firearm was a good idea with multiple people wearing costumes. No!

Mental health checks. Mild depression is stupid and I would never support that. I'm talking about people who are genuinely mentally not fit to carry a weapon.

Basically loonies shouldn't have weapons and the rest of the population should get trained. An anti-fear mongering class would probably do people some good.

True enough, it's anecdotal. I was just pointing out that it happens, even in decent areas, and that the threat is hardly imaginary. It's a rare threat in most places, but a present one.

And my apologies, the study wasn't done by Oxford, it was simply published by them (which is how I originally accessed it and remembered it). This is the study I'm thinking of: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

My interpretation, and something the study even admits in its conclusion:

Third, it is possible that the association between a gun in the home and risk of a violent death may be related to other factors that we were unable to control for in our analysis. For instance, with homicide, the association may be related to certain neighborhood characteristics or the decedent’s previous involvement in other violent or illegal behaviors. Persons living in high-crime neighborhoods or involved in illegal behaviors may acquire a gun for protection. The risk comes not necessarily from the presence of the gun in the house but from these types of environmental factors and exposures.

And yeah I admit that there are douchebags out there just getting their kicks off of having a gun. However there are also plenty of jerks who drive (as you encountered). There are tons of reckless and drunk drivers, despite all the licensing and education we forced them through. I don't imagine licensing guns will have much effect on this. Most drivers, thankfully, are decent, responsible people; they just don't demand the same level of attention. Just like most gun owners.

In a nuthsell, we agree overall. In a perfect world I'd love some very strict gun licensing. Hell I'd like "Firearms ed" to be taught alongside driver's ed in public high schools. But the sad truth is I can't trust my government to protect my rights. In fact I can trust them to make every conceivable attempt to compromise them towards their own ends. Until that changes, I can't in good conscious give ground or trust them to wield power given responsibly; save at political gunpoint. I'm all for the concept of licensing, but implementing such a system would be giving my house keys to a convicted felon.

 

[poofyhairguy]

No. I simply would rather live someplace safe and nice than somewhere that I have to be armed. Quality of life is pretty poor when you live somewhere that has high crime.

It's a common sense solution in my opinion.

Well sure it is common sense if you are given a choice. But if you have a job somewhere and the only places you can afford to live are either in the bad part of town or at the end of a long commute, then really you have to chose between two bad choices.

I picked the long commute recently given those options as I don't want my mostly stay-at-home wife to be in jeopardy. If it was just me then I would live closer and buy a few more clips for my Beretta. If I grew up in a community, even more reason to stay....