Guns and Watertown

[sandorski]

This is a recurring theme from people for are for gun control; they call out people who carry guns as living in fear (not singling anyone out, pointing out something about the crowd in general) - this kept coming up in the George Zimmerman thread. These people however don't seem to realize that it's about NOT living in fear, that it's about going around knowing you're fine.

I carry a knife to work (pocket knife, not spring loaded, legal length and all that) because a coworker made it sound like they intended to end their life, and made it clear they did not like me. As a former firefighter and the Redmond PD made very clear to me, when people decide to end it, they often try to take someone with them. So my carrying a knife was simply about my wishing to be ready for the possibility that they're want to take me with them. I'd love to be better armed - frankly, with a baton. I'd far value a flick out baton in my jacket over a knife or a gun in many situations. But while I'm licensed to carry a gun concealed in WA (and will soon be licensed to carry a gun concealed in 32 states) I'm NOT allowed to carry a baton. Because it's a deadly weapon.

Anyway, on topic - it's not about being a 'pussy' - it's about being able to deal with anything that happens. As you so keenly pointed out, it's the difference between being able to do nothing should someone break in, or being able to protect yourself and your loved ones. Sure, you go about enjoying life. But what if the guy breaks in and kills your family. Maybe they would have preferred to live.

By definition what you are describing is Fear. The chances of those things happening is exceedingly small.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This is a recurring theme from people for are for gun control; they call out people who carry guns as living in fear (not singling anyone out, pointing out something about the crowd in general) - this kept coming up in the George Zimmerman thread. These people however don't seem to realize that it's about NOT living in fear, that it's about going around knowing you're fine.

In fairness, both sides do this. Gun opponents do what you said, and gun proponents often portray those without guns as "cowering in fear" and whatnot.

If Kim Jong launches a nuke at the US and kills a loved one, I suspect many would wish they had their own nuke to use on little Kim first.

Absurd comparison?

Beyond absurd.

By definition what you are describing is Fear. The chances of those things happening is exceedingly small.

Is it "living in fear" to wear a seatbelt?

Keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen?

Buy life insurance?

 

[randomrogue]

The gun debate makes me embarrassed to be an American.

Frankly, we're just highly irrational when it comes to firearms and our crime statistics are terrible.

 

[randomrogue]

Certainly not me.

The point is a simple one: if the police tell you to stay in your house because there's a heavily armed murderer running around and they don't know where he is, are you better off with, or without a gun? All the stuff about assurances and carjackings and muggings is not relevant.

The question can be asked in another way. Are you better off getting into a firefight with a heavily armed murderer or not?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The question can be asked in another way. Are you better off getting into a firefight with a heavily armed murderer or not?

Given a choice between him armed and me armed, or him armed and me unarmed, that's a pretty easy call.

What if the guy isn't armed, but he's 6'4" and 240 lb, and I'm a 60-year-old woman, 5'2" and 120 lb?

 

[waggy]

the argument "living in fear" always strikes me as childish. I have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers (1 in kitchen, fireplace, near the grill and i think one in the garage), a First aid kit, I wear a helmet when riding, i wear a seat belt, etc.

Am i afraid of a fire or such? no. but i am ready.

Am i afraid of someone breaking in? not really but again i am ready.

I have no issue with someone who is willing to protect themselves if it comes to that. better to have whatever then wish you did latter.

I do admit some pro-gun people worry me (eyes spidey) a tad. but overall i would rather have everyone in my town armed then not (and i can safely bet the majority are armed).

 

[waggy]

Given a choice between him armed and me armed, or him armed and me unarmed, that's a pretty easy call.

What if the guy isn't armed, but he's 6'4" and 240 lb, and I'm a 60-year-old woman, 5'2" and 120 lb?

this is my big issue.

this is one reason my 10 yr old (who while very strong is very tiny). is learning to shoot and takes self defense class's.

this is why i have stuff to defend my home. I can't stop a guy like that or even slow him down.

 

[Zorba]

Certainly not me.

The point is a simple one: if the police tell you to stay in your house because there's a heavily armed murderer running around and they don't know where he is, are you better off with, or without a gun? All the stuff about assurances and carjackings and muggings is not relevant.

I just want to be clear, I am not pro gun control. But the pro-gun arguments really bother me because they are so filled with delusions of grandeur.

I hate to break it to you, but in reality you probably would've had a higher likelihood of being shot and killed if you tried to engage in a gun fight with this guy. 1) He knows he is about to break into your house, you don't 2) he has no issue shooting and killing someone, you likely never have been in this situation before 3) Most people in duress probably aren't as good of shot as they think they are, case in point all of the times police fire on suspects and miss.

If you sat there with no gun, chances are you would become a hostage, but I don't think the guy would've just shot you for the fun of it and given away his position.

Just like the guy who was car jacked, if he had tried to pull a guy, I guarantee he would've been shot and problem dead right now. In this specific case not having a gun increased his odds of survival.

BTW: I am talking about this specific cause, this is not a general argument against guns for home protection.

 

[irishScott]

By definition what you are describing is Fear. The chances of those things happening is exceedingly small.

In close to 10 years of driving and over 100,000 miles, I've never been in a wreck. This includes mucho driving on major highways driving during rush hour, supposedly the most dangerous driving environments.

For some reason, I still wear a seat-belt. Guess I'm just living in a fear, experience has proven that the odds of my getting in a wreck are exceedingly small.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Late last night they (one of channels, can't remember which I surfing so much) had a college student on. He was on TV via his webcam (or whatever they are).

The big, initial, gun battle was just outside his apartment. He walked his notebook over to the window and we could see their car (SUV) still there. There were a couple of backpacks and a police robot probing it. He appeared to be on at least the 3rd or 4th floor.

He recounted looking down at the two brothers hiding behind the SUV engaged in a shoot out with the police, who were parked further up and behind their cruiser. They were throwing bombs etc at the police too. This is where the older brother was killed.

My real point here, and it's regarding having guns, is I sat and wondered what would have happened if this took place down here where I live.

I think there's a good chance it would've ended there. From that kid's vantage point it would have been easy as pie to take out the two brothers. Bam, bam, and they're injured or dead.

But due to very strict laws nobody (or very few) have guns there.

And before somebody pipes up and talks about me, if I had shot them, being in trouble for shooting them I'll point out I'm in a Stand Your Ground state. I.e., self defense kicks-in if you shoot someone in defense of others. I.e., the police he was shooting at.

Ticker tape parade down here, prison term up North.

Fern

Yeah, a civilian joining in to help in a police firefight is bound to end in a parade.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I just want to be clear, I am not pro gun control. But the pro-gun arguments really bother me because they are so filled with delusions of grandeur.

Anti-gun arguments are at least as bad.

For example...

I hate to break it to you, but in reality you probably would've had a higher likelihood of being shot and killed if you tried to engage in a gun fight with this guy.

IME, this is a claim frequently made but never supported. It's pure supposition, sometimes based on flawed statistics.

If this guy came into my house and viewed me and my family as an obstacle to what he wanted, my likelihood of being shot and killed is 100% if I am unarmed, and less than 100% if I have a gun. It's really that simple.

1) He knows he is about to break into your house, you don't

Irrelevant, because if I am unarmed I am dead anyway. If I have a gun, I have a chance to see him or hear him.

2) he has no issue shooting and killing someone, you likely never have been in this situation before 3) Most people in duress probably aren't as good of shot as they think they are, case in point all of the times police fire on suspects and miss.

Again, these are not relevant arguments, because the alternative in dealing with someone who has "no issue shooting and killing someone" is you are dead. There is no upside to being unarmed.

If you sat there with no gun, chances are you would become a hostage, but I don't think the guy would've just shot you for the fun of it and given away his position.

You just said he had "no issue shooting and killing someone" ... but now you're sure I would "just" become a hostage? How do you know that? Am I supposed to risk my family's lives on your assumptions?

Just like the guy who was car jacked, if he had tried to pull a guy, I guarantee he would've been shot and problem dead right now. In this specific case not having a gun increased his odds of survival.

Again, another bogus comparison. A car is not a house. And by the way, that guy was lucky as hell that he wasn't killed.

BTW: I am talking about this specific cause, this is not a general argument against guns for home protection.

I'm talking about this specific case too. And given the scenario portrayed, again, I see zero upside to being unarmed.

 

[fskimospy]

The point is a simple one: if the police tell you to stay in your house because there's a heavily armed murderer running around and they don't know where he is, are you better off with, or without a gun? All the stuff about assurances and carjackings and muggings is not relevant.

But that point ignores all the other costs associated with owning a gun. If there's an armed murderer running from house to house kidnapping/murdering/whatevering people you are absolutely better off with a gun. Thankfully we don't live in a world where such a thing is a common occurrence.

Since you can't just go buy a gun as soon as you hear a crazed murderer is next door, you basically need to own one as a matter of course. With that in mind, to me the question is fundamentally one of safety; the real question should be 'are my family and I safer overall with a gun than without one'?

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

I would say no.

 

[Blackjack200]

"Thank God I had my gun, it saved my life" said no one in #Watertown yesterday.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

But that point ignores all the other costs associated with owning a gun. If there's an armed murderer running from house to house kidnapping/murdering/whatevering people you are absolutely better off with a gun.

Well, I appreciate that you're honest enough to admit that, as it seems not everyone is.

Thankfully we don't live in a world where such a thing is a common occurrence.

It's not common, but in a lot of places not that uncommon either.

With that in mind, to me the question is fundamentally one of safety; the real question should be 'are my family and I safer overall with a gun than without one'?

The studies are trotted out every time, and the rebuttals every time, and the response to the rebuttals, and I'm really not interested. Everyone can make that decision for themselves.

"Thank God I had my gun, it saved my life" said no one in #Watertown yesterday.

How do you know?

 

[irishScott]

"Thank God I had my gun, it saved my life" said no one in #Watertown yesterday.

Which is completely irrelevant.

A known bomber who blew up 3 people, injured dozens, and just had a shootout with the cops is trapped potentially running around in your backyard (literally).

You have the choice to arm yourself, or remain unarmed. What choice would you make blackjack?

 

[irishScott]

But that point ignores all the other costs associated with owning a gun. If there's an armed murderer running from house to house kidnapping/murdering/whatevering people you are absolutely better off with a gun. Thankfully we don't live in a world where such a thing is a common occurrence.

Since you can't just go buy a gun as soon as you hear a crazed murderer is next door, you basically need to own one as a matter of course. With that in mind, to me the question is fundamentally one of safety; the real question should be 'are my family and I safer overall with a gun than without one'?

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

I would say no.

So you're taking a study's findings, which is very much a meaningless collective statistic bordering on correlation != causation, and are applying it to yourself? You think that by your owning a gun, no matter how safely you handle it, you would endanger your family? You're that insecure? Your family is that messed up? I pity you.

Saying people who own firearms are more likely to die by them is like saying people who own cars are more likely to die in a car crash. It's both true and yet inapplicable to individuals.

 

[fskimospy]

So you're taking a study's findings, which is very much a meaningless collective statistic bordering on correlation != causation, and are applying it to yourself? You think that by your owning a gun, no matter how safely you handle it, you would endanger your family? You're that insecure? Your family is that messed up? I pity you.

Saying people who own firearms are more likely to die by them is like saying people who own cars are more likely to die in a car crash. It's both true and yet inapplicable to individuals.

Huh? It means the average American family is less safe when they own a gun than without one by this metric. I'm sure everyone thinks they are more careful and safe than average. I'm also sure a lot of them are wrong.

I understand that these findings might anger you as they undermine one of the major ideas that gun proponents use, but that's unnecessary. Your right to own a gun and the wisdom of exercising that right are unrelated.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Since you brought it up, they anger me because they're bullshit, and I'm tired of seeing them passed around.

I'm not the average family. And those studies never take into account defensive uses of firearms.

I'm sure the average family without a car also gets in a lot fewer car accidents.

 

[irishScott]

Huh? It means the average American family is less safe when they own a gun than without one by this metric. I'm sure everyone thinks they are more careful and safe than average. I'm also sure a lot of them are wrong.

I understand that these findings might anger you as they undermine one of the major ideas that gun proponents use, but that's unnecessary. Your right to own a gun and the wisdom of exercising that right are unrelated.

They don't anger me in and of themselves, I just find them irrelevant; and when I hear irrelevant arguments quoted ad-nauseum that angers me a bit.

The average sky-diver is more likely to die in a sky-diving accident.
The average race-car driver is more likely to die in a racing accident.
The average Alaskan hunter is more likely to be killed by a bear.
The average gun owner is more likely to be killed by a gun.

Even at best, this study only tells half of the needed picture. Your argument appears to be that the social cost of gun ownership, that is the average citizen owning guns, outweigh its benefits. Well, what are the benefits? Where's your information on that? How do we know that the benefits don't outweigh the costs? Or even if they don't, then at best you've made a case that only "above average American households" should be able to own guns, but how do you determine that average? Socioeconomic status? Education?

That study is, at best, a fraction of an argument. In and of itself it makes no meaningful case, assuming it's even accurate.

 

[fskimospy]

They don't anger me in and of themselves, I just find them irrelevant; and when I hear irrelevant arguments quoted ad-nauseum that angers me a bit.

The average sky-diver is more likely to die in a sky-diving accident.
The average race-car driver is more likely to die in a racing accident.
The average Alaskan hunter is more likely to be killed by a bear.
The average gun owner is more likely to be killed by a gun.

Even at best, this study only tells half of the needed picture. Your argument appears to be that the social cost of gun ownership, that is the average citizen owning guns, outweigh its benefits. Well, what are the benefits? Where's your information on that? How do we know that the benefits don't outweigh the costs? Or even if they don't, then at best you've made a case that only "above average American households" should be able to own guns, but how do you determine that average? Socioeconomic status? Education?

That study is, at best, a fraction of an argument. In and of itself it makes no meaningful case, assuming it's even accurate.

Each house in America is presumably equally likely to be broken into by a gun toting maniac, regardless of firearm ownership. The fact that your odds of dying from a gun are so much higher if you own one means that lots and lots of those guns are being used on house residents.

So, when you consider your additional safety from Mr. Gun Maniac, also consider the risks. That is absolutely a meaningful case.

 

[Agent11]

It is entirely seemly for a young man killed in battle to lie mangled by the bronze spear. In his death all things appear fair. But when dogs shame the gray head and gray chin and nakedness of an old man killed, it is the most piteous thing that happens among wretched mortals.
Homer, The Iliad
Greek epic poet (800 BC - 700 BC)

 

[Kadarin]

It should be noted if it hasn't already that in a situation like what we just went through, if an armed citizen takes it upon himself to open fire on someone who they believe to be the suspect, LEO might mistakenly think this armed citizen is the suspect.

Part of the responsibility of owning guns is to use them responsibly. It's LEO's job to apprehend the suspect and hopefully not get killed in the process, not the average citizen.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Each house in America is presumably equally likely to be broken into by a gun toting maniac, regardless of firearm ownership.

But each house in America is not equally likely to have someone killed in a drug deal gone bad, or a drive-by shooting, or a domestic dispute with an abusive husband, or a gun left on the living room table because the guy who owns it is an idiot. (Despite what people say, I'm not an idiot.)

That's my first problem with those studies: they are used by anti-gun proponents to imply a general danger to the average person without screening them for irrelevant situations that don't apply. They're misleading and deliberately so.

And the other, of course, is that violence prevented by firearms is utterly ignored, when deterrence is in fact a primary purpose of having a self-defense firearm.

ETA: From the study:

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.

Yeah, no kidding. And:

The majority of victims knew their assailant, suggesting that the assailant was either a family member or was acquainted with the victim or victim’s family and less likely to be an unknown intruder.

 

[ivwshane]

But each house in America is not equally likely to have someone killed in a drug deal gone bad, or a drive-by shooting, or a domestic dispute with an abusive husband, or a gun left on the living room table because the guy who owns it is an idiot. (Despite what people say, I'm not an idiot.)

That's my first problem with those studies: they are used by anti-gun proponents to imply a general danger to the average person without screening them for irrelevant situations that don't apply. They're misleading and deliberately so.

And the other, of course, is that violence prevented by firearms is utterly ignored, when deterrence is in fact a primary purpose of having a self-defense firearm.

ETA: From the study:



Yeah, no kidding. And:

I'm sorry but for people living in a high crime area, the chances of a gun wielding maniac breaking into your home and it happening frequently is BS and it most certainly is not "common" as you put it.

And eskimospy is right, if you buy a gun for safety you must also weigh in the fact that there may be accidents. Why would you not? You don't leave out that possibility when making other decisions, its certainly a factor to insurance companies (such as home location, vehicle type, medical history, etc).

Also note: if you call a study BS its on you now to prove why it's a flawed study or to show a counter study.

 

[irishScott]

Each house in America is presumably equally likely to be broken into by a gun toting maniac, regardless of firearm ownership. The fact that your odds of dying from a gun are so much higher if you own one means that lots and lots of those guns are being used on house residents.

So, when you consider your additional safety from Mr. Gun Maniac, also consider the risks. That is absolutely a meaningful case.

And where do you get that notion? You're saying all areas have equal crime? You're saying a home invasion, drive-by or burglary-gone-wrong is as likely in the ghetto as it is in Silicon Valley?

You should really actually read the study, specifically the "discussion" section where they discuss potential flaws.

A number of limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings from this study. First, our study was based on data from death certificates and proxy interviews. The accuracy and completeness of information from these types of data sources can vary. With death certificates, for instance, there is the possibility of misclassification regarding the cause or manner of death. In the case of proxy interviews, knowing the outcome might have introduced bias in assessing behavioral or psychological characteristics of the decedent prior to death. The nature, degree, or direction of recall bias among proxies reporting on violent deaths versus nonviolent deaths is not known, however. Second, the gun in the home may not have been the gun used in the death. This possibility seems less likely with suicide, but, with homicide, it is certainly plausible that someone brought a gun into the home.

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.

Fourth, our analysis was restricted to violent deaths in the home. The dynamics of homicides or suicides occurring in other locations may be very different. However, the degree of bias with suicide is likely to be small given that over three quarters of all suicides (76.3 percent) in this nationally representative sample occurred in the home; of those that occurred outside the home, 52.7 percent were committed with a firearm. Finally, our study focused on fatal outcomes for a sample of decedents. We were unable to ascertain the risk of a nonfatal outcome and were also unable to weigh the risk of a violent death against any protective benefits of gun ownership.

So basically they were able to ascertain that:
1. Suicide victims were more likely to own guns.
2. Homicide victims were more likely to own guns.

Well no shit. Good thing my odds of both suicide and homicide are near zero to start with.