Guns and Watertown

[Blackjack200]

Two problems here:

1. I was responding to your (apparently self-declared) "trite, obnoxious comments", not the other way around.

2. My comments weren't "trite" or "obnoxious" -- they are at the heart of part of my argument, which is that these studies and discussions never take into account defensives uses of firearms.

The comments I was referring to were your comments in the OP.

"I really wish I didn't own this firearm in my home" said no one in #Watertown right now."

You just assume that nobody's life was saved on Friday because it didn't show up in the news. And you're probably right. But not necessarily.

I think I can be about as certain of my comments as you can of yours.

Yeah, we don't need this stuff here. If you can't discuss this without losing your temper, go walk around the block or something.

My temper is well under control. This thread is no different that the "liberals should want to ban garbage cans" type comments that we saw last Sunday. If you want to taunt people, don't act surprised when you get a reaction.

 

[irishScott]

My temper is well under control. This thread is no different that the "liberals should want to ban garbage cans" type comments that we saw last Sunday. If you want to taunt people, don't act surprised when you get a reaction.

I think both sides could do well to take this sentiment to heart. That said, when liberals have spent mucho time painting anyone who owns an AR-15 as a wackjob, I don't think a sarcastic comment about their "safety" legislation is too out of line.

 

[irishScott]

Depends on the situation.

If I was living in a 2nd or 3rd story apt. with a clear view from my window at the suspect back, they were actively exchanging fire with the cops and I knew that they were a terrorist suspect because it was all over the news... I would take the shot.

I wouldn't stick my rifle out the window though, I would probably drag a chair or table over to set up a recessed line of sight. After shooting I would set down my rifle and exit the apt and wait on the street.

If I wasn't sure I could hit them I wouldn't even try though.

The issue is the cops don't know you're a friendly. If they're shooting at the suspect's front, and you're shooting from the rear, you're shooting in their direction. That alone would probably make you a target.

I'd only take such a shot if I couldn't be seen by the cops, and the odds of that happening are one in eleventy billion.

 

[RampantAndroid]

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

I was almost in Seattle (in the general vicinity of the last shooting) when that moron went around killing people on memorial day. Had I been in there and armed, I could have done something. Small, yes. But I wish I had been there. The description of him gunning down a woman in parking lot in cold blood was...disturbing.

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.

Sure, some do. I generally don't (unless the person actually states fear of guns. Or does the "should have a register of people with guns" type BS statement.

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

Keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen?

Buy life insurance?

It's taking precautions. It's knowing something COULD happen, and those items are useful for dealing with those situations. I keep an extinguisher in my kitchen. My parents always did, too.

Heaven forbid you NEED it, but if you do, it can save lives, property and so forth.

 

[fskimospy]

And yet you fail to specify exactly what that is. And please don't just quote the abstract. I just re-read the Results section word-for-word and I fail to see how my interpretation is wrong.

It says the odds of Homicide and Suicide are increased if you own a gun. If the odds of both of those are already extremely low to start with, as they are for most Americans, even a massive relative increase (from 0.0075 to 0.06%) would be negligible.

Since we're talking about the country as a whole of course we are talking in the aggregate as to whether or not it's a good policy or a bad one to own a gun. The study didn't say that such a thing was irrelevant for most Americans any more than a study saying that some common substance was a carcinogen would be irrelevant to most people just because most people don't get cancer from that specific substance.

Again, considering one is expending resources and effort to acquire something, the utility of that object seems to be the most important part. I question its utility.

 

[Agent11]

For it's purpose it does it's job. Would you rather throw a rock?

 

[irishScott]

Since we're talking about the country as a whole of course we are talking in the aggregate as to whether or not it's a good policy or a bad one to own a gun. The study didn't say that such a thing was irrelevant for most Americans any more than a study saying that some common substance was a carcinogen would be irrelevant to most people just because most people don't get cancer from that specific substance.

Again, considering one is expending resources and effort to acquire something, the utility of that object seems to be the most important part. I question its utility.

If it's a carcinogen that only results in cancer of 0.075% of the population, I'd say that counts as pretty insignificant.

As for utility, I know people who have defended themselves with guns, and I've been in multiple situations where I would have liked a gun if my luck had gone south. The utility vs the risk seems readily apparent to me, and I'm sure to essentially every gun owner. Even if there was no utility, I'd take a 0.075% risk simply to have fun. I take a greater risk than that just driving to the grocery store.

 

[corwin]

If it's a carcinogen that only results in cancer of 0.075% of the population, I'd say that counts as pretty insignificant.

As for utility, I know people who have defended themselves with guns, and I've been in multiple situations where I would have liked a gun if my luck had gone south. The utility vs the risk seems readily apparent to me, and I'm sure to essentially every gun owner. Even if there was no utility, I'd take a 0.075% risk simply to have fun. I take a greater risk than that just driving to the grocery store.

Be careful using numbers with him, he's a little slow in that department

Oops, wrong person, nvm

Regardless of person, please knock it off. Thanks. --ck

 

[fskimospy]

If it's a carcinogen that only results in cancer of 0.075% of the population, I'd say that counts as pretty insignificant.

As for utility, I know people who have defended themselves with guns, and I've been in multiple situations where I would have liked a gun if my luck had gone south. The utility vs the risk seems readily apparent to me, and I'm sure to essentially every gun owner. Even if there was no utility, I'd take a 0.075% risk simply to have fun. I take a greater risk than that just driving to the grocery store.

Well if you have enough fun with your guns that the increased risk is worth it that's great. Enjoy! That has little to do with my point though which was that if your purpose for buying a gun was to make yourself safer and a gun increases your risk of death, that's hardly a good investment.

 

[smackababy]

Well if you have enough fun with your guns that the increased risk is worth it that's great. Enjoy! That has little to do with my point though which was that if your purpose for buying a gun was to make yourself safer and a gun increases your risk of death, that's hardly a good investment.

Except the data you use is not valid. Gun owners are more likely to commit suicide with a gun? Wow, that sure is damning evidence for the safety of guns right there. People who owned a gun were more likely to be killed by one? Without proper demographics, that makes no argument against gun safety. If it said people who owned guns and did not partake in illegal activities were more likely to be killed by a gun, I'd concede that point. But is basically says people who own cars are more likely to die in a car wreck. Well, no excrement!

You are more likely to inhale a carcinogen and die from cancer than be killed by a gun.

edit: I probably should refrain from foul language in, at the very least, this forum. >_>

 

[corwin]

Well if you have enough fun with your guns that the increased risk is worth it that's great. Enjoy! That has little to do with my point though which was that if your purpose for buying a gun was to make yourself safer and a gun increases your risk of death, that's hardly a good investment.

While it almost sounds like you're making a good argument you are failing entirely to take into account how many times guns are used in defense. A comparative ratio would be the honest way to evaluate whether there is an actual inceased risk or a net decrease when its offset by defensive uses.

 

[fskimospy]

Except the data you use is not valid. Gun owners are more likely to commit suicide with a gun? Wow, that sure is damning evidence for the safety of guns right there. People who owned a gun were more likely to be killed by one? Without proper demographics, that makes no argument against gun safety. If it said people who owned guns and did not partake in illegal activities were more likely to be killed by a gun, I'd concede that point. But is basically says people who own cars are more likely to die in a car wreck. Well, no excrement!

You are more likely to inhale a carcinogen and die from cancer than be killed by a gun.

edit: I probably should refrain from foul language in, at the very least, this forum. >_>

I hardly see why. Is your argument that the owners of guns are less likely to be killed by other means and that despite gun homicides comprising 70% of the total that the other types are so decreased as to lower your overall mortality risk? That's quite a strong statement there.

 

[fskimospy]

While it almost sounds like you're making a good argument you are failing entirely to take into account how many times guns are used in defense. A comparative ratio would be the honest way to evaluate whether there is an actual inceased risk or a net decrease when its offset by defensive uses.

How often do you think guns are used in self defense each year? If you say 2 million, you're using bad stats.

 

[irishScott]

How often do you think guns are used in self defense each year? If you say 2 million, you're using bad stats.

All we have are estimates, and all the figure needs to do is trump 30,000 (approximate number of combined firearm homicides and suicides per year).

 

[corwin]

How often do you think guns are used in self defense each year? If you say 2 million, you're using bad stats.

Whether or not that number is accurate is debatable yes, but to discount the positive entiely as you were attempting to is in fact dishonest. Cut it down to a quarter that number and it still far outweighs the risk...but please come up with a number of your own even then do a comparative analysis and get back to us.

 

[smackababy]

I hardly see why. Is your argument that the owners of guns are less likely to be killed by other means and that despite gun homicides comprising 70% of the total that the other types are so decreased as to lower your overall mortality risk? That's quite a strong statement there.

My argument is that saying that gun owners have less safety because, when committing suicide gun owners USE a gun is a terrible argument. All that means is that people who choose to commit suicide that own guns don't botch it. The data also does address if said people purchased a gun to commit said act relating to the death, either suicide or homicide. Now, if I want to kill someone myself and went and bought a gun to do it, I add to that number despite not being an actual gun owner. I was a person who purchased the most efficient and effective way to end my life.

The numbers and conclusion you are drawing are terribly misleading.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

How often do you think guns are used in self defense each year? If you say 2 million, you're using bad stats.

That's a pretty pat answer.

I don't know what the exact number is. I do know that even the conservative figures are in the tens of thousands a year. It's been discussed here before.

 

[Abraxas]

I've seen this theme repeatedly today as I've been obsessing over the standoff in Boston:

"I really wish I didn't own this firearm in my home" said no one in #Watertown right now.

The timing might be a little suspect, but the sentiment is valid.

How do you figure? I'd say, to borrow your phrase, it is beyond ridiculous. First, the people who have guns, which is stipulated in your pithy quote, aren't generally the ones for gun control. Secondly, it is reasonably like that in all of Watertown there are probably quite a few guns, they don't seem to have helped. Third, even if we accept the idea that everyone would have wanted a gun, that doesn't make it a good idea. You could easily end up with a bunch of panicky morons shooting anything that moves because they are on edge, under stress, and in the general vicinity of a known mad bomber.

This isn't an argument, this is a talking point.

Also:

Originally Posted by ivwshane View Post
Yep and I just happen to be your neighbor looking out of my window when you decide to be the hero and now instead of just shooting at the police they are shooting the building I'm in and throwing bombs towards me and they kill me. Thanks asshole! No worries though you will still get your parade just be sure to wave to my grieving family as you pass them by on your float.

There's enough straw there to feed a thousand cows for a whole winter.

Seriously.. do you have anything reasonable at all to contribute?

To begin with here, you seem to be under a mistaken impression of what a strawman is. Nothing ivwshane said constitutes a mischaracterization of the argument nor a counter argument against said counterfeit, it was the observation that if the shooter missed it could very well result in the shooter becoming a target which means anyone in the immediate vicinity of the shooter is in danger, especially when the targets are hurling bombs. You completely ducked a very valid and very pertinent and very reasonable point.

 

[fskimospy]

Whether or not that number is accurate is debatable yes, but to discount the positive entiely as you were attempting to is in fact dishonest. Cut it down to a quarter that number and it still far outweighs the risk...but please come up with a number of your own even then do a comparative analysis and get back to us.

It's not debateable, it's definitely wrong.

As for your blanket statement that it is definitely worth the risk, what are you basing that on? Why am I coming up with numbers for things you are claiming?

 

[irishScott]

It's not debateable, it's definitely wrong.

As for your blanket statement that it is definitely worth the risk, what are you basing that on? Why am I coming up with numbers for things you are claiming?

Well there's this nice summary of current estimates.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

At one end of the spectrum, the NRA cites research by Gary Kleck, an accomplished criminologist at Florida State University. Based on self-reporting by survey respondents, Kleck has extrapolated that DGU occurs more than 2 million times a year. Kleck doesn’t suggest that gun owners shoot potential antagonists that often. DGU covers various scenarios, including merely brandishing a weapon and scaring off an aggressor.

At the other end of the spectrum, gun skeptics prefer to cite the work of David Hemenway, an eminent public-health scholar at Harvard University. Hemenway, who analogizes gun violence to an epidemic and guns to the contagion, argues that Kleck’s research significantly overestimates the frequency of DGU.

The carping back and forth gets pretty technical, but the brief version is that Hemenway believes Kleck includes too many “false positives”: respondents who claim they’ve chased off burglars or rapists with guns but probably are boasting or, worse, categorizing unlawful aggressive conduct as legitimate DGU. Hemenway finds more reliable an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.

It's notable that there is NO estimate I can find that puts the number of defensive gun uses at lower than, or even in the neighborhood of 30,000 (approximate combined gun homicides and suicides). If even one of these estimates is within 60,000 of the accurate figure, which can be up to 60% error depending on the estimate, it's statistically worth it to have a gun, as you're more likely to use it defensively as opposed to being hurt by it.

But of course, these are just estimates. We'd need a full-blown study for hard evidence, and such a study TMK does not exist.

 

[waggy]

Meh if i was in newtown while all this shit was happening damn right i would want a gun. shrug.


I don't know why people argue about suicides with a gun. The only numbers that should matter are crimes.

 

[fskimospy]

Well there's this nice summary of current estimates.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

What that article doesn't mention is that by the estimates of those who cite the 2-3 million figure, guns were used defensively in more than 100% of burglaries in the entire United States in an average year. Quite an impressive job, thwarting 101%+ of burglaries. It's a wonder thieves keep getting away with stuff.

It's notable that there is NO estimate I can find that puts the number of defensive gun uses at lower than, or even in the neighborhood 30,000 (approximate combined gun homicides and suicides). If even one of these estimates is within 60,000 of the accurate figure, which can be up to 60% error depending on the estimate, it's statistically worth it to have a gun, as you're more likely to use it defensively as opposed to being hurt by it.

But of course, these are just estimates. We'd need a full-blown study for hard evidence, and such a study TMK does not exist.

Research on what people define as 'defensive gun use' shows that much of what people describe as 'defensive' are in fact crimes in and of themselves.
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ited_States_results_from_two_national_surveys

 

[irishScott]

Well there's this nice summary of current estimates.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

What that article doesn't mention is that by the estimates of those who cite the 2-3 million figure, guns were used defensively in more than 100% of burglaries in the entire United States in an average year. Quite an impressive job, thwarting 101%+ of burglaries. It's a wonder thieves keep getting away with stuff.



Research on what people define as 'defensive gun use' shows that much of what people describe as 'defensive' are in fact crimes in and of themselves.
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ited_States_results_from_two_national_surveys

Self defense gun use incidents were summa-rized and sent to five criminal court judges (from California, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts)

CA and MA are two of the most gun-restrictive states in the Union, and the study makes no mention of whether the state in which each incident occurred was conveyed to the judges. Given the sometimes vast disparity in gun laws state-to-state, that information may very well have influence their judgement. What's perfectly legal in Montana will get you years of jail-time in Massachusetts or California, even with a carry permit (which MA almost never issues and CA depends on what county you live in, but PA is shall-issue).

It also points out that the judges were a "convenience" and makes no note of their credentials. I understand why they gave them anonymity but without more information on their credentials I'm highly skeptical about their opinions.

I also wonder how the expansion of concealed carry in some states would affect those numbers were a similar survey conducted today. In Texas for example, the number of active concealed carry permit holders went from 113,640 in 1996 to 584,850 in 2012, according to Texas government stats. Within Texas, I'd imagine that would have a significant effect on self-defense gun usage.

I'll admit that study does produce some interesting findings, but more than anything it goes to show how lacking we are in proper information on this subject.

 

[corwin]

What that article doesn't mention is that by the estimates of those who cite the 2-3 million figure, guns were used defensively in more than 100% of burglaries in the entire United States in an average year. Quite an impressive job, thwarting 101%+ of burglaries. It's a wonder thieves keep getting away with stuff.

Wow...so you're suggesting that the only time these defensive gun uses happen is during burglaries? I think there's a slight flaw in your thinking there

Now you're going to ignore the comparative analysis aren't you? Super conservative estimate is 100k, over 3x as many "deaths"...seems reasonable to want a gun to be more safe to me

Research on what people define as 'defensive gun use' shows that much of what people describe as 'defensive' are in fact crimes in and of themselves.

Research with unknown "judges" playing Monday morning quarterback...and as irishScott said many of those would depend on what jurisdiction things happen in as to whether or not they would be a "crime"

 

[werepossum]

How do you figure? I'd say, to borrow your phrase, it is beyond ridiculous. First, the people who have guns, which is stipulated in your pithy quote, aren't generally the ones for gun control. Secondly, it is reasonably like that in all of Watertown there are probably quite a few guns, they don't seem to have helped. Third, even if we accept the idea that everyone would have wanted a gun, that doesn't make it a good idea. You could easily end up with a bunch of panicky morons shooting anything that moves because they are on edge, under stress, and in the general vicinity of a known mad bomber.

This isn't an argument, this is a talking point.

Also:

To begin with here, you seem to be under a mistaken impression of what a strawman is. Nothing ivwshane said constitutes a mischaracterization of the argument nor a counter argument against said counterfeit, it was the observation that if the shooter missed it could very well result in the shooter becoming a target which means anyone in the immediate vicinity of the shooter is in danger, especially when the targets are hurling bombs. You completely ducked a very valid and very pertinent and very reasonable point.

Your first "point" is somewhat self-evident, but Charles' statement is still true as you pointed out. It is not ridiculous to point out the truth. Your second "point" is, um, pointless. Guns may not have helped materially, but they certainly contributed to a feeling of security among those who had them. And your third "point" is directly refuted by your second; given that there are "probably quite a few guns" in Watertown and yet there was no evidence of "a bunch of panicky morons shooting anything that moves because they are on edge, under stress, and in the general vicinity of a known mad bomber."

As for your and ivwshane's point, it is quite humorous. These are men (well, manlike animals) who intentionally placed bombs behind children. Your contention is that you are most safe from them if you and everyone around are powerless to fight back and simply don't attract their notice, yet they were perfectly capable and willing to come into the apartment building and kill everyone inside had the cops not kept them a bit occupied. You are first assuming that you are relatively safe from them unless someone fires on them, which is simply not true. They were terrorists; anyone around them without a giant "I am a Muslim" tee shirt is at risk, because that's what they do.