Topic: Firearms, weapons, and the law.

[ratfusion]

3. defense. now this one i disagree with. i'm no fool, you're 85% more likely to suffer a violent death if you own guns. that is a skewed and half remembered statistic from some obscure source, so i'll trim it a bit to 50%, but basically it doesn't matter. there are situations where a gun will help you, but equally as many where it'll make you overconfident and get your dumb ass killed. frankly to own a gun is to take the responsibility that comes with it and to understand that it doesn't make you an action hero. Guns are not a defensive weapon. tasers/stun guns are defensive, meant to incapacitate and prevent harm to the user. guns are made to do one thing: kill stuff. they can be used for other things, but that is, at the core of it their core use.

Thats the statistic with no base that is so often repeated that its certainly in the realm of 'a lie repeated often enough becomes 'truth''.

Heres one blurb to counter, but as I said, the statistics are totally screwy on all sides of the debate:

     A widely quoted study in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that gun owners were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than non-owners. But does that mean that owning a gun increases your risk of being murdered? Or does it mean that people who are more likely to be murdered – such as those living in bad neighborhoods – are more likely to own a gun?

     The evidence is overwhelming that living in a dangerous environment is a key reason why many people buy guns.

     In fact, firearms are the most effective way to protect your home from criminals. According to firearms expert J. Neil Schulman, every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses his or her firearm in self-defense.

     1,145 times a day handguns are used against robbers. 416 times each day women use their handguns to protect themselves from rapists. Overall, a gun in the home is 216 times more likely to be used in self defense than to cause the death of an innocent victim. And even if you don't own a gun, preserving the right of your neighbors to own them is one of the best ways to keep criminals out of your neighborhood.

     But what about gun accidents? According to nationally syndicated columnist Samuel Frances, your chance of dying from the accidental discharge of a firearm is 1 in 200,000. You are 29 times more likely to die in an automobile accident.

     As long as you are peaceful, learn how to use your guns safely, and take reasonable precautions to keep them out of the hands of children and criminals, a gun in the house makes you safer and could save your life if you are attacked.

link

Another:

36. Isn't a gun in the home 43 times more likely to kill a friend or loved-one than be used against an intruder?

It was actually an intruder versus a non-intruder. Nevertheless, it was
a misrepresentation of a meaningless comparison from a limited and
poorly done study. This study was performed over a 6 year period in one
single county in the USA. As this study is was done in just one county,
that makes its results useless for saying what happens anywhere else.
Scientists and researchers call this "a sample size of one".

The comparison is meaningless because it is an apples vs oranges
comparison. 37 of the 43 are suicides, 4.6 are classified as criminal
homicides, and 1.3 were classified as accidents.[36]

.....

The Hart Poll in 1981 found 644,000 defensive uses with handguns per
year. The Mauser Poll in 1990 found 691,000 defensive uses per year.
The Field Poll in California in 1978 found 1.2 million handgun defensive
uses per year. The Time/CNN Poll in 1989 found over 908,000 defensive
uses per year. Gary Kleck estimated the yearly defensive use of firearms
by civilians to be at about 1,000,000 per year. A more recent study by
Gary Kleck put the yearly total at approximately 2,400,000 defensive
uses. Yet the total deaths by firearm in the USA only runs about 25,000
to 30,000 per year, and that includes accidents, murders, suicides and
self defense homicides. That means a gun is 30-40 times more likely
to defend against an assault or other crime than kill anybody. As
accidental firearm's related deaths is about 1400 per year, including
hunting accidents, the defensive use verses accidental death ratio is
about 700-800 to 1.

link

[The GrimSqueaker]

There's that number again. The one that infers that around one in a hundred Americans has had to pull a firearm to prevent a crime each year. One dangerous place eh? 

Except: Linky

Kleck and Gertz’s claim of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year is derived from a telephone survey of 5,000 American adults conducted in 1992. Fifty-six respondents to this survey reported that they had used a gun in self-defense during the past year. Kleck and Gertz multiply the proportion of respondents in their survey who report a defensive gun use (X /5,000 = Y percent) by the number of adults in the U.S. (around 200 million) and the number of defensive gun uses equals 2.5 million per year. They estimate that in 670,000 of these incidents the would-be victims used guns when they were away from their homes.

Although research by John Lott and Gary Kleck has challenged the prevailing view that gun regulations can reduce lethal crimes, the many limitations of Lott’s and Kleck’s research indicate that there is no reason to move from view of guns and violence backed by research in previous decades. Until proven otherwise, the best science indicates that more guns will lead to more deaths.

[ratfusion]

Until proven otherwise, the best science indicates that more guns will lead to more deaths.

But if that increase is an increase in criminals shot in the commission of a crime, I'm not worried. I suspect you guys will disagree, and that really is the root of our differences.

[The GrimSqueaker]

Which is why we have to keep pointing out to you the other side of the story. It's never a black/white equation.

[Ailaros]

I think the smoker analogy is a great example.

You look at someone and come to the conclusion that what they're doing is dumb, dangerous, or just plain wrong. You then take it up as your moral prerogative to prevent that bad thing, and try to prevent other people from engaging in that thing.

That kind of thinking causes a lot of problems in the world.

[The GrimSqueaker]

If phone surveys are your thing - linky. But you won't like this one Ratty.

Do you want to take the chance that the cougar attack that you're involved in is NOT going to be one of your 18% that are fatal?  I don't want to take that chance.  Besides, even if it is not fatal, it could seriously alter your life, and not in a good way.  

When it's one per year across two countries and of that one, 18% are fatal, I'm good thanks.    I have a far greater probability (2000 times IIRC) of being killed on the roads. So I'll worry about things more likely to happen that do involve me. Unless it's a cougar driving at the time then it's time for my survivors to get on the talk show circuit.

But, for the most part, I would rather have a civilian population with the ability to defend themselves as opposed to one that lived in fear of the criminal element.  Granted, an armed populace might not be ideal, but I'd rather have it than the alternative.

A mixed argument there as thinking that you need to be armed to protect yourself means you are in fear of the criminal element. Otherwise you wouldn't need to be armed in the first place if you didn't worry at all about it. In the same manner as other than per the law I wear a seatbelt to protect myself against injury in a car accident. If I was completely unafraid of injury in a car accident I wouldn't wear one.

As far as America being involved in many of the recent world conflicts goes, if you disturb the biggest, baddest inmate in the cell block from his nap, you better expect someone's going to get violated because of it.  

Another mixed argument. As in this case it's more the "baddest inmate in the cell block" violated a former accomplice who happened to be sitting in the library. At least for the last one. 

That kind of thinking causes a lot of problems in the world.

Or helps solve a lot of problems. As that kind of thinking is how we improve society for ourselves and others. "Damn, do you mean throwing our sewage in our potable water source could be bad for us?"  "You're right, using lead paint in our make up was a bad idea." "Asbestos in friable school material? Let them learn that one themselves." 

Without context your statement is meaningless Ailaros. 

[The GrimSqueaker]

Double post as the previous one is already long enough and this one concerns entirely different material without reference to previous posts. I am a professional, do not attempt this at home.

In other news that does involve a gun but this time one on a warship – HMS Daring is to begin sea trials.

The Daring is the first of the Royal Navy’s new Type 45 guided missile destroyers.  The Type 45 is to replace the Type 42 (Sheffield and Manchester Class) which are 25 years old now. 

The interesting, and personally appealing, factor for the Type 45’s are that they’re maintaining use of the 4.5-inch Mark 8 Mod 1 gun. The RN wishes to maintain her ability to support ground operations with close in direct fire power as well as through aerial and missile support. Newer ship designs have moved away from direct fire support due to the common threat of mid-range anti-ship missiles.

From DefenseTech

The Darings will have a full load displacement of 7,450 tons with an overall length of 499 feet, making them smaller than the improved U.S. Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which displace 9,200 tons on a length of 509 feet. Also, the British ships are rated at 29 knots, about two knots slower than their U.S. contemporaries.

This is in comparison to the Type 42’s 4,775 tons, 463 feet length, and 29.5 knots. Armament is increased somewhat with theatre ballistic missile defence as well as up-grades to the more expected anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine systems.

It’s always good to see a new ship design finally begin trials and hopefully we’ll see more of her class (Dauntless and Diamond) in the near future.

[Ailaros]

That kind of thinking causes a lot of problems in the world.

Without context your statement is meaningless Ailaros. 

Fine. Examples of people thinking that they know whats best and acting on it has caused (among many others) the following things considered to be bad:

anti-gay rights movements, racial segregation in the schools, the war in Iraq, banning abortions (or anything else, for that matter), pro-torture legislation, islamic jihad, the holocaust, the cold war, foot binding & female genital mutilation, slavery, religious persecution, forcible seisures, all the bigotry and prejudice in the world, etc. etc. etc.

Now, you people can descend like a pack of hyenas and try to debate about why some of those things on my huge list aren't bad, but it doesn't change my point:

People believing they know what's best and the willingness to make the world in the image of what you think is best causes a lot of problems in the world.

In all of these cases, it's not a matter of who's right and who's wrong, but what side you're on.

[The GrimSqueaker]

In all of these cases, it's not a matter of who's right and who's wrong, but what side you're on.

Is it that you can't see what is right/wrong in your own examples or are you merely tired of the discussion? As I'm pretty sure people are able to describe what is "wrong" with what you describe.

It's not the cause that matters as such but the context of the cause. Declaring that eating your own species is bad is one thing but declaring that eating all meat is bad is another. Which is why those who would wish all firearms to be banned from private ownership are in one group and those who merely wish restrictions on the type of firearms in private ownership are in another.

[Jehan-Reznor]

if i do not  sides and only make observations does that make me good or bad 

The way i see it is the the right to bear arms is like a commandment in the bible.
Thou shalt bear arms, it is something set in stone.
and we not-americans just cannot see the logic of it.

But try to see it from our point of view, our countries existed a little longer than america, very strict gun laws yet no high crime levels, if the the govermant becomes oprresive we rebel (french revolution, russia (communist violent, end of comunism not so violent), east germany not violent. Even in my country (holland) been countless uprisings against the french and spanish during their occupation.
last time we got some help  .

The comment that gunownership has anything to do with freedom is very alien to "us"

[ratfusion]

You're closer than you think Reznor. 

Some of us, especially the libertarians (Ailaros and myself), think the guys that founded our country had some damn good ideas, and hold the constitution in very high regard.  We'll admit its not flawless (and therefore not supernatural), but it can be rather vague leading to a lot of competing opinions of what they meant (like that rather famous book you mentioned).  We may also give the impression of it set in stone, because as it stands now it is impervious to normal laws (must be amended), and all the laws trying to skirt it are illegal.

There does seem to be a vast divide in mindset between europeans and americans.   We find your blind altruism, while well intentioned, lacking consideration of real world results and  human nature.  You see our individualism and self reliance as callous, greedy, and self centered.

As far as comparing violence vs gun levels between europe and the US, you have to consider many more factors than just number of guns.  Most European countires are predominantly single cultured.   America, the melting pot, is a largely multicultural nation, a bit of an oddity at that.   Compared to other ethnically diverse countries, I think you'll find we get along remarkably well.   Take the former yugoslavia for example.  I'm not saying this either is the predominant cause, but it must be considered.  Compare crime rates between different ethnic groups in the US.

[Jehan-Reznor]

You're closer than you think Reznor. 

There does seem to be a vast divide in mindset between europeans and americans.   We find your blind altruism, while well intentioned, lacking consideration of real world results and  human nature.  You see our individualism and self reliance as callous, greedy, and self centered.

As far as comparing violence vs gun levels between europe and the US, you have to consider many more factors than just number of guns.  Most European countires are predominantly single cultured.   America, the melting pot, is a largely multicultural nation, a bit of an oddity at that.   Compared to other ethnically diverse countries, I think you'll find we get along remarkably well.   Take the former yugoslavia for example.  I'm not saying this either is the predominant cause, but it must be considered.  Compare crime rates between different ethnic groups in the US.

Thanks i am not so stupid after all 

yes america is a multi cultural country, but i consider an overstatement, there is a lot of ghetto forming in america and the different culteral groups stick mostly together, the evidence we see (correct me if i am wrong) is that the integration is lower than in some other countries. i can only speak for my own country and we have a very large diverse group of people even Hirsh "something" Ali became an Minister and she had ask political asylum. although my goverment is somewhat overzealos when it comes to integration and is also now gripped by the "terrorist" threat. but anyway my country has lots of people from our former colonies, turks, marocans and so on. France has a lot of former algerians living there. Europe is getting more multi-cultural because our borders are slowly eroding due to the europe community.

Crime rates mostly have to do with the poor and unprivileged, better education, health system and less ghetto forming is the key to lower the crime rates, not increasing police enforcement and the prison system.
i hope that was not to liberal for ya 

in my opinion violence breeds violence, and there are lot of people in america that say to adhere to that famous book (no not harry potter). there is a line that says thou should not kill and that was a little earlier than the the 2nd admendment.

[ratfusion]

in my opinion violence breeds violence, and there are lot of people in america that say to adhere to that famous book (no not harry potter). there is a line that says thou should not kill and that was a little earlier than the the 2nd admendment.

Most people seem to make exceptions for war, eating, and defense.   Oh, and the spanish inquisition.   


On a serious note, its not like you see in hollywood.   I know everyone 'knows' movies aren't real, but you see enough of the same thing and start to think thats how it is.  For example, the assault weapons ban came to be because those geniuses in the anti-gun camp thought a pistol grip would enable a rifle to be fired from the hip (try it, when you really can't hit the barn, you'll be asking all rifles to have them), and other such nonsense.

We don't sit around polishing our guns, getting ready to drive through the ghetto to start a fight.  For every one dumbass redneck with gun you see, theres a hundred citizens carrying concealed that you'll never know about.  The vast majority of gun enthusiasts I know hope they'll never have to use their weapon, but stay proficient so they'll have the option.  I really don't see a culture of violence to breed violence.

Now the big city gangs that get so much coverage, and glorification in movies, that certainly is a violence breeding cesspool.   The root of that problem is not guns though, it doesn't take long to see that.  They're perfectly willing to kill each other with whatever they have handy.

Edit:

CHESHIRE, Conn. —  Three people were killed after thieves broke into their home, held them hostage for several hours and ultimately set the house ablaze before being nabbed by police while trying to flee the scene.

Authorities surrounded the home after a woman was taken by one of the suspects to a bank and somehow alerted an employee that her family was being held hostage, The Hartford Courant reported on its Web site. Connecticut State Police said in a statement issued Monday that officers went to the residence after bank officials notified them of a "suspicious withdrawal."

A man inside the house was able to escape with severe injuries and provide authorities with some information, state police said in the statement. The man is currently hospitalized in serious but stable condition.

Two suspects tried to escape after apparently setting the home on fire, but were quickly arrested at gunpoint when the car they were driving crashed into two police cruisers, according to state authorities.

The Cheshire Fire Department responded to the scene, extinguished the fire and discovered three bodies inside the house, state police said.

full story

I'd rather have a firearm and not need it.  Who knows, maybe they did and it didn't do them any good, or maybe they kept it locked up 'for the children'.  Still, I'd rather have the option to.

[The GrimSqueaker]

Don't double post when you're merely continuing the same argument.

Games of Anecdote-ago-go doesn't work in this instance remember?

Edit: The latest edition of Reason magazine holds hope for the ownership argument.

Bagge travels to a gun show, interviews people on both sides of the gun control issue and ultimately concludes that, yes, an American should be able to own a bazooka: "If I don't hurt, threaten or disturb anyone with it, then why can't I own one?"

[Full Metal Geneticist]

The main gripe I have is the number of people who claim the gun is for target practice (Holland rules allow guns to be kept for target practice in shooting ranges.) Self defence wise there are other ways to deal with safety than going for a gun. Plenty of innocent people have been shot by accident even by trained individuals. Self defence wise there is really no excuse cause there is a whole range of things possible without going for the lethal option. In the end its just property.

And the incident provided would not have been solved by any of the people carrying a gun since its a hostage situation. Even if the person had a sharpened piece of glass the greatest handgun in the world would still be at a disadvantage.

[ratfusion]

It wouldn't have been a hostage situation if the intruders were shot and stopped.  The above situation is provided, because its was 2 days ago, and provides a situation where you need a gun.

Linked article number 1.  Yes theres stupid people out there that will be aggressive for unjustified reason.  What if the guy chased them around town and continued to shoot?  If the family was armed they may have been able to do something about it.

That second story linked is bizzare, and those punk kids were out of line.  Where were the parents?  Seems Darwin did us a favor.  Sure he responded with too much force and should be prosecuted, but how is this a case against firearms?  He could have walked out there and hit them with an axe.

Americans had privately owned artillery pieces up until this century.  Merchant vessels were armed with the same types of weaponry as the navy.  Its not out of line to suggest the original intent of the 2nd amendment included bazookas, how ever scary you may think that is.  Weapon restrictions only affect law abiding citizens, who are not the people I'm worried about anyhow.

FMG:  what self defense methods do you suggest vs a firearm?

In the end its just property.

Or one less thief on the streets.


What were going to come down to is:  do you think its acceptable that assailants and thieves are shot and possibly killed while committing crime?

[The GrimSqueaker]

The above situation is provided, because its was 2 days ago, and provides a situation where you need a gun.

Need a gun? No. As you admitted in the post, you do not have the information available to show that a firearm would have helped in any manner. As you said, they may have had one and it did no good. So no, don't try and claim "need a gun" in this instance.

Linked article number 1.  Yes theres stupid people out there that will be aggressive for unjustified reason.  What if the guy chased them around town and continued to shoot?  If the family was armed they may have been able to do something about it.

What if games. What if the guy wasn't armed to begin with? We've played dueling statistics of whether more weapons help already.

That second story linked is bizzare, and those punk kids were out of line.  Where were the parents?  Seems Darwin did us a favor.  Sure he responded with too much force and should be prosecuted, but how is this a case against firearms?  He could have walked out there and hit them with an axe.

He used a firearm thus it is a firearms situation. He didn't use an axe. More "what if" games Ratty.

What were going to come down to is:  do you think its acceptable that assailants and thieves are shot and possibly killed while committing crime?

Without context you're merely pandering to the crowd Ratty. It's a loaded question that is only going to end in games of "what if." We may all go at length describing exact situations to force one view point or another. For example - killing people for shoplifting? This isn't Deathworld where all crime is caused by the living and thus the sentence is always death. If you wish to offer a question be more careful in phrasing it.

[ratfusion]

Hardly 'what if' games,  none of those situations would have been made better with a gun ban, with the possible exception of the 'road rage' example.   Rather interesting actually, because I've always heard road rage cited as a reason to ban guns, but thats the first incident I've actually heard of.

Lets refine the question for you:  Are there situations where you would find it acceptable for a private citizen to shoot and possibly kill an intruder to defend his/her home and family?

What about store owners, is it acceptable if a clerk shoots an robber if he felt his life was threatened?


I felt the standard force pyramid was implied in the earlier example, but these should be easier to answer.

[The GrimSqueaker]

Loaded questions once more.  It's like asking "Are there situations where it is not acceptable for a private citizen to shoot and possibly kill an intruder?" The answer is yes as there are always possible situations no matter how convoluted or unlikely where the response is unacceptable. The intruder was their teenage daughter who came home late. It was their landlord who knocked, had earlier notified, and had gotten no response. The addition of "to defend their home and family" is merely to predispose judgement as an emotional response. Standard fair in these matters.

As for "felt if their life was threatend" you're going to have the same response. Examples could be given in either way to prove that the response is acceptable or unacceptable. It's all a game of "what if."

Without context these questions are meaningless and are merely pandering to emotion. Come on already.

[Jehan-Reznor]

Lets refine the question for you:  Are there situations where you would find it acceptable for a private citizen to shoot and possibly kill an intruder to defend his/her home and family?

What about store owners, is it acceptable if a clerk shoots an robber if he felt his life was threatened?


I felt the standard force pyramid was implied in the earlier example, but these should be easier to answer.

well how about if america claims that our tulips are realy weapons of mass destruction   and start to invade holland, then i would take up arms to defend my country.

about your second question that depends on the situation, mostly storeowners who really are store owners will try to defend their income, while those who are employed, find their safety more inportant.
and just give the money, but in most european countries will the robber rarely have a gun, that maybe the reason why robbing a store at night using a car has been on a uprise.