Women defending themselves with *Gasp* guns!

[Laufey]

Would have made more sense to compare it to cars or alcohol he took it kinda far

[chrisrobin]

An American tradition.

[TX-Beau]

Would have made more sense to compare it to cars or alcohol he took it kinda far

They like to bring up alcohol, and cars - then they conveniently forget that BOTH alcohol and cars are heavily and efficiently regulated AND TAXED, hell we even tax the fuck out of FUEL for those cars so lets tax the fuck out of ammunition. So if there is a comparison, it's that only certain types of vehicles are allowed to be operated - defined by the government - emissions are regulated, there must be licensing - registration, yearly inspections, you pay the taxes on the vehicle, you pay the taxes on the fuel - the Gov can revoke your licence if they see fit, and you are required to undergo things like vision tests to get your licence in the first place. Not so much a Libertarian dream now is it. You are LEGALLY REQUIRED to carry liability insurance - I'm all for that comparison, people who own firearms should be required to carry liability insurance for them.

HA watch them abandon the car comparison once we start talking about expecting the same level of responsibility for owning a gun, that we all are expected to display when owning a car.

[andysayshi]

^ The standard gun advocate response is "Car ownership is not a right".

Which, of course, is nonsense. We have a right to work, thus earning a living to feed ourselves and our families. In a world where non-walkable distances are the norm, because of the high prevalence of motor vehicles, inhibiting the right to a motor vehicle is almost certainly inhibiting one's right to sustain one's own life.

If gun ownership is justifiable as a means of self protection because of the prevalence of guns in society, then car ownership is equally a right because of the distances commonly traversed in ordinary life. And yet we heavily regulate motor vehicles, we force drivers to prove their competency, we force them to buy insurance, and we heavily tax their fuel, all to ensure the safety of the car user and the wider community.

[Stardreamer]

Yeah, because nothing scares kamikadze bombers as much as handguns...

There were no Kamikazes at Pearl Harbor, the Kamikaze Squadrons didn't appear to late in the war when Japan was starting to get desperate. The mini-sub crews were probably not expecting to make it back though. And yes if the fleet and Army Air Corp had enough warning to sortie or even just clear way the anti-aircraft defenses the results would have been quite different, can't say that it still wouldn't have been a defeat as the Japanese had planned for losing surprise but the casualty counts would have been far less one sided.

[Stardreamer]

Would have made more sense to compare it to cars or alcohol he took it kinda far

Nope just exchanging rather lose, faulty comparisons. Alcohol would be a better example too but more people abuse caffeine to the determent of their health, at least so my doctor keeps trying to tell me.

[Stardreamer]

This is absolutely not true. Caffeine most emphatically does not kill people, unless it is deliberately ingested in concentrated industrial form as a suicide attempt. You can't kill yourself with the caffeine in a cup of coffee.

The benefits and risks of caffeine have been studied by the medical establishment for decades. The conclusion is that caffeine is generally a positive benefit for people who use it routinely.

I mean you no disrespect, stardreamer, but to compare the risk of guns to caffeine is beyond absurd. You people who argue for unrestricted gun distribution do not do yourselves credit by such illogic. You prove to the rest of us that your advocacy is driven by emotion, not reason.

Which is why doctors are currently pushing to remind people that caffeine is a drug and not just a food additive and people should cut back on it. Comparing gun use to drugs at all is a rather lose comparison to start with, so I'm not even going to real logical in its analysis but are being more general. Most doctors will tell you that caffeine is a drug and the consumption of it in the amounts used in the typical American diet is NOT good for you.

[andysayshi]

While I'm sure caffeine abuse does probably exist to a degree, the abuse of alcohol is in no way comparable to caffeine. Worldwide, alcohol is estimated to be responsible for 4% of all deaths - more than tobacco, AIDS or tuberculosis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_821900.html

[Stardreamer]

They like to bring up alcohol, and cars - then they conveniently forget that BOTH alcohol and cars are heavily and efficiently regulated AND TAXED, hell we even tax the fuck out of FUEL for those cars so lets tax the fuck out of ammunition. So if there is a comparison, it's that only certain types of vehicles are allowed to be operated - defined by the government - emissions are regulated, there must be licensing - registration, yearly inspections, you pay the taxes on the vehicle, you pay the taxes on the fuel - the Gov can revoke your licence if they see fit, and you are required to undergo things like vision tests to get your licence in the first place. Not so much a Libertarian dream now is it. You are LEGALLY REQUIRED to carry liability insurance - I'm all for that comparison, people who own firearms should be required to carry liability insurance for them.

HA watch them abandon the car comparison once we start talking about expecting the same level of responsibility for owning a gun, that we all are expected to display when owning a car.

I would point out I'm not the one who started making off the wall comparisons of guns to drugs. As far as I know guns are taxed and regulated and I at least have no problems with that as long as the regulation meets constitutional muster.

[TX-Beau]

Then you should have no problems with reinstating the ban Bush let lapse in 2006.

[Stardreamer]

Then you should have no problems with reinstating the ban Bush let lapse in 2006.

Yes, I have no problems with the reinstating of the 'assault weapons' ban, though I doubt it will be any more effective than it was the first time which was not very much. The vast majority of gun crimes, accidents and suicides in the US are not committed with those particular models of guns. But it would save a handful (in the overall comparison) of lives which is why I have no major objection to it.

I also think there is a 2nd amendment issue with the law IF you try to use the 'its all and only about militias' position because such weapons are clearly militia weapons. Part of the reason I like Kuli's arsenal idea, it gives you the best of both worlds.

[TX-Beau]

Well, since there has been no national discussion at all about militias, and there will be no action at all about new regulation - all of this is quite pointless.

Our gun regulations are ineffective because the NRA has paid a whole lot of money to purchase that outcome.

Frankly the problem is not crazy people, militias, regulations, assault rifles, bans or banana clips.

The problem is a gun culture in which people are taught to fetishize weapons and project all kinds of silly emotional baggage onto them. Some of the worshipers will be responsible - but a whole of them will not - because they bought the weapon because of the fantasy, and have no fucking clue what they are doing.

[andysayshi]

This thread topic is based on 3 or 4 anecdotal references, so it might make sense to view some real statistics and studies about the topic:

Guns were used in two thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicides between 1990-2005.

The likelihood of death in a domestic violence incident is significantly higher in homes where a gun is kept.

Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.

Laws that prohibit the purchase of a firearm by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order are associated with a reduction in the number of intimate partner homicides.

There is no doubt that women in the US are at far more risk of death during domestic violence incidents if they live in a house with a gun, or if their partner owns a gun.

[Stardreamer]

This thread topic is based on 3 or 4 anecdotal references, so it might make sense to view some real statistics and studies about the topic:

Guns were used in two thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicides between 1990-2005.

The likelihood of death in a domestic violence incident is significantly higher in homes where a gun is kept.

Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.

Laws that prohibit the purchase of a firearm by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order are associated with a reduction in the number of intimate partner homicides.

There is no doubt that women in the US are at far more risk of death during domestic violence incidents if they live in a house with a gun, or if their partner owns a gun.

A point I think I already conceded in my research into the 'killed by their own gun' issue. Most such deaths are either suicides or a family member.

[andysayshi]

FBI. NIH. NSI.

You know -- government agencies charged with keeping track of such things. The LOW estimate of the times annually people use firearms to protect themselves is in the hundreds of thousands. The HIGH end is around two and a half million.

So if the assertion were true, we'd have to have a murder rate also in the hundreds of thousands... or millions.

Re: FBI
I have asked you in previous discussions to cite FBI statistics, but you haven't. And I now know the reason why: the FBI have never, and do not, gather or publish any statistics about gun use that prevents crime. They only publish material relating to reported crimes, and rely on stats from the Dept Of Justice for non-reported crime. If you can show me otherwise, I'd like to see it.

Re: NIH.

The NIH actually find the opposite of your claim. Their 2009 study into gun possession during crime found that people carrying guns were 4.46 times more likely to be shot during a crime, and this rises to 5.45 times more likely if the victim had at least some time to resist their attacker.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

Re: NSI

I cannot find any info relating to an NSI. Can you provide some?


Overall, the few Government studies in the US about gun crime and gun deaths have consistently shown that guns increase the likelihood of death in most crime situations.

The reason I've bolded the word "few" is to highlight the absurd lack of real studies that exist in relation to US gun crime. We are usually left addressing studies that are decades old. The NRA have made it their business for almost three decades to prevent US agencies from investigating gun crime and gun deaths. In 1996, after the CDC had conducted numerous studies that found gun prevalence increases the likelihood of gun deaths and injuries, the NRA and numerous Republicans (all of whom received NRA financial contributions) successfully orchestrated funding ammendments that prevented the CDC from spending money on gun studies. The following clause:

“None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

remains today, and is now placed on every funding Bill for the CDC.

Dr. Arthur Kellermann, a prominent researcher whose 1993 CDC-funded study became a flashpoint in the debate over government funding of gun research, told Salon that the effects of the campaign against gun research have real consequences. “In a nation dedicated to personal freedom and responsibility, it is ironic that policymakers and the public have been denied access to timely and objective research on this issue for 15 years and counting,” he said in an email.

Indeed, gun violence is the second leading cause of death for young people after car accidents, but the federal agency responsible for researching ways to stop it has had its hands tied. No other research topic has been singled out in this way. “We’ve got a huge social problem that causes a very substantial amount of premature mortality and by and large, we have invested scant resources studying it. And the reason is politics,” Teret said.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_...n_gun_science/



The same process is being repeated more recently against the NIH.

If guns really do make people safer, why is the US's greatest gun advocacy group, the NRA, working so hard to repress any research or study into the science of gun deaths within the US?

[Kulindahr]

^ Your point is that you think it a good idea to take a drug that is several times more likely to kill you or a family member than it ever is to help you in any way.

And you keep insisting that putting your own life and your family's lives at risk is a wonderful idea. That the more people who take this dangerous drug, the better! It's okay, because most people will finally survive the toxicity, while almost nobody will benefit!

Are you insane? Such a drug would be banned in every country on earth. No reputab

Your analogy with driving a car is ridiculous. Almost every time you go somewhere in a car, you derive some benefit from that journey. So, you balance enormous benefit against very, very limited risk. With guns, you balance very, very limited benefit with enormous risk.

Only an idiot would "protect" himself with a device that is far, far more likely to kill him than to shield him from harm.

I'm still waiting to see the stats showing that several hundred thousand people each year are killed with their own firearms.

[Kulindahr]

I will only point out that the court has never overturned any same-sex marriage bans either. Or - so far - DOMA. Courts' rules come from people, the "Court" is not some divine infallible institution. And people rule as the times dictate. America is STILL riddled with nut-jobs who revere guns. I imagine it was only more pronounced in the past.

The only real difference between now and the past is that there are a lot of people now who would rather pretend someone else will protect them, and since they don't want to protect themselves, they want to deprive everyone else of basic human rights.

[Kulindahr]

You people who argue for unrestricted gun distribution ....

Lies are not a good argument.

[Kulindahr]

^ The standard gun advocate response is "Car ownership is not a right".

Which, of course, is nonsense. We have a right to work, thus earning a living to feed ourselves and our families. In a world where non-walkable distances are the norm, because of the high prevalence of motor vehicles, inhibiting the right to a motor vehicle is almost certainly inhibiting one's right to sustain one's own life.

If gun ownership is justifiable as a means of self protection because of the prevalence of guns in society, then car ownership is equally a right because of the distances commonly traversed in ordinary life. And yet we heavily regulate motor vehicles, we force drivers to prove their competency, we force them to buy insurance, and we heavily tax their fuel, all to ensure the safety of the car user and the wider community.

You don't own the surfaces you drive on. The owners may set the rules.

[Kulindahr]

Then you should have no problems with reinstating the ban Bush let lapse in 2006.

Feel-good moves are irrational at base. "Assault weapon" means nothing other than "a long gun that looks scary". I have a problem with any irrational law.

[Stardreamer]

Who is or is not right in their particular 'pet' statistics is not all that relevant. In a sense there is truth to the arguments of both sides but I again point to the 7th circuit ruling related to Heller, the 2nd Amendment right to have guns for self defense is not debatable on the basis of statistics. All the figures you can come up with about how dangerous or not a gun in a household is, cannot by itself be used to justify denying law abiding citizens the right to own a gun. So whether owning a gun increases your chances of death or not is not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is what is 'reasonable' regulation and limitations on the right to reduce the unlawful use of guns and to improve gun safety. There is plenty of room for trying to improve the situation inside those grounds without wasting pointless time debating numbers.

[andysayshi]

You don't own the surfaces you drive on. The owners may set the rules.

Standard response: Government owns the road. People own the Government. If you don't like the road rules, and enough people agree with you, you can change the rules.

If, as you seem to contend, the roads are private property, like a shopping mall, then it would be legal for the road owner (the Government) to ban the carrying of guns on the road, just like a shopping mall can do.

[Stardreamer]

Feel-good moves are irrational at base. "Assault weapon" means nothing other than "a long gun that looks scary". I have a problem with any irrational law.

Really the only part of the law that would have any real effect that I can see is the limit on magazine size.

[Kulindahr]

Re: FBI
I have asked you in previous discussions to cite FBI statistics, but you haven't. And I now know the reason why: the FBI have never, and do not, gather or publish any statistics about gun use that prevents crime. They only publish material relating to reported crimes, and rely on stats from the Dept Of Justice for non-reported crime. If you can show me otherwise, I'd like to see it.

I've only seen FBI figures second-hand. They're broad estimates because the figures aren't directly collected on this issue.

Re: NIH.

The NIH actually find the opposite of your claim. Their 2009 study into gun possession during crime found that people carrying guns were 4.46 times more likely to be shot during a crime, and this rises to 5.45 times more likely if the victim had at least some time to resist their attacker.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

That study is flawed simply by the fact that they only studied instances when a firearm was actually fired (maybe even only those in which someone was shot). It is also flawed in that it studied just one city.

Re: NSI

I cannot find any info relating to an NSI. Can you provide some?

Sorry -- NSC. They're the ones who gave the NRA an award for their gun safety programs.

Overall, the few Government studies in the US about gun crime and gun deaths have consistently shown that guns increase the likelihood of death in most crime situations.

The reason I've bolded the word "few" is to highlight the absurd lack of real studies that exist in relation to US gun crime. We are usually left addressing studies that are decades old. The NRA have made it their business for almost three decades to prevent US agencies from investigating gun crime and gun deaths. In 1996, after the CDC had conducted numerous studies that found gun prevalence increases the likelihood of gun deaths and injuries, the NRA and numerous Republicans (all of whom received NRA financial contributions) successfully orchestrated funding ammendments that prevented the CDC from spending money on gun studies. The following clause:

remains today, and is now placed on every funding Bill for the CDC.


http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_...n_gun_science/

The CDC has no business studying firearms issues -- they're not a disease.

And Kellerman is less credible than Lott.

The same process is being repeated more recently against the NIH.

If guns really do make people safer, why is the US's greatest gun advocacy group, the NRA, working so hard to repress any research or study into the science of gun deaths within the US?

I don't agree that they are. The law merely says the federal agency is not allowed to advocate gun control. THough if any federal agency is going to study it, the NIH makes more sense than the CDC.

[Kulindahr]

Who is or is not right in their particular 'pet' statistics is not all that relevant. In a sense there is truth to the arguments of both sides but I again point to the 7th circuit ruling related to Heller, the 2nd Amendment right to have guns for self defense is not debatable on the basis of statistics. All the figures you can come up with about how dangerous or not a gun in a household is, cannot by itself be used to justify denying law abiding citizens the right to own a gun. So whether owning a gun increases your chances of death or not is not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is what is 'reasonable' regulation and limitations on the right to reduce the unlawful use of guns and to improve gun safety. There is plenty of room for trying to improve the situation inside those grounds without wasting pointless time debating numbers.

This is true. And with major voices on both sides -- e.g. Kellerman and Lott -- being discredited, the search for valid statistics is muddled at best.

The right exists. The Second Amendment protects it. The question is how to work within that right and Amendment -- something only one or two voices here seems interested in.

Invoke the definition of militia as the foundation for defining certain capacities as limited to "arsenals" for both storage and use; include large magazines, night scopes, and anything else that departs from the "common use" concept within the militia concept. Invoke the same definition to require secure storage of all firearms not intended for home defense -- which could be extended to all long guns unless an owner has no handguns.

Ultimately, put firearms education into the schools as "militia education", emphasizing safety. The power could easily be misused, but such a plan would allow for assessment by professionals all along the way, and those deemed psychologically unstable could be denied militia certification, and thus be denied ownership of firearms.

Of course this would cost money, something the country sort of lacks at the moment. But some low-cost efforts could be done immediately:

• open access to the NICS to private sellers
• require "Eddie Eagle" safety programs to be taught in all schools
• authorize public institutions to assess any individual who seems to be a public threat and require them to report those judged to be one to the NICS

And recognize that there are people alive today who would not be if they had not had access to firearms, and that to say the ability of people to obtain such for their own defense must be made burdensome is to condemn others to death.

[Kulindahr]

Standard response: Government owns the road. People own the Government. If you don't like the road rules, and enough people agree with you, you can change the rules.

If, as you seem to contend, the roads are private property, like a shopping mall, then it would be legal for the road owner (the Government) to ban the carrying of guns on the road, just like a shopping mall can do.

No more than free speech can be banned on the road.

And shopping malls banning guns is immoral. To require a certain level of training would be reasonable, because defensive use of a firearm in a place like a mall is a complex matter.

[TX-Beau]

...And shopping malls banning guns is immoral. To require a certain level of training would be reasonable, because defensive use of a firearm in a place like a mall is a complex matter.

I rest my case. Kuli has begun worshiping his guns off in the armed state of Vigilantia so completely it's now IMMORAL for someone else to keep them off THEIR private property.

Immoral? Really?

Oh come on.

[Rolyo85]

By the way, free speech can also be banned on private property (example: any online forum ever), so if we consider roads to be such, then technically free speech CAN be banned on roads too.

- - - Updated - - -

The only real difference between now and the past is that there are a lot of people now who would rather pretend someone else will protect them, and since they don't want to protect themselves, they want to deprive everyone else of basic human rights.

Funny. I see more differences than that, and all real. But keep living at the Frontier in your head, may it feel all kinds of safe to you

- - - Updated - - -

I've only seen FBI figures second-hand. They're broad estimates because the figures aren't directly collected on this issue.



That study is flawed simply by the fact that they only studied instances when a firearm was actually fired (maybe even only those in which someone was shot). It is also flawed in that it studied just one city.



Sorry -- NSC. They're the ones who gave the NRA an award for their gun safety programs.



The CDC has no business studying firearms issues -- they're not a disease.

And Kellerman is less credible than Lott.



I don't agree that they are. The law merely says the federal agency is not allowed to advocate gun control. THough if any federal agency is going to study it, the NIH makes more sense than the CDC.

Wow O.o This is a GIANT non-answer that fails to address ANY of the points raised in andy's great post. I am so disappointed right now... I expected at least more "but in my imaginary world..." arguments. Instead, you are pulling a Henry and just swipe the whole post under the rug...

[andysayshi]

I've only seen FBI figures second-hand. They're broad estimates because the figures aren't directly collected on this issue.

Shall we, then, draw a line through the FBI, as it seems they don't actually collect data that supports your argument or mine?

That study is flawed simply by the fact that they only studied instances when a firearm was actually fired (maybe even only those in which someone was shot). It is also flawed in that it studied just one city.

You mentioned the NHI as supporting your argument, not me. Now it's clear they do not support your argument, you seem to have lost faith in them...?

Sorry -- NSC. They're the ones who gave the NRA an award for their gun safety programs.

I have scoured the NSC site and can't find any evidence that they conduct their own studies. It seems they are more of a "gateway" type of agency, who compile data and distribute it accordingly, with their own analysis and recommendations. I'd appreciate specifics about gun use by victims of crime if you can provide them.

One thing their site led me discover was that there are numerous studies that have found that gun education programs for children, such as the NRA's Eddie Eagle program, are complete failures. In studies like this one in Florida, children's behaviour is consistently unchanged before and after gun education classes. Around half of all kids will play with a gun they find, regardless of whether they've been taught not to.

The CDC has no business studying firearms issues -- they're not a disease.

You're shooting the messenger. Every agency that attempts to scientifically analyse gun deaths in the US is stopped, and the stoppage has undeniable ties to NRA lobbying/funding.

And Kellerman is less credible than Lott.

Lott is a self confessed liar, who almost certainly fabricated the data in his gun studies. I've talked about this in previous posts so won't rehash it here. But how do you equate his well-documented ethical and professional failings with Professor Kellerman? Please justify your criticism with some citations.

I don't agree that they are. The law merely says the federal agency is not allowed to advocate gun control. THough if any federal agency is going to study it, the NIH makes more sense than the CDC.

I'm sorry you don't agree, but the facts are undeniable. The CDC were forced to stop studying gun deaths by Republican lawmakers who accepted contributions from the NRA. The NIH has studied guns, and is now being prevented from doing so thanks to NRA-supported Republican lawmakers Rep. Joe L. Barton of Texas, and Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon.

300,000 Americans have been killed by guns in the past decade, far more than any other western nation, yet there is virtually no Government-sponsored analysis of the reasons why. AS a point of comparison, less than half that number died of AIDS related illness in the same decade, yet there are dozens of AIDS related surveys and studies conducted every year in the US.

[Kulindahr]

Shall we, then, draw a line through the FBI, as it seems they don't actually collect data that supports your argument or mine?

The DOJ uses FBI data to arrive at a figure of 80k-100k defensive uses per year, but they're going only on instances where police were involved, so that's severely under-reported. The NRA uses FBI data to get a figure of half a million uses, but they don't explain how they get to that number (despite a half dozen requests from me for that information), so I discount it by half.

One thing the FBI does report is that around two thousand defensive handgun uses per year result in the death of the intruder.

You mentioned the NHI as supporting your argument, not me. Now it's clear they do not support your argument, you seem to have lost faith in them...?

I have no faith in that study.

I have scoured the NSC site and can't find any evidence that they conduct their own studies. It seems they are more of a "gateway" type of agency, who compile data and distribute it accordingly, with their own analysis and recommendations. I'd appreciate specifics about gun use by victims of crime if you can provide them.

The National Self-Defense Survey arrived at a figure of 2.5 million defensive uses per year -- that's often cited by Gary Kleck. The Police Foundation did a study in the mid-1990s that found 2.7 million defensive uses. There are numerous others. At the low end of these actual surveys is the National Crime Victimization Survey, which counts about 120,000 uses a year (though its methodology is heavily criticized).

Interestingly among all that comes the figure that less than ten percent of defensive uses actually involved firing a gun, and less than half of those involved anyone at all being wounded (so the claim that the most likely outcome of using a gun to defend yourself is being harmed is ridiculous; the most likely outcome is that the bad guy runs away). There's also the interesting result that in a substantial minority of cases, the defender didn't even have the gun loaded (a figure hard to pin down because of the aversion to admitting such a thing).

One thing their site led me discover was that there are numerous studies that have found that gun education programs for children, such as the NRA's Eddie Eagle program, are complete failures. In studies like this one in Florida, children's behaviour is consistently unchanged before and after gun education classes. Around half of all kids will play with a gun they find, regardless of whether they've been taught not to.

That's interesting. Maybe I'll ask the guys at NRA HQ about that -- I hesitate because I suspect I'll just get told that the Eddie Eagle program got the national safety award....

You're shooting the messenger. Every agency that attempts to scientifically analyse gun deaths in the US is stopped, and the stoppage has undeniable ties to NRA lobbying/funding.

Damn La Pierre -- I did some tracking and found they're blocking NIH studies... through the bastard Greg Walden from my state.

One more reason to have a program to arm teachers and require the NRA to do it at their cost.

Lott is a self confessed liar, who almost certainly fabricated the data in his gun studies. I've talked about this in previous posts so won't rehash it here. But how do you equate his well-documented ethical and professional failings with Professor Kellerman? Please justify your criticism with some citations.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...57316858,d.cGE

One large problem with Kellerman's conclusions is that if you apply the same methodology to self-defense in the home without a firearm, a person is over three times as likely to be killed by the attacker if the defender doesn't have a firearm. He ignores this because it doesn't fit his agenda. He also ignores the fact that the point of self-defense in the home isn't to kill someone, it's to stop the threat. So he's really studying irrelevant figures with flawed methodology.

I'm sorry you don't agree, but the facts are undeniable. The CDC were forced to stop studying gun deaths by Republican lawmakers who accepted contributions from the NRA. The NIH has studied guns, and is now being prevented from doing so thanks to NRA-supported Republican lawmakers Rep. Joe L. Barton of Texas, and Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon.

The CDC could have actually continued to study gun issues of they'd just published the raw data. I know it goes against a researcher's grain to not publish conclusions, but since raw data cannot be construed as political, it would have passed the muster of the law. From a half-hour survey online, I think Walden and Barton just copied the language from the CDC restriction, so the same should apply there.

I don't understand why one of the billionaire Democrats who support gun control don't just write a check to pay for a university study or two -- the NRA gets their studies done that way, and it's just puzzling why others don't.

Though my approach would be to put funding for a long-term study in a bill "For the governing of the militia", to see what level of effectiveness and preparedness our militia actually has. The militia is supposed to be the backbone of our defense, so it behooves us as a nation to know just where we stand, so we can then provide for (Art 1 Sec 8) discipline of the militia. For fun, both George Washington and John Adams could be cited in such legislation as encouraging knowing how prepared the militia is.

And that's the only way the situation is going to be "well-regulated" (to misuse a phrase): it has got to be done starting with the fact that "the whole people" are the militia, and then using Congress' authority to "govern and discipline".

[T-Rexx]

Which is why doctors are currently pushing to remind people that caffeine is a drug and not just a food additive and people should cut back on it. Comparing gun use to drugs at all is a rather lose comparison to start with, so I'm not even going to real logical in its analysis but are being more general. Most doctors will tell you that caffeine is a drug and the consumption of it in the amounts used in the typical American diet is NOT good for you.

So, please tell me, stardreamer. How does this discussion relate to the fact that buying a guy reduces your chances of survival?

You seem obsessed with the "dangers" of caffeine, which the medical establishment regards as safe. Yet, you laud a drug which kills thousands of people every year, provides no benefit to people whatsoever, and which the medical community abhors.

Lies are not a good argument.

What lies are you speaking of?

I'm still waiting to see the stats showing that several hundred thousand people each year are killed with their own firearms.

Speaking of lies...

[Kulindahr]

So, please tell me, stardreamer. How does this discussion relate to the fact that buying a guy reduces your chances of survival?

Buying a GUY?

I wish I could -- there are a couple of hot ones down at Fred Meyer I wouldn't mind taking camping.

[Kulindahr]

What lies are you speaking of?

What I quoted:

You people who argue for unrestricted gun distribution

Speaking of lies...

You're acknowledging yours?

[andysayshi]

The DOJ uses FBI data to arrive at a figure of 80k-100k defensive uses per year, but they're going only on instances where police were involved, so that's severely under-reported. The NRA uses FBI data to get a figure of half a million uses, but they don't explain how they get to that number (despite a half dozen requests from me for that information), so I discount it by half.

One thing the FBI does report is that around two thousand defensive handgun uses per year result in the death of the intruder.

It's difficult to debate your answers when you don't cite sources.

Here's all I'll say about the FBI and the Department of Justice. The National Crime Victimisation Study by the Dept Of Justice is, without doubt, the most extensive study into crime victimisation in the world, with over 75,000 US citizens surveyed every year. You're incorrect that the DoJ only measures situations where police are involved. All incidents are taken into account in the survey. In fact, the DoJ actually specifically measures how many incidents are NOT reported to police.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) asks victims of crime whether the crimes were reported to police. Data are available on both crimes reported to the police as well as those that were not reported. The data on crime reported to police are based on information the victims give at the time of interview about whether they or someone else reported the incident.

The NCVS suggests that defensive use of guns in crime is far lower than studies by Kleck suggest, in the order of 90% lower.

What the NCVS also tells us is that home ownership of guns provides a huge ability for criminals to get access to guns because they are so often stolen.

From 1987-1992 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents." It should also be noted that there is no federal law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and almost no state laws in this regard. There are undoubtedly thousands of stolen firearms that go entirely unreported every year.

The National Self-Defense Survey arrived at a figure of 2.5 million defensive uses per year -- that's often cited by Gary Kleck. The Police Foundation did a study in the mid-1990s that found 2.7 million defensive uses. There are numerous others. At the low end of these actual surveys is the National Crime Victimization Survey, which counts about 120,000 uses a year (though its methodology is heavily criticized).

Interestingly among all that comes the figure that less than ten percent of defensive uses actually involved firing a gun, and less than half of those involved anyone at all being wounded (so the claim that the most likely outcome of using a gun to defend yourself is being harmed is ridiculous; the most likely outcome is that the bad guy runs away). There's also the interesting result that in a substantial minority of cases, the defender didn't even have the gun loaded (a figure hard to pin down because of the aversion to admitting such a thing).

And so we veer into the world of "I don't like your sources, you don't like mine". But Kleck's study has copped a a barrage of criticism over the years from private and Government bodies because of blatant flaws in methodology. In fact, the flaws in the NSDS were the very reason that the Dept Of Justice changed the collection methodology for the NCVS in the late 90s.

If Kleck's figures were true, there would be several hundred thousand gun deaths in the US every year. And if they were true, there would be tens of thousands of criminals killed by victims each year, when we know there are typically less than 300.

Another issue with Kleck's study was the rate of non=participation: he claimed 61% of callers accepted (which is unusually low participation - the NCVS has a 95% participation rate) but he opened his study by mentioning guns, which means that people who don't own or like guns are far more likely to decline the survey, and people who own or like guns are more likely to say yes. So the opening question in his survey invited gun advocates and discouraged non-advocates, thus creating a substantial bias from the very outset.

That's all I have time for today.

[andysayshi]

^ But again, I'll underline the fact that, excluding the NCVS by the DofJ, we are left debating studies almost 20 years old because the NRA has steadfastly campaigned to prevent meaningful scientific study of gun crime in the US.

[Rolyo85]

^ But again, I'll underline the fact that, excluding the NCVS by the DofJ, we are left debating studies almost 20 years old because the NRA has steadfastly campaigned to prevent meaningful scientific study of gun crime in the US.

Which begs the far from irrelevant question "why would it, if studies and statistics would be on the side of the gun lobby?"

[Stardreamer]

So, please tell me, stardreamer. How does this discussion relate to the fact that buying a guy reduces your chances of survival?

You seem obsessed with the "dangers" of caffeine, which the medical establishment regards as safe. Yet, you laud a drug which kills thousands of people every year, provides no benefit to people whatsoever, and which the medical community abhors.

Why are you obsessed about taking us down a rabbit hole that has nothing to do with the subject except to outline a fault with one of your points? If you don't like caffeine pick any one of the hundreds of things people put in their bodies everyday that is bad for them but they do anyway.

[Stardreamer]

I'll again point to my earlier comments on the overall insignificance of tossing around 'pet' statistics on this subject.

Simply because exercising a right MAY increase your chance of death or injury is not adequate to prevent people from exercising that right. There is no 'stupidity' exception to the bill of rights.

[andysayshi]

Statistics are the only logical way to measure reality in a complex and large community. Anecdotal references like the ones in the opening posting may offer some perspective, but Government's can't make policy based on anecdotal evidence, because it is seldom representative of the majority or of the truth.

Consider car seat belts, or air bags in cars. I can provide you plenty of anecdotal evidence that both items can be responsible for killing car occupants in certain circumstances - children are in particular danger. So, why is it that driving without seat belts is against the law in most (if not all?) states of the US? And why are car companies required to manufacture cars with air bags in most nations today?

The answer is obvious. The benefits outweigh the risks.

I can't tell you that these women wouldn't have been hurt or killed without their guns. But I CAN tell you that, in a society where guns are NOT prolific, where half a million privately owned guns AREN'T stolen each year, where military-capable weapons AREN'T accessible to average citizens, and where there AREN'T more guns per person than any other nation... things would probably be very different for these women. Perhaps their law enforcement services would be more efficient, more effective and less aggressive, because they don't live in fear of every potential criminal carrying a gun in their jacket. Perhaps the women themselves would find other solutions to evade their attackers, because they did not fear the attacker would shoot them in the back if they ran. There are a million hypotheticals.

But one thing is for sure. The evidence very clearly shows that the majority of US states with stronger gun control laws have less gun deaths. And the vast majority of nations with stronger gun control laws have less gun deaths.

[EastMed]

Jeff Mcmahan makes the philosophical case for a near total ban on guns, apart from sporting/hunting purposes.
Apropos the subject matter of this thread, he has this to say:

Gun advocates sometimes argue that a prohibition would violate individuals’ rights of self-defense. Imposing a ban on guns, they argue, would be tantamount to taking a person’s gun from her just as someone is about to kill her. But this is a defective analogy. Although a prohibition would deprive people of one effective means of self-defense, it would also ensure that there would be far fewer occasions on which a gun would be necessary or even useful for self-defense. For guns would be forbidden not just to those who would use them for defense but also to those who would use them for aggression. Guns are only one means of self-defense and self-defense is only one means of achieving security against attack. It is the right to security against attack that is fundamental. A policy that unavoidably deprives a person of one means of self-defense but on balance substantially reduces her vulnerability to attack is therefore respectful of the more fundamental right from which the right of self-defense is derived.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...is-not-enough/

[Rolyo85]

Statistics are the only logical way to measure reality in a complex and large community. Anecdotal references like the ones in the opening posting may offer some perspective, but Government's can't make policy based on anecdotal evidence, because it is seldom representative of the majority or of the truth.

Consider car seat belts, or air bags in cars. I can provide you plenty of anecdotal evidence that both items can be responsible for killing car occupants in certain circumstances - children are in particular danger. So, why is it that driving without seat belts is against the law in most (if not all?) states of the US? And why are car companies required to manufacture cars with air bags in most nations today?

The answer is obvious. The benefits outweigh the risks.

I can't tell you that these women wouldn't have been hurt or killed without their guns. But I CAN tell you that, in a society where guns are NOT prolific, where half a million privately owned guns AREN'T stolen each year, where military-capable weapons AREN'T accessible to average citizens, and where there AREN'T more guns per person than any other nation... things would probably be very different for these women. Perhaps their law enforcement services would be more efficient, more effective and less aggressive, because they don't live in fear of every potential criminal carrying a gun in their jacket. Perhaps the women themselves would find other solutions to evade their attackers, because they did not fear the attacker would shoot them in the back if they ran. There are a million hypotheticals.

But one thing is for sure. The evidence very clearly shows that the majority of US states with stronger gun control laws have less gun deaths. And the vast majority of nations with stronger gun control laws have less gun deaths.

This. Just this.

[Laufey]

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

I think when a nation has as many guns as people, most likely the regulations are not strict enough. It's one thing to allow guns for hunting and another thing to allow people to carry handguns. Once ownership has crossed a certain point the effects on homicide seem to accelerate.



Finland is a good example I think. They have a high rate of ownership, half of the US one, but still their firearm homicide rate is 7 times less.

[T-Rexx]

Why are you obsessed about taking us down a rabbit hole that has nothing to do with the subject except to outline a fault with one of your points?

You misunderstand. It's a fault with one of your points.

f you don't like caffeine pick any one of the hundreds of things people put in their bodies everyday that is bad for them but they do anyway.

I can't. There is no drug that is permitted in any civilized country on Earth that does far more harm than good to the people who use it.

Other than guns, that is.

[Rolyo85]

Alcohol.

[Laufey]

And tobacco.

[xbuzzerx]

Finland is a good example I think. They have a high rate of ownership, half of the US one, but still their firearm homicide rate is 7 times less.

That is where I would wonder if they have more sensible restrictions than we do on who can pick up firearms and what kinds they can get.

[Stardreamer]

Statistics are the only logical way to measure reality in a complex and large community. Anecdotal references like the ones in the opening posting may offer some perspective, but Government's can't make policy based on anecdotal evidence, because it is seldom representative of the majority or of the truth.

Consider car seat belts, or air bags in cars. I can provide you plenty of anecdotal evidence that both items can be responsible for killing car occupants in certain circumstances - children are in particular danger. So, why is it that driving without seat belts is against the law in most (if not all?) states of the US? And why are car companies required to manufacture cars with air bags in most nations today?

The answer is obvious. The benefits outweigh the risks.

I can't tell you that these women wouldn't have been hurt or killed without their guns. But I CAN tell you that, in a society where guns are NOT prolific, where half a million privately owned guns AREN'T stolen each year, where military-capable weapons AREN'T accessible to average citizens, and where there AREN'T more guns per person than any other nation... things would probably be very different for these women. Perhaps their law enforcement services would be more efficient, more effective and less aggressive, because they don't live in fear of every potential criminal carrying a gun in their jacket. Perhaps the women themselves would find other solutions to evade their attackers, because they did not fear the attacker would shoot them in the back if they ran. There are a million hypotheticals.

But one thing is for sure. The evidence very clearly shows that the majority of US states with stronger gun control laws have less gun deaths. And the vast majority of nations with stronger gun control laws have less gun deaths.

Statistics and research is useful in formulating and evaluating policy, that is true. But when debate boils down to 'my statistics are better than your statistics, nah nah nah' they are not so useful. The court ruling specifically raised the point that we are dealing with an enumerated right and that even if statistics show the risks outweigh the benefits that is not enough by itself to take that right away. If we were to focus solely on statistics 'assault weapons' should really be on the bottom of the list of priorities because statistically they contribute very little at all to the gun violence and deaths in the US.

For the most part all this statistical debate really gives us one relevant point that I think both sides can agree on 'Guns are dangerous, Duh'. The other point that is being argued, the amount of that danger vs the practical uses (benefits) of guns is what the courts are currently saying is irrelevant since the self-defense right is an enumerated right. While you can point to the statistics and say that self-defense with guns may be more dangerous than other alternatives, you can not show that it has NO defense value and even if you could, you can not under the current interpretation of the bill of rights, remove the right to use guns for that purpose. So the extended debate over how dangerous guns are statistically is in the long run of limited utility.

[Stardreamer]

That is where I would wonder if they have more sensible restrictions than we do on who can pick up firearms and what kinds they can get.

There was an interesting article I read sometime last month about gun possession in Europe and other countries and how effectively 'disarmed' they actually were. An research group in Europe compiles an annual report on gun possession around the world and their report one year addressed a curious anomoly when countries implement gun reduction laws. They noticed when countries began rounding up guns either through collection programs or buy back programs, they would have an estimation of how many guns the population had and were supposed to be collected. The pattern was almost always the same, the number of guns collected would only be a fraction of the estimate. The country eventually just updates the estimate and claims victory. What is most likely happening is the owners are simply keeping their guns. The researchers concluded that most of the supposedly 'disarmed' countries have not changed the amount of guns in country by much at all.

Yet some of these countries showed very measurable decreases in gun violence after the fact. If the amount of guns in the country is largely the same but the crime rate went down, what is the telling factor? My pet theory is that in these countries displaying and using a gun has become a crime so criminals started eschewing gun use in their crimes as it increased the chances of being caught and the resulting punishment. So if correct the most effective means to reduce gun crime is not necessarily reducing the number of guns (which is very difficult to do) but implementing very strong punitive laws for using a gun in a crime and enforcing them.

And no this would not impact spree killings which means there still needs to be some common sense and reasonable regulation on gun access and mental health.

[Rolyo85]

Stardreamer, what statistics is the gun lobby showing? And is it really "nah nah nah" if they are obviously taken out of context like the laughable "look at how Chicago has so much crime with tight gun laws" argument?

[Stardreamer]

Stardreamer, what statistics is the gun lobby showing? And is it really "nah nah nah" if they are obviously taken out of context like the laughable "look at how Chicago has so much crime with tight gun laws" argument?

Why don't you ask them? As you will note from my latest posts, I'm not much into the whose stats are better issue here. I make note of the information as it comes along and the criticisms of the data and file it all into my overall picture of the subject but I think its a waste to sit here debating the minutia of the stats instead of the bigger issue. Sometimes I will puzzle of a general question that arises out of the data like how can gun crime be higher in an area with strict gun laws than the neighboring area with less strict laws? If the increased gun crimes are due to the access to guns in the neighboring area shouldn't they be near the same all things being equal? Which leads to the most likely conclusion that all things are not equal and you have to then question that inequality and what its impact on the data is. But it fairly clear that far too many of the studies done on both sides of this subject are influenced by an agenda and flawed.