patrick.net

Vicente says

Target doesn't go down because he's got body armor. Next I'm probably getting a shotgun blast in return in the second I've hesitated to assess the situation and decide next action.

I'm totally with you, but I can see now what some of the gun nuts would say (NB NB sarcasm alert NB NB)

The problem is that you were UNDERPOWERED, and if only you had brought your CONCEALED BAZOOKA, you would have gotten your man. Everyone should at least have an RPG launcher in the trunk of their car, so that one would not get caught in a situation like this without some serious FIREPOWER. There might be some "collateral damage", but hey, that is the price of freedom.

bob2356 says

I do remember my instructor, a moonlighting cop, pointed out that homes with guns are 3 times a likely to have someone shot and killed than homes without and only 3% of those were self defense against a stranger.

Without even going into accuracy of this statement, two observations.
1. Suicides lead homicides in US, and for suicides firearm is an obvious tool of choice. A suicide can't be prevented by denying access to a tool; yet they are counted. Want to make that stat work in your favor, not against? Just don't commit suicide.
2. I couldn't help but notice word "stranger". What about defense against those you know? In most violent crimes, victim knew the attacker. Guess what? Those are counted out.

Statistics don't lie. Interpretations do.

bob2356 says

I never did believe the defensive use of guns numbers.

Bob, its simple.
1) The NRA (or some other advocacy group) cold-calls a bunch of gun owners and asks them for stories where they used their guns in self defense
2) The get a bunch of stores like "a black guy looked at me funny, so I pulled back my shirt so he could see my gun and he left" (they count this as a assault/mugging deterred by the gun)
3) At least some of the people called make up some yarn about their own self-defense awesomeness (which of course they never have to verify)
4) The NRA extrapolates this data to some ridiculous figure

Rinse, lather, repeat. It doesn't matter; too many people are crazy about their guns and will do or say anything to protect their beloved hobby.

bob2356 says

I do remember my instructor, a moonlighting cop, pointed out that homes with guns are 3 times a likely to have someone shot and killed than homes without and only 3% of those were self defense against a stranger.

Those numbers (X times more likely to have a gun in a home hurt/kill a homeowner...) come from an old CDC study on gun violence. Years back I looked into the study and while the CDC never -- to my knowledge -- released all their data there are a couple of things that I remember from what I could find.

- A vast majority of the deaths were suicides
- A lot of the deaths were from homes where the police had previously been called to for domestic disturbances
- People in the homes had criminal records
- etc.

Anyway, when you filter down the demographics to account for only people who are "normal" households that practice responsible gun ownership the probability of a gun accident is very very low.

bob2356 says

You have a duty to retreat in most states or you can end up sued or charged. Even stand your ground states you can get into trouble if you don't get everything right. Better course of action is to simply get out of harms way.

Yes, the idea is to survive the situation. A gun is a tool that can help you survive but avoiding the confrontation all together is the best route.

I remember from my CCW class (ran by the NRA) they made if very clear that it was not our responsibility to clear our house and getting out was the best option.

Call it Crazy says

I think we will need to also outlaw red lights and cars, they have killed and injured many more...

This is a fatal flaw in the MADD argument against DUI. Many more people die due to speeding than alcohol. They do not call for increased penalties against speeders.

The super majority of MADD members have family members who were/are victims of DUI. They only call for more penalties against those who committed the same crime as those who affected their lives personally.

The right to self defense is such a fundamental right, that any animal denied this right is nothing more than livestock. If we deny people, even citizens this right, we have taken away the most elemental right of them all. Guns exist in all their various forms. We may wish that they didn't, or that we could remove them all from the country but that is NEVER going to happen. What will happen is that we will see more and more dangerous weapons come into being as history goes on. Given that criminals with guns are out there, the only measured defense against them are other guns, held by people. Take then away and you only make law abiding citizens into sheep.
Personally, I believe the sheepification of the citizenry is the Liberal agenda anyway. Because if none can object, then the power of the politicians and their handlers reigns supreme.

StillLooking says

And people are basically animals and if one watches nature shows, it is pretty obvious that animals can be pretty darn brutal against their own kind, especially the male. It makes no sense to arm already brutal men with more means to maim and kill.

You hang around with "Greatest I Am" much?

Quigley says

Personally, I believe the sheepification of the citizenry is the Liberal agenda anyway. Because if none can object, then the power of the politicians and their handlers reigns supreme.

I think that's true for the far-left. But right now it seems the far-right is succeeding the most with propaganda/sheepification.

Everyone in the theater should have been armed.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Concealed carry does nothing to deter crime.

Sure it does.

Criminals aren't as stupid as we'd like to believe they are and act in their own self interest. When they think they're likely to get shot by some one carrying concealed they switch from confrontational crimes (muggings, home invasions) to simple property crimes like theft (which is a lot better - a law suit can't undo personal injury, although insurance with replacement value coverage can come close to making you whole) or crimes against people they suspect won't be carrying (criminals in Florida directed their interest towards rental cars presumably driven by non-carrying non-residents after that shall-issue law passed).

leoj707 says

Those numbers (X times more likely to have a gun in a home hurt/kill a homeowner...) come from an old CDC study on gun violence. Years back I looked into the study and while the CDC never -- to my knowledge -- released all their data there are a couple of things that I remember from what I could find.

- A vast majority of the deaths were suicides
- A lot of the deaths were from homes where the police had previously been called to for domestic disturbances
- People in the homes had criminal records
- etc.

Anyway, when you filter down the demographics to account for only people who are "normal" households that practice responsible gun ownership the probability of a gun accident is very very low.

Ok, as an on again off again gun owner I was curious enough to actually look this up. The data was from someone named Kellerman and was published in it's entirety in the NEJM, not from the CDC. Suicides weren't included. The study specifically looks at homicides, not accidents. He did extensive culling of the data to allow for factors like criminal records and drug use. The rates for these factors are broken out. A reasonable thinking person would have to give some serious thought to this study. Good thing there are very few reasonable thinking people involved in the gun debate.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

So how do you propose to allow guns in only "normal" households that practice "responsible gun ownership"? I would say most of these are in area's where the need for a gun for household protection is very low to non existent. Just curious.

drew_eckhardt says

Criminals aren't as stupid as we'd like to believe they are and act in their own self interest. When they think they're likely to get shot by some one carrying concealed they switch from confrontational crimes (muggings, home invasions) to simple property crimes like theft (which is a lot better - a law suit can't undo personal injury, although insurance with replacement value coverage can come close to making you whole) or crimes against people they suspect won't be carrying (criminals in Florida directed their interest towards rental cars presumably driven by non-carrying non-residents after that shall-issue law pass

Do you want to provide some kind of statistics to back this up? Most criminals I've come in contract with have been very stupid for the most part.

bob2356 says

Do you want to provide some kind of statistics to back this up? Most criminals I've come in contract with have been very stupid for the most part.

Especially the ones on World's Dumbest Criminals. Ever see the one where a guy tries to rob a glassware store in Paris with a moped? Really...a moped. How much stuff are you going to carry away in a moped? Sheesh.

100,000 people are shot each year in the United States. Almost everyone of these shootings is a crime. This means guns add 100,000 crimes

The argument that guns reduce crime is a logic fail because it is pretty stinking obvious that guns add 100,000 crimes and the most horrific crimes at that.

StillLooking says

100,000 people are shot each year in the United States. Almost everyone of these shootings is a crime. This means guns add 100,000 crimes

The argument that guns reduce crime is a logic fail because it is pretty stinking obvious that guns add 100,000 crimes and the most horrific crimes at that.

Waste of time talking about it, I'm afraid. Too many Americans love their guns and won't even listen to you if you tell them it represents (MUCH!) more danger to them than safety. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_Bias

You present evidence, they hear insults. Sorry, we rational people lost this issue and its time to move on.

StillLooking says

100,000 people are shot each year in the United States. Almost everyone of these shootings is a crime. This means guns add 100,000 crimes

Incorrect. Earlier, both leoj707 and I explained why this is incorrect. Search for "suicide" (a tragedy but not a crime).

bob2356 says

The data was from someone named Kellerman and was published in it's entirety in the NEJM, not from the CDC.

Kellerman's study(s) were almost entirely funded by the CDC.

bob2356 says

Suicides weren't included. The study specifically looks at homicides, not accidents.

From what I remember the original paper (this is the source of the 43 times more likely to die by own gun quotes came from) published in The New England Journal of Medicine-October 7, 1993 did include these things.

bob2356 says

He did extensive culling of the data to allow for factors like criminal records and drug use. The rates for these factors are broken out.

Yes, and based on his original study in the NEJM warning that people are 43 times more likely to die from a gun in their home I am extremely skeptical of the way Kellermann culls his data. He seems to have an agenda that he is trying to push with his studies.

From what I could learn from a quick search he wrote a few papers from the same data set then released the data in 1997 (after I did my original research into the topic).

I think that this may be his original data, but I don't have time to sift through it right now:
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/6898?q=kellermann&searchIn=ALL

bob2356 says

A reasonable thinking person would have to give some serious thought to this study.

Yes, and that is why I originally looked into his research back in the early 90s. If I have time I will see if I can look at his original data.

bob2356 says

Good thing there are very few reasonable thinking people involved in the gun debate.

Unfortunately Kellermann does not seem like one of those reasonable people.

And speaking of reasonable...

bob2356 says

So how do you propose to allow guns in only "normal" households that practice "responsible gun ownership"?

Yeah, this is the million or perhaps trillion dollar question.

Reasonable people believe that some people should not have guns, and even people on both sides of the debate can sometimes agree who should not have access to guns. The problem is how do we limit gun access to these people.

Unfortunately the solutions provided by either side are very unreasonable and most likely entirely noneffective at preventing gun deaths: banning X gun de jour because it was used in a high profile crime; letting everyone carry so that anyone getting out of line could be simply shot; etc.

Also, a big wrinkle is that with any gun control system -- assuming that you are not going house-to-house confiscating guns -- is that so may people would have their current guns grandfathered in that it could take generations for the system to "work".

Also, any system to assure that guns only end up in "responsible" and "normal" homes would be very unpalatable to the American public, because it would require things like extensive databases with access to medical and criminal records so that background checks would be more effective.

We would also have to have stricter testing before someone is "cleared" to own a gun. My last gun purchase was about a decade ago, but the test was a joke. I would advocate that for any gun ownership people should need to pass a test similar to the NRA test/class to obtain a CCW.

Anyway, I guess the short answer is that I don't really know and I don't think that any "workable" solutions will ever get any traction.

bob2356 says

I would say most of these are in area's where the need for a gun for household protection is very low to non existent.

Yeah, I agree that the need is very low, but I don't think there is any place where I would say it is non-existent. Maybe places where the chance of needing a gun for home protection is so low that it is effectively non-existent.

bdrasin says

You present evidence, they hear insults.

Unfortunately both sides of the issue are deeply affected by Confirmation Bias. It is difficult to find any evidence that has not been tainted by bias.

StillLooking says

100,000 people are shot each year in the United States. Almost everyone of these shootings is a crime. This means guns add 100,000 crimes

And this is about as far from evidence that one can get.

1st you are asking me to believe that your number without citing the source.

2nd you are asking me (without evidence) to believe your claim that your number does not include things like accidental shooting and suicides.

3rd you are asking me to assume that without guns these crimes would not have happened.

leoj707 says

bdrasin says

You present evidence, they hear insults.

Unfortunately both sides of the issue are deeply affected by Confirmation Bias. It is difficult to find any evidence that has not been tainted by bias.

OK, I'll cop to that; I'm a human being and as fallible as the next guy. The only really objective evidence I can think of (and the only one that matters) is that politicians lose elections when they get dinged by the NRA. So the rest of it doesn't really matter.

1)
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence?s=1

In one year, 31,593 people died from gun violence and 66,769 people survived gun injuries (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)). That includes:

12,179 people murdered and 44,466 people shot in an attack (NCIPC).

18,223 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun (NCIPC).

592 people who were killed unintentionally and 18,610 who were shot unintentionally but survived (NCIPC).

Over a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated (Childrens’ Defense Fund, p. 20).

3.) How can 100,000 people be shot if there are no guns?

Also, does anyone have data on the number of unsolved gun shootings?

OK, see this is the type of distortion I am talking about.

StillLooking says

12,179 people murdered and 44,466 people shot in an attack (NCIPC).

Crimes.

StillLooking says

18,223 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun (NCIPC).

592 people who were killed unintentionally and 18,610 who were shot unintentionally but survived (NCIPC).

Not crimes.

So...56,645 gun related crimes.

Not...
StillLooking says

...guns add 100,000 crimes

When you show your data your original shocking number is almost cut in half. Why would you present your data that way in your original post?

And then you are asking me to trust you that all those crimes would not have happened if there were no guns.

leoj707 says

And then you are asking me to trust you that all those crimes would not have happened if there were no guns.

It's a sleight of hand - words "shot" and "killed" are used interchangeably or not, depending on the need.
In worst genocides in resent history machetes and hoes were the tools of choice.

StillLooking says

100,000 people are shot each year in the United States. Almost everyone of these shootings is a crime. This means guns add 100,000 crimes
The argument that guns reduce crime is a logic fail because it is pretty stinking obvious that guns add 100,000 crimes and the most horrific crimes at that.

Did you know that pirates cause global cooling? That's why we have global warming. There aren't enough pirates. It's true!

In contrast, approx 30 people die in alcohol related accidents. That's like two Batman-showings a day, every single day, year after year.

So, spend time and money on Gun Control, or spend it on something useful like breathalyzer locks?

How do you stop somebody who flips out out of the blue? Either ban all guns - which is unconstitutional - or put 1984 cameras in everybody's home.

wthrfrk80 says

Did you know that pirates cause global cooling? That's why we have global warming. There aren't enough pirates. It's true!

While it is not known that pirates actually cause the globe to "cool" it is a clear fact that they do somehow prevent "warming".

lenar says

In worst genocides in resent history machetes and hoes were the tools of choice.

That's just it. Before guns were invented, people were stabbing each other with swords. Not sure how taking all guns away from the law-abiding is going to stop violence.

That said, there are probably some places guns shouldn't be allowed: crowded stadiums, airplanes, busses, etc.

leoj707 says

While it is not known that pirates actually cause the globe to "cool" it is a clear fact that they do somehow prevent "warming".

Ok, so I should have said something like "pirates allow the planet to establish radiative equilibrium at a lower average temperature." ;-)

lenar says

In worst genocides in resent history machetes and hoes were the tools of choice.

Not just genocides, but many-many violent crimes right here in the US are perpetrated each year without *gasp* the use of a gun. In fact in 2010 there were 1,246,248 violent crimes!

wthrfrk80 says

Ok, so I should have said something like "pirates allow the planet to establish radiative equilibrium at a lower average temperature."

Ah, yes very scientific!

I went to that link to Brady's site
The situation may be misinterpreted even more than it seemed.
31,593 - what is it? They write "gun violence". "Gun violence" is a very generic term, it may include suicides, police shootings, and situations where bad guy loses. The breakdown of the paragraph seems to suggest so.
The numbers almost add up - 12,179 + 18,223 + 592 = 30,994. 599 people are missing in this math. However, it's too close to be just a coincidence.

The other number - 12,179 - is quite interesting. It says "people murdered". It doesn't say anything about circumstances. Now, Brady is a very agenda-driven resource, their other statistics included deaths from LEOs on duty (I don't know if this one does). There is exactly 0 data on justified shooting.
Statistics don't lie, omissions and interpretations do

Gun laws have their roots in racism. Laws enacted to prevent the black man from defending himself and his family from racial attacks.

Histroy's greatest murders believed and pressed for gun control, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot. The Jews learned a lesson about gun control in the days leading up to WW2. "Never again".

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

This fucker would have been vaporized instantly.

Except no one knows if this was the guy, or just a patsy.

wthrfrk80 says

That said, there are probably some places guns shouldn't be allowed: crowded stadiums, airplanes, busses, etc.

You can make a case about that. However, prohibition without control would be the worst possible solution. It effectively disarms law abiding and the law abiding only; it's plainly irresponsible.

Edit: Failure of TSA, on the other hand, is a prime example of why control is a very delicate matter.

Honest Abe says

Gun laws have their roots in racism. Laws enacted to prevent the black man from defending himself and his family from racial attacks.

Yes, and this is some of the problem with "reasonable" gun control. It has the potential for being manipulated to prevent "undesirables" from getting guns.

However, there is a difference between gun control and gun prohibition.

bdrasin says

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their own kids.

Hardly. They'll shoot yours and everyone else's:

Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always following the disarmament of the public:

50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
20-30+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) – concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
300,000 dead: Idi Amin (Uganda, 1971-1979)

This lone gunman thing is tragic, but it pales in comparison to the real danger: Governments ruling unarmed citizens. Without it, the U.S. sings "God Save The Queen."

leoj707 says

Honest Abe says

Gun laws have their roots in racism. Laws enacted to prevent the black man from defending himself and his family from racial attacks.

Yes, and this is some of the problem with "reasonable" gun control. It has the potential for being manipulated to prevent "undesirables" from getting guns.

However, there is a difference between gun control and gun prohibition.

Exactly. It's more elegant.

For example, the majority believes your views on guns to be those of someone with a mental disorder. Hence, you're no longer sufficiently mentally stable to own a gun.

There! Neat, tidy, and perfectly supportable!

Outlandish? There are plenty of progressives who equate those who have "outlandish fantasies of liberty" to be of unsound mind. Look it up.

thunderlips11 says

How do you stop somebody who flips out out of the blue? Either ban all guns - which is unconstitutional - or put 1984 cameras in everybody's home.

The constitution is nice and all, but let's cut to the chase. It's liberty that matters. That's what our constitution was intended to protect, and where it failed has been where it didn't extend protections to citizens because of their race or gender, etc.

Constitutional or not, the right to bear arms is one of liberty, granted not by the state and those who desire to control its power for their own human benefit /agendas. It belongs to everyone innately.

lenar says

However, prohibition without control would be the worst possible solution. It effectively disarms law abiding and the law abiding only; it's plainly irresponsible.

Agree. I was assuming there would be security checkpoints.

Leopold B Scotch says

For example, the majority believes your views on guns to be those of someone with a mental disorder. Hence, you're no longer sufficiently mentally stable to own a gun.
There! Neat, tidy, and perfectly supportable!
Outlandish? There are plenty of progressives who equate those who have "outlandish fantasies of liberty" to be of unsound mind. Look it up.

Bingo.

Example: why do you think the hard-core gay activists are trying to brand anyone who doesn't agree with "gay marriage" as "homophobic"?

Just label your opposition as "crazy" and you can do anything you want.