Are you for or against Total Gun Abolition ?
- Thread starter harrytrader
- Start date
other than those like Optional's (which make sweeping and ludicrous characterizations of those in favor of the right to bear arms) ?
Forget the "gun nuts" for the time being, if you can. What do you say to a person who wants to have a semi-automatic weapon (NOT a machine gun with cop-killer ammunition) for self-defense of him/herself and their loved ones?
How do you counter the statistics that show that legal gun-owners are more responsible and less likely to be involved in crime, as are juveniles who grow up learning how to shoot and hunt?
How can you ignore the fact that guns used in self-defense save thousands of people a year from being killed or injured, women from being raped, and homes from being invaded?
How do you rationalize the theory that guns are responsible for thousands of innocent deaths a year when in fact 2/3 of the incidents where guns are used fatally occur between criminals? That another high percentage of gun deaths is a result of suicide?
That studies have shown that innocent civilians are more likely to be shot by a police officer than a civilian who legally owns a firearm?
Let us argue these points and not lower this discussion to Optional's level to debate whether or not all civilian gun owners are tobacco-chewing trailer trash.
Forget the "gun nuts" for the time being, if you can. What do you say to a person who wants to have a semi-automatic weapon (NOT a machine gun with cop-killer ammunition) for self-defense of him/herself and their loved ones?
How do you counter the statistics that show that legal gun-owners are more responsible and less likely to be involved in crime, as are juveniles who grow up learning how to shoot and hunt?
How can you ignore the fact that guns used in self-defense save thousands of people a year from being killed or injured, women from being raped, and homes from being invaded?
How do you rationalize the theory that guns are responsible for thousands of innocent deaths a year when in fact 2/3 of the incidents where guns are used fatally occur between criminals? That another high percentage of gun deaths is a result of suicide?
That studies have shown that innocent civilians are more likely to be shot by a police officer than a civilian who legally owns a firearm?
Let us argue these points and not lower this discussion to Optional's level to debate whether or not all civilian gun owners are tobacco-chewing trailer trash.
Kwon, Ik-Whan G., Scott, Bradley, Safranski, Scott R., & Bae, Muen. (1997). The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws: Multivariate Statistical Analysis. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 56 (1) 41-50.
Statistical highlights from "The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws:"
In 1992, there were nearly 40,000 deaths from guns in the U.S.
In the U.S, there are about 20,000 laws or regulations which attempt to control guns in some way.
In 1990, 24 states had no gun-control laws.
In the 26 states with gun-control laws, there were 19.6 gun-related deaths per 100,000 persons.
In the 24 states with no gun-control laws in 1990, there were 24.4 gun related deaths per 100,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.. Dept. of Justice. (February 25, 1997). About 6,600 Attempts to Buy Guns Thwarted by Background Checks Each Month since Brady Law Enacted [Press Release].
Excerpt from "About 6,600:"
"During the first 28 months of the Brady Act's effectiveness (March 1994 through last June) more than 186,000 illegal over-the-counter gun sales were blocked by background checks."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people assume that a statistic stated in print or in the media must be, by definition, truth. This is wrong both because people can be mistaken in what they say or write, and because some people purposely lie with statistics. Statistics are purposely and mistakenly misused extensively in the gun control debate. To recognize the misuses, one must have some understanding of statistics. In addition to this misuse, much of the info one should have and understand is in statistical form. For both these reasons, a person wanting to know the truth about guns and their relationships to crime and violence needs to be able to understand statistics more than for most other issues.
On this page I hope to explain both the misuses and the things you need to understand about statistical methods, studies and data besides the basics (like, what an average is). I hope the explanations are understandable even if not strictly correct, but even simplified explanations of statistics require some effort to understand so don't expect it all to be easy to understand.
Some statistics are intended just to be a measure of something, like the prevalence of gun ownership. Other statistics try to suggest or show a relationship between two or more things, such as that one thing is partially caused by another.
CAUSE AND EFFECT
Most statistical methods and studies are unable to prove that one thing is a cause of another. The methods are usually only able to demonstrate that one thing correlates with another or with absense of the other. That is, a properly done statistical study might show that one thing exists along with the other, but cannot prove that one of the things causes the other. So, a study showing that higher rates of gun ownership rates tend to exist alongside lower violent crime rates would not prove that higher gun ownership rates cause lower violent crime rates. Such a result would only suggest that higher gun ownership rates might cause reduced violent crime rates.
Given that a study showed a correlation between two things "a" and "b," it would be necessary to consider the possibility that: "a" might be the cause of "b"; "b" might be the cause of "a"; each might be partially the cause of the other; and that both might be partially or wholly caused by some other, maybe unknown, factor(s).
Statistical highlights from "The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws:"
In 1992, there were nearly 40,000 deaths from guns in the U.S.
In the U.S, there are about 20,000 laws or regulations which attempt to control guns in some way.
In 1990, 24 states had no gun-control laws.
In the 26 states with gun-control laws, there were 19.6 gun-related deaths per 100,000 persons.
In the 24 states with no gun-control laws in 1990, there were 24.4 gun related deaths per 100,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.. Dept. of Justice. (February 25, 1997). About 6,600 Attempts to Buy Guns Thwarted by Background Checks Each Month since Brady Law Enacted [Press Release].
Excerpt from "About 6,600:"
"During the first 28 months of the Brady Act's effectiveness (March 1994 through last June) more than 186,000 illegal over-the-counter gun sales were blocked by background checks."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people assume that a statistic stated in print or in the media must be, by definition, truth. This is wrong both because people can be mistaken in what they say or write, and because some people purposely lie with statistics. Statistics are purposely and mistakenly misused extensively in the gun control debate. To recognize the misuses, one must have some understanding of statistics. In addition to this misuse, much of the info one should have and understand is in statistical form. For both these reasons, a person wanting to know the truth about guns and their relationships to crime and violence needs to be able to understand statistics more than for most other issues.
On this page I hope to explain both the misuses and the things you need to understand about statistical methods, studies and data besides the basics (like, what an average is). I hope the explanations are understandable even if not strictly correct, but even simplified explanations of statistics require some effort to understand so don't expect it all to be easy to understand.
Some statistics are intended just to be a measure of something, like the prevalence of gun ownership. Other statistics try to suggest or show a relationship between two or more things, such as that one thing is partially caused by another.
CAUSE AND EFFECT
Most statistical methods and studies are unable to prove that one thing is a cause of another. The methods are usually only able to demonstrate that one thing correlates with another or with absense of the other. That is, a properly done statistical study might show that one thing exists along with the other, but cannot prove that one of the things causes the other. So, a study showing that higher rates of gun ownership rates tend to exist alongside lower violent crime rates would not prove that higher gun ownership rates cause lower violent crime rates. Such a result would only suggest that higher gun ownership rates might cause reduced violent crime rates.
Given that a study showed a correlation between two things "a" and "b," it would be necessary to consider the possibility that: "a" might be the cause of "b"; "b" might be the cause of "a"; each might be partially the cause of the other; and that both might be partially or wholly caused by some other, maybe unknown, factor(s).
How about clarifying those facts? How many of those were suicides? If the figures are like 1995, suicides accounted for over 52% of all firearm deaths (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts).
Again, how many of these deaths were by suicide? What were the circumstances? You can just as easily say that 45,000 people a year are killed in motor vehicle accidents. Should we ban the use of motor vehicles then? Of course not. Do we instead look deeper at the causes of those accidents, i.e. faulty equipment, drunk driving? Of course we do.
Also, how to explain then not only D.C. being an example of an area with the strictest gun control laws having the highest rates of crime, but also Baltimore, Los Angeles, Detroit, and Philadelphia? Or will you dismiss those areas as well with a "yeah I walked those streets and was amazed at the poverty too" statement as you did for DC?
Fine and well. I am all for background checks.
Your lengthy diatribe about statistics goes both ways. Are you thus going to use them only when they are in your favor? Undoubtedly it is up to the reader to quantify the importance of statistics, such as the one you posted about 40,000 deaths by firearms in the US in 1992. A statistic indeed, but one in dire need of clarification.
Unsurprisingly, you have failed to address the points of firearms being used for self-defense and the indisputable fact that they save thousands of lives a year. As always, you prefer to debate theory rather than reality while making sweeping generalizations of the belief systems of those who believe in the right to bear arms for self-defense.
Again, if you ever find yourself in a life-threating situation involving perhaps not only yourself but your loved ones, your sticky foam and beanbag blunderbuss are not going to save you or them. In any case, your hope is all you will have, and in the back of your mind you will most likely be praying that you had something to defend yourself with other than faith and theory.
Is this true? I am NOT challenging the statement. I am only questioning it.
While obviously the majority of guns are bought for "self defense", are they really an effective method of such?
I admit to not knowing the statistics, or even knowing where to look for them (especially since as we agree, statistics will "prove" whatever you want them to "prove".
But, just from news stories, it seems that "accidental" shootings seem to come up far more often than stories where you hear about someone being robbed and overtaking their assailant by use of armed force.
Suicides? No doubt a skewing factor in the "statistics"...but there are plenty of ways to kill yourself. Guns are just pretty easy to use and quite effective. (Inconsiderately messy IMO).
It is just so hard for me to imagine having someone break into my home, and giving me the opportunity to go get my gun, load it, and defend myself. Of course I could sleep with a loaded pistol under my pillow, but with kids in the house, and a fairly active sex life, it would seem to be more of a hindrance than it's worth. (Statistically speaking).
Peace,
RsQuote from Error 404:
Is this true? I am NOT challenging the statement. I am only questioning it.
While obviously the majority of guns are bought for "self defense", are they really an effective method of such?
I admit to not knowing the statistics, or even knowing where to look for them (especially since as we agree, statistics will "prove" whatever you want them to "prove".
But, just from news stories, it seems that "accidental" shootings seem to come up far more often than stories where you hear about someone being robbed and overtaking their assailant by use of armed force.
Suicides? No doubt a skewing factor in the "statistics"...but there are plenty of ways to kill yourself. Guns are just pretty easy to use and quite effective. (Inconsiderately messy IMO).
It is just so hard for me to imagine having someone break into my home, and giving me the opportunity to go get my gun, load it, and defend myself. Of course I could sleep with a loaded pistol under my pillow, but with kids in the house, and a fairly active sex life, it would seem to be more of a hindrance than it's worth. (Statistically speaking).
Peace,
RS, check out my post on page 6 - it answers, I believe, most of your questions.
As far as home defense, of course it means being aware that someone is trying to break into your home! A firearm isn't going to do you much good if you don't have the time to retrieve it and confront your enemy.
And who says you're only in danger in your home?
(BTW, here's a true story: In Bolivia in the early 80's, a DEA acquaintance (of my parents) had his house infiltrated by a team of four drug cartel assassins. They maced the dogs, cut through the fence, and burst into the master bedroom. They grabbed his wife, put a gun to her temple, and told him to get up and get changed. Apparently the idea was to kidnap him, perhaps both of them.
Well, what they didn't know was that he had a pistol under his pillow, and he was an expert shot. He killed them all, starting with the one who had a gun to his wife's head. Some really crazy shit.
This never made the news as far as I know. )
Statistics.
Reminds me of Reagan with his stupid charts.
Ok, how about this:
Statistics show that those homes that have a big barking dog are less likely to get robbed than one without a big barking dog.
Statistics show that those who have armed response security systems and services installed are less likely to get robbed than those without.
Statistics are skewed when they include areas like Compton CA that include gang violence, etc. and don't filter accordingly.
There are no statistics that disprove non lethal weapons wouldn't be just as effective as lethal weapons for self defense. If research would show they were as effective, would the gun nuts surrender their guns? NO FUCKING WAY! IT AINT ABOUT SECURITY OR SELF DEFENSE, IT IS ABOUT OWNING A GUN AND GODDAMNIT NO ONE IS GOING TO TAKE MY GUN AWAY---THEY ARE GONNA HAVE TO KILL ME FIRST!!!
It is the conclusive simple mind that looks for data and skewed statistics to support its conclusion, rather than the open mind that looks at all possible data and studies the results, understands the results of data thoroughly to reach a conclusion.
There are more guns, both legal and illegal per capita in America than nearly every other civilized country in the world....and our murder rates and violent crime reflect that.
There is less crime per capita, and less murders of citizens by criminals by the use of handguns and other lethal weapons in fascist totalitarian states than in the freedom loving USA. Without doing any research, my guess is that there are less murders and violent crimes by citizens in Muslim states too.
It is the extremist position that I take issue with. It is the all or nothing approach that I take issue with. It is the unwillingness to do appropriate research, to try new and different methodologies that I take issue.
This is the neanderthal attitude that hapaboy represents, that is right out of the stone age:
"Crime exists because some people are just plain evil...born that way....can't change them, can't rehabilitate them.
So, we have to have guns to stop them, and if convicted of murder we have to kill them."
Reminds me of Reagan with his stupid charts.
Ok, how about this:
Statistics show that those homes that have a big barking dog are less likely to get robbed than one without a big barking dog.
Statistics show that those who have armed response security systems and services installed are less likely to get robbed than those without.
Statistics are skewed when they include areas like Compton CA that include gang violence, etc. and don't filter accordingly.
There are no statistics that disprove non lethal weapons wouldn't be just as effective as lethal weapons for self defense. If research would show they were as effective, would the gun nuts surrender their guns? NO FUCKING WAY! IT AINT ABOUT SECURITY OR SELF DEFENSE, IT IS ABOUT OWNING A GUN AND GODDAMNIT NO ONE IS GOING TO TAKE MY GUN AWAY---THEY ARE GONNA HAVE TO KILL ME FIRST!!!
It is the conclusive simple mind that looks for data and skewed statistics to support its conclusion, rather than the open mind that looks at all possible data and studies the results, understands the results of data thoroughly to reach a conclusion.
There are more guns, both legal and illegal per capita in America than nearly every other civilized country in the world....and our murder rates and violent crime reflect that.
There is less crime per capita, and less murders of citizens by criminals by the use of handguns and other lethal weapons in fascist totalitarian states than in the freedom loving USA. Without doing any research, my guess is that there are less murders and violent crimes by citizens in Muslim states too.
It is the extremist position that I take issue with. It is the all or nothing approach that I take issue with. It is the unwillingness to do appropriate research, to try new and different methodologies that I take issue.
This is the neanderthal attitude that hapaboy represents, that is right out of the stone age:
"Crime exists because some people are just plain evil...born that way....can't change them, can't rehabilitate them.
So, we have to have guns to stop them, and if convicted of murder we have to kill them."
Your "statistics" seem to make a strong case. (Pg. 6). But again, can they be trusted?
As for the story about your parent's acquaintances in Bolivia....law enforcement people, especially one's involved in extremely violent circumstances are not representative of the majority of people.
Now, I happen to live in Florida, and the "statistics" do not sound quite right. And while it is true that in Florida, pretty much anyone can get a carry permit, I don't know anyone who has one.
It is not the Wild West. No shoot-outs in the streets aside from street criminals shooting other street criminals. No white collar guys are drawing their guns to stop a mugger.
The people who live in large homes that are attractive targets for robbery or burglary generally live in gated communities. Most of them employ armed guards and security at the gates has gotten quite a bit tighter since 9/11.
Now, while I do know that many of the people here who live in large homes in protected communities do in fact own firearms, I am not aware of one single person that keeps a loaded gun under their pillow. Or even in a nightstand.
The people I know (myself included, until I did the smart thing and traded my pistol for a guitar amp), generally keep their weapons unloaded. Which, admittedly, is kind of self defeating. But still, as soon as I realized my son was old enough (strong enough) to pull back a slide, I started keeping the clips and the bullets and the gun in separate places. Revolvers, of course, don't have this factor. A 2 year old can fire one.
Another "statistic" that I don't think was mentioned, but I believe is significant, is loaded guns in the house DO contribute to crimes of passion. It doesn't take a lot of thinking to grab a loaded gun in a fit of rage and pull the trigger. Taking the time to get, load and fire a gun takes enough time and thought to slow down a "rage".
No easy answers.
Peace,
Rs