How are those gun control laws coming along

[IglooDame]

There are 1.3mill violent crimes of all descriptions and weapons a year. And yet you find it credible that there are 2 million defensive uses of guns a year?

I answered your question, right? Whether annually two million or a hundred thousand, it does happen in real life, even though you may not have heard about it personally.

 

[Joecoolyo]

You said "threaten". "Threaten" does not mean defend. If some guy came up to me and threatened to shoot with no provocation, then him getting hurt was just coming to him. Really, please try to actually understand the quote instead of simply quote mining.

If there is a criminal with a gun, and you pull out your gun to defend yourself, you're a threat to that criminal's life. Hence you are threatening him with a gun, and will promptly be killed.

No criminal's going to say, "oh look, that man has a gun, better put mine down and let him be!". No, their going to open fire on the idiot who's "defending" himself.

 

[NickyJ]

Yeah, there's a difference between hunting to subsist and hunting for sport. We are discussing the former. I am growing tired of your silly attempts to deflect the discussion.

Hey, you don't want to back up your points? Fine. I've got better things to do than bandy with someone who would rather try to complain that I'm deflecting discussion than actually discuss the topic at hand.

If there is a criminal with a gun, and you pull out your gun to defend yourself, you're a threat to that criminal's life. Hence you are threatening him with a gun, and will promptly be killed.

No criminal's going to say, "oh look, that man has a gun, better put mine down and let him be!". No, their going to open fire on the idiot who's "defending" himself.

Umm, read what Methos said just a little earlier in the topic:

I don't like to get into gun debates, but so far the discussion seems like people are arguing about stuff they only have an opinion on, rather then any experience. I don't have much experience, but I'll offer what I've seen.

Several years ago I got my concealed carry permit and any place I'm legal to do so, I'm armed. I have perused concealed carry forums and sites and come across a lot of great information and discussions.

First off, reaction time is a big factor in any situation. Most people who are holding a gun, or other weapon on someone, typically isn't expecting them to counter attack. If someone who is carrying a concealed weapon pulls the weapon to defend themselves, the aggressor has a moment of hesitation, which can be more then enough time. Recall, unless the aggressor (criminal) is trained, his/her mind has to realize you're drawing your weapon and then react to it.

Second, some of the concealed carry forums create scenarios asking what the readers wish to do in certain situations. Interesting enough a very high percentage reply with some form that doesn't require drawing their weapon. Realize that most criminals are not going to fire, but if you provoke them, then they typically react by firing their weapon. Hence the reason why concealed carriers on the sites I follow don't want to draw their weapon until they feel there's no other option. Note, the overall feeling by the concealed carriers on these sites was they got their permit to protect themselves and their families, not to be heroes.

Third, those who carry tend to decide prior to an incident how they are going to react. For instance, determine beforehand how you would react in situations with your family with you and the aggressor(s) are only threatening. How would you react in a place of business when there were more then one aggressors, or one aggressor with a firearm, or some other weapon. At what point do you draw your weapon and what do you do when your weapon is out and in hand?

In regards to the last I've decided that I will never pull my weapon unless my intent is to fire it. I will never put my hand on it unless I believe a situation is about to turn for the worse and I may need to draw it. I will also never show that I'm armed, since this typically only escalates the situation.

I'm tired and I should be in bed, so I'm betting I'm going to wish I hadn't posted in the morning.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Hey, you don't want to back up your points? Fine. I've got better things to do than bandy with someone who would rather try to complain that I'm deflecting discussion than actually discuss the topic at hand.

Uh, I already did. I already established that much of the US does not need to hunt to obtain their meat. You have yet to show your sources.

 

[Bugfatty300]

If there is a criminal with a gun, and you pull out your gun to defend yourself, you're a threat to that criminal's life. Hence you are threatening him with a gun, and will promptly be killed.

So the alternative here is to completely allow this armed criminal have free reign on whether you live or die (after all your testimony in court that will put him away for decades can be just as big a threat as a gun) and of course some nut jobs don't even need a reason to kill you ... after all innocent and defenseless people lying prostrate on the floor are murdered all the time ... Of course all of that is preferable to doing a rash thing like "threatening" this poor criminal's life? Yeah that doesn't sound like a plan for me armed or not.

No criminal's going to say, "oh look, that man has a gun, better put mine down and let him be!". No, their going to open fire on the idiot who's "defending" himself.

Indeed most criminals do give up and run away when they encounter armed or even stiff physical resistance. Even a few nut jobs in the midst of a shooting spree have gave up after they were confronted with armed victims.

 

[CommonKnowledge]

I read an interesting article about gun control a while ago, found at:

http://www.endevil.com/guncontrol.html
Also some gun statistics:
http://www.endevil.com/guncontrol3.html

Personally I think the right for anyone to own a gun is pretty ludicrous and it was certainly a culture shock to see ordinary people walking around with them the first time I went to America. Here in the UK you see police with guns at airports and outside Buckingham palace, but I've never yet seen one not in the posession of an authority figure or on a shooting range.

Perhaps it's just intrinsicly rooted in the American mentality that owning guns is a good thing but I distinctly remember being told when I was at school that if you carried a knife (this was after a kid in the local area was stabbed) that you increase your chances of being stabbed. So the argument that carrying a knife as "protection" is misleading in that if someone who would have mugged you anyway sees it the situation could very well leap from a mugging into a life and death scenario.

Also, as the article points out, gun deaths are significantly influenced by the type of guns sold. Generally more guns leads to more gun deaths, but more handguns significantly increase gun deaths. Notice how in the gun statistics page I linked the countries with the lowest gun death rates (UK, Singapore and Japan) prohibit (mostly in Singapore) the sale of handguns. Also, despite the fact that Britain has 4% of households with guns it still has fewer gun deaths that the Neatherlands with a 1.9% household ownership rate. Possible cause? Neatherlands doesn't prohibit handguns so consequently has a 38% higher gun death rate despite having fewer houses with guns in total.

 

[Methos]

but I distinctly remember being told when I was at school that if you carried a knife (this was after a kid in the local area was stabbed) that you increase your chances of being stabbed. So the argument that carrying a knife as "protection" is misleading in that if someone who would have mugged you anyway sees it the situation could very well leap from a mugging into a life and death scenario.

I find this humorous. If you carry a knife, you're more likely to get stabbed, therefore the same goes with guns. That analogy doesn't work with condoms!

 

[IglooDame]

I read an interesting article about gun control a while ago, found at:

http://www.endevil.com/guncontrol.html
Also some gun statistics:
http://www.endevil.com/guncontrol3.html

Personally I think the right for anyone to own a gun is pretty ludicrous and it was certainly a culture shock to see ordinary people walking around with them the first time I went to America. Here in the UK you see police with guns at airports and outside Buckingham palace, but I've never yet seen one not in the posession of an authority figure or on a shooting range.

Perhaps it's just intrinsicly rooted in the American mentality that owning guns is a good thing but I distinctly remember being told when I was at school that if you carried a knife (this was after a kid in the local area was stabbed) that you increase your chances of being stabbed. So the argument that carrying a knife as "protection" is misleading in that if someone who would have mugged you anyway sees it the situation could very well leap from a mugging into a life and death scenario.

Also, as the article points out, gun deaths are significantly influenced by the type of guns sold. Generally more guns leads to more gun deaths, but more handguns significantly increase gun deaths. Notice how in the gun statistics page I linked the countries with the lowest gun death rates (UK, Singapore and Japan) prohibit (mostly in Singapore) the sale of handguns. Also, despite the fact that Britain has 4% of households with guns it still has fewer gun deaths that the Neatherlands with a 1.9% household ownership rate. Possible cause? Neatherlands doesn't prohibit handguns so consequently has a 38% higher gun death rate despite having fewer houses with guns in total.

From your link:
"Well by owning a gun you are increasing your chances of being killed by a gun."

Citation needed. The webpage's stats page doesn't reference the assertion.

 

[CommonKnowledge]

I find this humorous. If you carry a knife, you're more likely to get stabbed, therefore the same goes with guns. That analogy doesn't work with condoms!

I don't see the connection myself. No doubt it's just a way of belittling the argument by replacing a lethal implement with something designed for sex. You could achieve the same result by saying that wearing shoes doesn't mean that you're more likely to be beaten to death by someone wielding a shoe. Therefore carrying a gun doesn't make you more likely to be killed by a gun because hey, it doesn't work with shoes.

So what's the difference? Guns are objects designed to kill and knives are objects designed to cut objects or flesh. Clearly both are more dangerous than condoms.

 

[CommonKnowledge]

From your link:
"Well by owning a gun you are increasing your chances of being killed by a gun."

Citation needed. The webpage's stats page doesn't reference the assertion.

Some of the article is founded in personal conjecture whilst some is factual. However I do think that immediately after that when he goes on to say:

"Gun owners are not immune to crime, gun owners are just as likely to be attacked and burgled as the rest of us. Owning a gun does not make you safe. How many of the people who claim they need a gun for their own safety have actually had to use it anyway? If you claim to need a gun but you´ve never used it then why do you need it?"

Is an important point.

Also the article is about two and a half years out of date - at least that's when it was last modified according to the page info. So any citations would probably be out of date anyway.

 

[holy king]

every society has it's dysfunctionalities and mass neurosises. austria, for example, is a country of alcoholics.

america has this gun fetish, their childlike patriotism, a paranoia that goes with the constant feeling of being at war with someone or something or even abstract concepts and this whole abhorrent bootstraps thing amongst other things.

those things are tough to change, and "i dont understand you, your problems are ridiculous, just ban guns like any other reasonable nation" certainly isnt going to help anyone.

 

[CommonKnowledge]

every society has it's dysfunctionalities and mass neurosises. austria, for example, is a country of alcoholics.

america has this gun fetish, their childlike patriotism, a paranoia that goes with the constant feeling of being at war with someone or something or even abstract concepts and this whole abhorrent bootstraps thing amongst other things.

those things are tough to change, and "i dont understand you, your problems are ridiculous, just ban guns like any other reasonable nation" certainly isnt going to help anyone.

To an extent I agree, here in Britain binge drinking has been on the rise for years and it's causing a lot of problems. Banning alcohol certainly wouldn't be the answer, not would raising the legal drinking limit to 21 or increasing the tax on alcohol. But because the problem is difficult doesn't mean society should just throw it's hands in the air and dismiss it.

 

[IglooDame]

Some of the article is founded in personal conjecture whilst some is factual.

Some conjecture, some factual statements, and the web-page writer declines to note which is which. *sigh* Can you understand why I am not much inclined to pay it much regard?

However I do think that immediately after that when he goes on to say:

"Gun owners are not immune to crime, gun owners are just as likely to be attacked and burgled as the rest of us. Owning a gun does not make you safe. How many of the people who claim they need a gun for their own safety have actually had to use it anyway? If you claim to need a gun but you´ve never used it then why do you need it?"

Is an important point.

In the order of the two questions asked:

In the US, there are "defensive uses of a gun" somewhere between a hundred thousand and two million times each year. Citation here, referencing thirteen different studies: http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

And I also claim to need to wear a seatbelt when I drive my car. I have never "used" a seatbelt (i.e. been involved in an accident). Is my need for a seatbelt thus imaginary?

Also the article is about two and a half years out of date - at least that's when it was last modified according to the page info. So any citations would probably be out of date anyway.

I'd be willing to accept older citations - data from the last three decades remains relevant regarding this issue, absent some substantial cultural or legal change.

 

[CommonKnowledge]

Quoting the very article that you linked in order to defend gun ownership by showing how many people use guns per year to defend themselves:

"It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."

 

[Methos]

Quoting the very article that you linked in order to defend gun ownership by showing how many people use guns per year to defend themselves:

"It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."

Considering the link he provided lists thirteen articles, I'm inclined to use that to establish a rough basis.

 

[CommonKnowledge]

Some extracts discussing the 13 DGU surveys:

"None of the surveys were meant as exclusive studies of DGU."

"Most importantly, the surveys did not ask enough questions to establish exactly what was done with the guns in reported defensive use incidents. At best, some of the surveys only established whether the gun was fired. The lack of such detail raises the possibility that the guns were not actually "used" in any meaningful way. Instead, Rs might be remembering occasions on which they merely carried a gun for protection "just in case" or investigated a suspicious noise in their backyard, only to find nothing."

"However, even the best of the gun surveys had serious problems. First, none of them established how many times Rs used a gun defensively within the recall period. It was necessary to conservatively assume that each DGU-involved person or household experienced only one DGU in the period, a figure which is likely to be an underestimation. Second, although the Mauser and Hart surveys were the best available surveys in other respects, they asked Rs to report for their entire households, rather than speaking only for themselves. Third, while these two surveys did use a specific recall period, it was five years, which encouraged a greater amount of both memory loss and telescoping. The longer the recall period, the more memory loss predominates over telescoping as a source of response error,[40] supporting the conclusion that a five year recall period probably produces a net under reporting of DGUs. Fourth, while the surveys all had acceptably large samples by the standards of ordinary national surveys, mostly in the 600 to 1500 range, they were still smaller than one would prefer for estimating a phenomenon which is fairly rare. While on average the sample size has no effect on the point estimate of DGU frequency, it will affect the amount of sampling error.

Finally, none of the surveys established exactly what Rs did with their guns in reported DGUs, making it impossible to be certain that they were actually used in any meaningful way. In sum, while the gun surveys are clearly far superior to the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency, they have significant shortcomings."

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Too many TLA's.

 

[CommonKnowledge]

Too many TLA's.

DGU - Defensive Gun Use
Rs - interviewee
NCVS - National Crime Victimisation Survey

Having ploughed through that paper the conclusion would be that DGUs are more common than one would reasonably assume and I'll concede to that. However it's important to note that the survey is merely concerned with defensive gun usage and alludes nothing to the fact that banning guns would potentially reduce gun crime in general.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the analogy being formed here is that if DGU > criminal usage then guns = good. However the article points out that gun crime in general is difficult to categorise because it depends how you class it, deaths, injuries, threats etc... All of that is ignoring the fact that suicides involving guns are very common and wouldn't occur so often if guns were regulated.

Not fogetting of course that America has the 4th highest gun death rate in the world (8th per capita):

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Of course that's solely concerned with murders and ignores other aspects of gun crime. Ultimately I think an objective view is needed, if you're more likely to be murdered by someone with a gun in America than in Zimbabwe then there's obviously a problem. To deny that problem seems pointless, discussing causes of the problem is fine as is solutions, but denying that a problem exists really does seem futile.