Women defending themselves with *Gasp* guns!

[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.

 

[andysayshi]

^ More importantly, far too few studies have been done at all. The NRA have made sure of that.

 

[Rolyo85]

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.

Influenced by an agenda does not mean flawed. Only flawed means flawed. And unless a side can show where a study is flawed, the fact that it is biased doesn't automatically make it so.

 

[Stardreamer]

Influenced by an agenda does not mean flawed. Only flawed means flawed. And unless a side can show where a study is flawed, the fact that it is biased doesn't automatically make it so.

Well I'll leave it to the sides who care about the minutia to argue about it.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Which is why a law requiring secure storage of all but immediate self-defense weapons should be passed, under the aegis of Article 1 Section 8, "disciplining" (not as in correcting, but providing for proper discipline) the militia, should be passed. Having a gun in a bedroom night stand for self defense is one thing; having long guns sitting loose in a closet is negligent.

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.

I take all the sources into account, and err on the conservative side.

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.

How would there be "several hundred thousand gun deaths"? IIRC, his figure for gun deaths is less than 3% of the total actual shootings, which is only a small percentage of defensive uses. So if there are a million defensive uses, his figures would give somewhere between 20k and 40k firearms deaths, which is the range the actual figure falls in.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Or storage -- I'd guess if everyone in the US stored their firearms properly, the theft rate would drop to a third of the current figure.

 

[Kulindahr]

.... 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.

The NRA has been advocating laws like that for years, with the "Project Exile" model, but just because it's the NRA it tends to get stymied in committees. The fact is that where penalties have been imposed for using or even having a gun while committing a crime, gun violence has plunged.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thinking of Project Exile and the aforementioned rate of gun theft, I had a small inspiration: a law making the theft of a firearm a federal offense, on the grounds that it is interference with a basic right. Instead of the mere one year such a conviction will brings in some states, make it a mandatory minimum of three years added to any sentence -- with no good time reduction and no parole possibility.

 

[Rolyo85]

Or storage -- I'd guess if everyone in the US stored their firearms properly, the theft rate would drop to a third of the current figure.

Well, if I understand correctly, the whole militia thing initially was based on a system where people would store their guns in a shared storage house, and not in their homes. Since the guns were, yunno, only used for MILITIA purposes.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, if I understand correctly, the whole militia thing initially was based on a system where people would store their guns in a shared storage house, and not in their homes. Since the guns were, yunno, only used for MILITIA purposes.

No. Personal weapons were kept at home, except those the militia bought for members who couldn't afford them. Supplies for powder and shot were stored in case of calling up the militia; members had to obtain their own for regular use.