# Catsix, STFU! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 16, 2007, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366 "2007-04-16T18:08:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/241 "2007-04-17T18:50:36Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] I’m not the one who made the assertion that CCW holders are specially prepared. Prove that CCW holders never commit gun crimes. [/QUOTE] **lowbrass** , you are going to get your ass handed to you on this one. The data is there. I can’t access it from the school computers, but studies have shown that less than 2% of CCW holders have had their permits taken away, usually for something completely unrelated to firearms. So far as I know, there have been a statistically insignifigant number who have used their weapons in an illegal manner. (I phrase it that way because I’m pretty sure that the number is zero, but I’m not going to bet on it.) ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/242 "2007-04-17T18:51:24Z")
[QUOTE=Lightnin’] You know, I think there’s a fundamental disconnect between gun-owners and non-gun-owners. Gun advocates see a situation like the VA shootings, and thinks, “If only more armed people like myself had been there to shoot that guy, there’d be a lot fewer casualties!” The rest of us see that situation and think, “If guns weren’t so easy to get, maybe it would’ve never happened in the first place.” [/QUOTE] Once again, the last time there was a school shooting in VA, people ‘like myself’ (not really, I don’t have a CCW license, nor especially want one at the moment) stopped it. As for ‘the rest of us’, Lightnin, there are no dangerous weapons. Just dangerous people. Guy with the motivation to buy two guns, over a month apart, file off the serial numbers and chain the doors is the same kind of guy with the motivation to build a bomb. Maybe it wouldn’t have happened. Maybe it would have. Prove it. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/243 "2007-04-17T18:51:53Z")
[QUOTE=catsix] The studies themselves are real. The figure 1.5 million came from the Department of Justice sponsored research in 1994 (Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms). But hey, when you can’t defeat the argument, attack the messenger. Do you have anything to say regarding the research of Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz beyond the fact that it has been cited by pro-gun rights groups? [/QUOTE] [Here’s one response to a study by Gary Kleck.](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/announcements/kleck.html) > [@](#): > > Article review of Gary Kleck, 2004. > > For immediate release: Thursday, September 23, 2004 > There are many problems with Gary Kleck’s 2004 article “Measures of Gun Ownership Levels of Macro-Level Crime and Violence Research” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2004; 41:3-36. Here we list a few, focusing on our own research. > > See David Hemenway, Private Guns Public Health, 2004, University of Michigan Press, for a full discussion of these and many other issues. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/244 "2007-04-17T18:56:42Z")
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried] No, I think that in the parts of the USA that I am familiar with, the odds are that you can better improve your quality of life by watching your health rather than carrying a gun. [/QUOTE] And it has to be either/or because…? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/245 "2007-04-17T19:01:00Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] And it has to be either/or because…? [/QUOTE] It doesn’t have to be either or, but having a gun is far down the list of useful things you can do for personal safety. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/246 "2007-04-17T19:07:26Z")
> [@](#): > > **Spiral Stairs** said: > There are obvious differences between guns and nuclear weapons. There are obvious differences between chickens and turkeys. The question is whether any of those differences have any bearing on the underlying logic of the argument. Turkeys and chickens are in the same ball park since both are domestically farmed animals used for food. Handguns and nuclear bombs are not even the same sport. Handguns are arms, nuclear bombs are ordnance. The right to bear arms is specifically protected by the Constitution. The right to bear ordnance is not something I’ve ever even heard suggested. Your argument is absurd alright. > [@](#): > > I’ll edit out the analogy and try to make my point clearer. Your argument was that restrictions on gun rights are unfair because they restrict the conduct of the law-abiding on the basis of others’ criminal misuse of guns. Emotional responses to terrible events that curtail the rights of ordinary citizens are not a good thing, IMO. This includes the ‘USA Patriot Act’ as well. > [@](#): > > To your argument I have responded that ALL regulations of dangerous objects are based on the potential for misuse, even if most law-abiding citizens would never misuse them. So long as we’re in the land of absurd arguments (you chose to go there), and we’re going to regulate any object that could be misused, I suggest we lock up all men because they could be rapists and all women becuase they could be prostitutes. They’ve got the equipment to be. > [@](#): > > If accepted, your argument could be used to dismantle huge swaths of regulation, most of which I would assume you would favor. My argument has never been that every potentially dangerous thing should be unregulated. That’s your straw-man. > [@](#): > > **lowbrass** said: > Prove that CCW holders never commit gun crimes. Had I ever made that claim, I would be prepared to defend it. However, you do not get to invent claims and then demand that I back them up. **Bridget Burke** : What about the other fourteen studies including the DOJ sponsored research? ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/247 "2007-04-17T19:29:17Z")
[QUOTE=catsix] The studies themselves are real. The figure 1.5 million came from the Department of Justice sponsored research in 1994 (Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms). But hey, when you can’t defeat the argument, attack the messenger. Do you have anything to say regarding the research of Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz beyond the fact that it has been cited by pro-gun rights groups? [/QUOTE] Yes I do. Your fantasy that killers are being downed by righteous gun-toting citizens just isn’t true. The hypothetical being envisioned here, where a private citizen with a gun kills a felon in his attempt to commit a crime, is exceedingly rare. In 2004, there were only a dismal 170 [justifiable homicides](http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html) (felon killed by a private citizen during commission of felony) by private citizens with firearms, compared to 9,326 murders committed with firearms. Less than 2% of people killed by private citizens with guns are killed in the process of committing a felony. Yet some people have this crazy notion that having _more_ armed citizens will prevent crime. This is real life, not a Rambo movie. These are _real_ statistics, not some “survey” of gun owners offering their fantasy of how many times they think they prevented crime with their guns. They probably counted the time they pointed a gun at their neighbor “cuz he looked at muh wife”. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/248 "2007-04-17T19:32:19Z")
[QUOTE=catsix] Had I ever made that claim, I would be prepared to defend it. [/quote] Then I take it you agree with me that the assertion that CCW holders do not commit gun crimes is FALSE. Isn’t that what I said before? ---
**Author:** ![Spiral\_Stairs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Spiral\_Stairs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiral_Stairs)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/249 "2007-04-17T19:34:23Z")
[QUOTE=catsix] Turkeys and chickens are in the same ball park since both are domestically farmed animals used for food. Handguns and nuclear bombs are not even the same sport. Handguns are arms, nuclear bombs are ordnance. The right to bear arms is specifically protected by the Constitution. The right to bear ordnance is not something I’ve ever even heard suggested. [/QUOTE] Look up the definition of “arms.” (Hey, that’s what Second Amendment textualists are supposed to do, right?) You will [find](http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=arms) that it is defined as “weaponry,” or “weapons considered collectively.” In any event, if you can’t get past the example I chose, feel free to replace “nuclear weapon” with “nuclear missile,” “flamethrower,” “bazooka,” “AR-15.” Whatever. > [@](#): > > So long as we’re in the land of absurd arguments (you chose to go there), and we’re going to regulate any object that could be misused, I suggest we lock up all men because they could be rapists and all women becuase they could be prostitutes. They’ve got the equipment to be. Your argument is that guns should not be regulated (or at least not regulated very much; I’m not sure of your precise view) because they are not inherently dangerous and merely possess the potential for misuse. I am NOT arguing that all non-inherently dangerous things should be regulated if they have any potential for misuse. My point is that to say a thing is not inherently dangerous, which you have done, is an insufficient basis for rejecting regulation of it. Rather, we have to look to other criteria in deciding whether to regulate it. Don’t paint me into a corner I’m nowhere near. > [@](#): > > My argument has never been that every potentially dangerous thing should be unregulated. That’s your straw-man. But I’m still waiting for the principled distinction between the potentially dangerous thing you do want unregulated (guns), and the potentially dangerous things I’ve cited in response, which I assume you want to regulate. Like I said, when people make these arguments, the principled distinction on which they are relying is usually based on what they have hanging above the fireplace. (Oh, and “argument _ad absurdum_” does not mean the same thing as “absurd argument,” in case you were actually confused about its meaning.) ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/250 "2007-04-17T19:35:52Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] In 2004, there were only a dismal 170 [justifiable homicides](http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html) (felon killed by a private citizen during commission of felony) by private citizens with firearms, compared to 9,326 murders committed with firearms. Less than 2% of people killed by private citizens with guns are killed in the process of committing a felony. Yet some people have this crazy notion that having _more_ armed citizens will prevent crime. This is real life, not a Rambo movie. [/QUOTE] The problem with this statistic is that it doesn’t account for all of the crimes stopped by the mere **presence** of a firearm, with no shots fired. Nor does it cover those instances where shots were fired but no-one was killed. What about all of the times that cops weren’t called? **That** is real life. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/251 "2007-04-17T19:40:20Z")
[QUOTE=silenus] **lowbrass** , you are going to get your ass handed to you on this one. The data is there. I can’t access it from the school computers, but studies have shown that less than 2% of CCW holders have had their permits taken away, usually for something completely unrelated to firearms. So far as I know, there have been a statistically insignifigant number who have used their weapons in an illegal manner. (I phrase it that way because I’m pretty sure that the number is zero, but I’m not going to bet on it.) [/QUOTE] Your assertion is conspicuously missing a cite. I’m sure you’re familiar with this from the Brady website, right? > [@](#): > > …an August 2000 study by the Violence Policy Center revealed that, from January 1996 through April 2000, the arrest rate for weapon-related offenses among Texas concealed handgun license holders was 66% higher than that of the general adult population of Texas. CCW license holders are committing crimes - including murder, rape, assault and burglary - but because the gun lobby makes it difficult if not impossible for the public to determine if a shooter has a CCW license in most states, the full story has not yet been told. Still gonna go with “zero”? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/252 "2007-04-17T19:40:35Z")
[QUOTE=Caridwen] You’ve explained your point of view. others haven’t. While no one is under any obligation to explain why they feel the way they do, it’s hard to understand where a person is coming from when they don’t… There’s absolutely nothing wrong with either post. Maybe they get sick of defending themselves against the anti-gun crowd, but it’s hard to see the other side of the argument when it always comes down to “it’s my right to do so”. [/QUOTE] The reason why I steadfastly refuse to justify myself are thus: 1. Anything I say will be an appeal to emotion. 2. Anything I say will be a request for an approval that I don’t seek. 3. Anything I say will be commented upon and potentially criticized, which happens whether I say anything or not. 4. Anything I say can be dismissed by saying “OK, you have a good reason, but so-and-so’s reason sucks”, or vice versa. I will not be a party to the dismissal or approval, even in the court of public opinion, of someone’s right to own and carry a gun because someone sees my circumstances as either more or less justifiable that someone else’s. I have my reasons, and that is good enough for me, the Federal government, my local law enforcement agency, and the Constitutions of Pennsylvania and the United States. That is why I don’t do it. It’s not out of any intransigence. If you asked me in person I’d probably tell you. But I don’t do it publicly because of the above reasons. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/253 "2007-04-17T19:43:01Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] Your assertion is conspicuously missing a cite. I’m sure you’re familiar with this from the Brady website, right? Still gonna go with “zero”? [/QUOTE] Until I can access an unrestricted computer, yes I am. I trust Brady Center stats about as much as I do those coming out of the White House. The data I was trying to remember came out of Florida, and was from an unbiased source. I’m willing to bet that the Bradys massaged the snot out of that data. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/254 "2007-04-17T19:49:57Z")
[QUOTE=silenus] The problem with this statistic is that it doesn’t account for all of the crimes stopped by the mere **presence** of a firearm, with no shots fired. [/QUOTE] You’re welcome to provide statistics (not a biased survey of gun owners) to back that up. But what we’re debating here is whether having armed students would prevent incidents like the Virginia shooting. In such a case, do you believe an armed student could have stopped the shooter without firing at him? The question is, would having _more_ guns keep this kind of thing from happening, without resulting in _more_ gun crimes? The evidence suggests that it wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/255 "2007-04-17T19:51:15Z")
[QUOTE=silenus] Until I can access an unrestricted computer, yes I am. I trust Brady Center stats about as much as I do those coming out of the White House. The data I was trying to remember came out of Florida, and was from an unbiased source. I’m willing to bet that the Bradys massaged the snot out of that data. [/QUOTE] So you’ve got one out-of-hand dismissal of my cite, vs. your total lack of a cite. Let me know when you’ve got something… ---
**Author:** ![enigm4tic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@enigm4tic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enigm4tic)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/256 "2007-04-17T19:53:04Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] Let me know when you’ve got something… [/QUOTE] he did > [@silenus](#): > > Until I can access an unrestricted computer, yes I am ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/257 "2007-04-17T19:56:28Z")
> [@](#): > > **lowbrass** said: > You’re welcome to provide statistics (not a biased survey of gun owners) to back that up. Do you have any reason to believe that all of the fifteen surveys conducted on the rate of defensive gun uses are wrong by orders of magnitude, or is this just your own personal bias talking? ---
**Author:** ![capybara](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/capybara/32/202_2.png) [@capybara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capybara)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/258 "2007-04-17T19:58:35Z")
I must say, as an educator, the idea of standing on a platform in front of an intro-level class of 800 during a difficult exam and knowing that a number of these people are armed would not make me feel safer. If I knew that the number of people packing heat in my classroom could be roughly equivalent to the number in the same room who are congenitally unable to turn off their cell phones during an exam, well. And I sure don’t want any implicit new role of ‘great protector of the students’. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/259 "2007-04-17T20:01:26Z")
Some dopers don’t see this as much of a gun control issue at all. I know I don’t. This was a sick person hell-bent on exacting a price from his peers for reasons unknown. If gun control laws prevented him from getting one, he could find other means. If controls were lifted so that some number of his peers were regularly armed, I expect he would find a means that made their weapons a non-issue, too. There are ways to hurt large numbers of people which don’t require shooting, and which don’t allow alert marksmen to prevent the attack. How many deaths would have been prevented by either more or fewer gun restrictions seems like baseless speculation to me. I am sure there are useful points to be made by debating the issue (and it’s something the U.S. needs to figure out) but I don’t have much stomach for it yet. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2007, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366/260 "2007-04-17T20:02:34Z")
[QUOTE=enigm4tic] he did [/QUOTE] Huh? He doesn’t have a cite yet. What the fuck are you talking about? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catsix-stfu/400366.md?page=14)