Tim Lambert said
If guns protect from homicide, then, other things being equal, gun owners will suffer fewer homicides. However, they suffered more
Tim
They thought they needed a gun for something. Do you suppose that they (were are)in a situation that they feel the need for protection. Don’t qualify everything with “all things being equal”. They seldom are.
You are correct. My apologies.
A 7200 RPM hard drive is more complex than a 5400 RPM hard drive, and IS more likely to screw up. I didn’t say more-complex systems WILL screw up, I said they’re MORE LIKELY (in general, of course) to screw up.
No, I’m saying that the study didn’t devote adequate attention to the factors it was trying to measure (that is, gun ownership = increased danger). This is due to the fact that there are so many different aspects of home life that were studied.
I agree. I was trying to get at this earlier, but I guess I wasn’t clear enough. My apologies.
I think this has been mentioned once before (I forget by who)… was the presence of a gun the cause of the increased homicides, or rather a separate effect of other factors that contributed to increased homicides?
Certainly, if a person lived in conditions that placed their lives in immediate danger, they’d want a means to defend themselves.
[personal story relating to that topic… I do not offer this as proof!]
A couple years back, my dad had a contract put out on his life by a man he was involved in legal-wrangling with. My dad caught wind of this because the hired “hitman” was actually and FBI informant (luckily). The Feds recommended that he begin carrying a gun with him at all times (or most times). So he did.
Luckily, nothing happened (the bad guy got caught and got 15-20), but the point is, there are times when gun ownership can coincide with other dangerous factors.
[/personal story]
I don’t dispute the fact that the study found a coinciding of gun ownership and higher suicide rates. What I DO dispute is the notion that the former is the cause while the latter is the effect.
Even though you were trying to be a smart ass, you accidentally let a grain of wisdom slip through your keyboard before you caught it.
If nobody has a gun except person A, then person A feels extremely bold and brave, since he is the biggest fish in the pond. He will feel free to act with impunity, do anything he likes with no serious repercussions, simply because he is better armed than anybody else.
On the other hand, if EVERYBODY has a gun, suddenly person A isn’t so special anymore. He can’t just walk around and do whatever he wants, shoot whomever he wants, etc, because everybody is on equal footing with him. So he is more polite, more cautious, and no longer the big fish.
So yes, more guns would save more people, because the predators we have now wouldn’t be as bold and fearless as they are now, because the sheep would be as well armed as the wolves.
What language are you speaking?
I agree with Joe
I would like to add If nobody had a gun Then no one would be able to stop the big (size)guy. We would have the same situation Joe mentions because he would have the upper hand.
You could call this the big bully theory
Actually, your statement is wrong. If one hard drive has an x% chance of screwing up today, then a RAID system with N drives has a (100-(100-x)^N)% chance of screwing up [If one drive has a 1% chance of failing, and your RAID is made up of 5 of that type of drive, then your chance of a drive failure in your RAID is 100-(.99^5)%, or 4.9%]. Introducing more variables always introduces more possibility for error.
RAID is not a magical device that never screws up, it’s a Redundant Array of Independent Drives (wait, R-A-I-D…wow, that’s weird!). A RAID will have more errors than a single drive (because it’s made of several single drives). The only difference is that RAID is designed to have a better chance of recovering from the errors.
From the point of view of the prowler (and why there wasn’t any crime in that Carolina Town), you have Town A: everyone’s got a gun, and Town B: guns are outlawed.
Looking for someone to rob, where do you think you stand a better chance (whether or not you have a gun)?
Knowing that every store owner carries a side arm and every home has a gun in Town A, you opt for Town B, where the people who fear guns reside.
Just like Joe’s example, the prowler becomes the “big guy” in Town B.
In Florida, where it is legal for you to drive with a loaded gun in the car (with restrictions, like it being out-of-driver’s reach and a 3 step process to get at, etc.), car jackers targeted rental cars because they were most likely to be out-of-towners without a gun. The rental companies got smart quick and removed all indicators, like stickers, that promoted their cars as rentals.
So your argument is that the only protective benefit conferred by firearm ownership is the “bad guy body count”? That is, after all, all that the Kellermann study measured. You measure protection by counting the lives saved, not by counting the dead.
Deep Thought:
I was trying to illustrate that this issue is not as simple as you say. I did this by simplifying it on the opposite side of the one you stand on and making it obvious that these things are debatable.
Of course I then go away for a couple of days and you start “debating” it by calling me insane, which might have proved my point if you could call what you do debating. More like witnessing.
Thanks for making this personal,
PeeQueue
Well, no one has posted in this thread for a couple of days, so I’m wondering if there’s any merit to this last post at all…but, okay, what the hell. I just spent all afternoon reading it, I might as well toss in my 2 cents…
First off, I wish all of y’all debating this gun shit would just take a chill pill. Jeeze. And I don’t mean cutting out the sarcastic jabs, which were brilliantly deployed by both sides and really made the sauce worth the tasting, but you don’t have take it all so personally…
I think both pro- and anti-gun advocates have done a great job debating this issue, and I’ve learned a hell of a lot. My hat is off especially to Crimson Dufus, Max Torque, and SPOOF Bo Diddley, all of whom have (IMHO) been hellishly impressive debators. I think anyone who implies that Crimson doesn’t know what he’s talking about or can’t engage in a “reasoned debate” is just talking rubish. He’s been coherent and more than willing to back up his claims with reasonably valid references. Of course, he’s also been an arrogant prick, but that’s what’s so charming about him.
I especially appreciated Max taking time out to do the research on Crimson’s list of Second Amendment cases and debunking them, and shame on you Crimson for such low-down intimdations tactics. That you later accuse Max of not doing his homework is laughable – hell man, he did yours! On the other hand, Max (and SPOOF), it seems to me that anyone seriously interested at getting to the truth of the topic under debate would welcome the appearence of a specialist like Tim on the boards instead of tossing off a stream of petty inuendos.
I can’t see that this debate has really resolved much. People who started out opposed to gun-legislation still seem to oppose it, and those in favor still seem to favor it. The statistical research failed to shed any real light on the issue, and left everyone bickering over the details of “multi-variable regression” and such. At the risk of being now called an ijiot, that doesn’t suprise me – I’ve seen statistical studies that show “interesting” correlations between the number of TM meditators in Tel Aviv and the “intensity” of the war in Lebanon. I suspect that the use of statistics isn’t going to do much to resolve the issue either way.
As an American living abroad I can state from personal experience that I feel more secure over here than I did over there. Thus, it may come as no suprise that I found one of the most eloquent post in this entire thread to be that of Jackytar’s, on page 2. To me, the argument that one feels more secure when there are more guns in the hands of more people is pretty incomprehensible. But I can definately sympathize with those who feel strongly that they want to own a gun and that my political agenda infringes upon their personal integrity. I don’t like having other people telling me how to live my life either, especially since I’m decent, hardworking, etc… So, it seems to me that the only way to escape this dilemma is by means of some sort of compromise. I guess that might be stating the obvious somewhat, but somehow we’ve got to stop this silly debate about guns killing people, which seems to be getting us nowhere, and figure out a way to insure the well-grounded rights of lawful gun-users while respecting the well-grounded fears of the unarmed. That may be an overly simplistic conclusion, but at least it’s a starting point…
And thanks once again to everyone in this thread for helping me fight my ignorance.
I will never give up my rights.EVER!!
Apologies I am having computer problems
I agree. He’s brought up a lot of good points.
The reason I came close to losing my temper with him on numerous occasions is because he’s been downright rude.
I also agree. His presence has been a breath of fresh air, and I’ve quickly developed a respect for him. My “petty innuendoes” were poorly-worded attempts at bringing levity, and I apologize for any offense to all parties.
Y’know what? That seems to be how all the gun threads turn out 
Actually, a lot of threads turn out that way. Ah, well… I’ll see y’all in the next Religion thread!
Thanks to Max Torque for recent post.
First, please explain if you trust governments or not. If you do, one oft-expressed view favouring gun ownership, ‘in case the govt cannot be trusted’, fades away. If you don’t, then why cite government reports as evidence? Or are you the sort of debater who simply accepts any evidence which coincides with your own bias, and rejects all else? I’d be very surprised if you really trust government sources all that much. I don’t.
Secondly, I feel sure you have come across ‘the fallacy of the expert witness’. Namely, for every expert opinion favouring X, there is almost always an equal and opposite expert opinion favouring not-X. And the same goes for reports churned out by faceless pampered bureaucrats in Whitehall.
Thirdly, if you still want to play the game that goes ‘A govt report says so, so it must be true’, then you will doubtless be very keen to champion various British Royal Commissions and Govt white papers over the past 20 years, which have found in favour of NOT routinely arming the police and adopting tougher, not slacker, anti-gun laws. Personally, I think these Commissions and white papers are typical bureaucratic trash, but you seem happy to cite them as if they were informative.
As I suspect you are well aware, this is not ‘comparing like with like’. We have lightning here too. It’s a natural phenomenon, and its incidence is not affected by man-made laws. Slightly different to the incidence of guns per capita and the probability of innocent people getting shot.
Well, in the first place anyone can be selective about which phenomena you place at the forefront of debate: armed criminals disrupting court proceedings, or child coffins in the aftermath of a child killing another in school with a gun? We may have had one of the former, but we have had none of the latter. Take your pick. In any case, the incident to which you refer may not help your case much. In court rooms, officers often DO carry guns - it depends n the case and the guy in the dock. Most likely, even if there were armed officers present, perhaps no-one opened fire because of the risk of innocent by-standers getting killed. This is something we try to avoid in ths country. Quaint, ain’t we?
Do you really want sources, or do you just think it’s a cool debating tactic?
You want sources? Fine, let’s trade. Topic under discussion: situation here in the UK, pertaining to criminal ownership of guns and which types of criminals use, or do not use, guns.
My sources: 30+ years living and working in this country. First-hand experience of burglars, intruders etc., of living in some high-crime areas and of knowing people in the same position. Benefit of discussion with my father, over 50 years first-hand professional experience of criminal court proceedings. Benefit of discussion with my mother, over 40 years first-hand professional experience of civil court proceedings. First-hand discussion with reporters, such as for ‘Time Out’ magazine, involved in investigations into precisely ths issue. First-hand discussion with people routinely involved in buying hard drugs.
Those are my sources. Yours would be…?
If you want to correct people, first understand what they are saying. I did not propose that there are only two **possible ** models. I said that there are two that work. It’s when you try to mix and match the two that you arrive at unworkable strategies.
Snottiness, and location on a high-horse, is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. I will admit that if you want to make low-illumination comments like the one you made about us wearing flak jackets all day, or to invoke comparisons between owning guns and lightning, then it’s hard not to feel one perhaps enjoys a better-framed argument. Putting this another way, I don’t NEED to get on a high horse if you’re going to stand in a low ditch.
But in any case, you are simply mis-reading. I made it plain as day in my posts that I do not consider our system to be superior. Is that clear ehough? Not. NOT. NOT.
Of course, one can select criteria and arrive at any preferred conclusion (not that I need to tell you that). In terms of ‘chances kids in our schools will encounter another kid with a machine gun’, I’d say our way has the advantage. In terms of, ‘chances a bad guy entering my home gets what he deserves, without the outcome hinging on 18 months of tedious court proceedings’, I’d say your way is better. (We have a bad problem with police morale in this country based on the fact that even if they DO catch the bad guy and get him to court, the courts are so often so soft it isn’t worth it.) But this kind of argument from selective criteria is very misleading.
I have never stated or suggested this. I’ve said the two social strategies are different, but both are pragmatic. And even if I had, since when is it offensive to express an opinion?
I don’t fear either. I don’t think ‘what I fear’ is the prevailing criterion here.
Look, here’s the debate in its simplest form. There is little case to be made against the RESPONSIBLE use of guns (or most anything else). There is every case to be made against the IRRESPONSIBLE use of guns (or most anything else). Hence the NRA and its acolytes focus on the former, while opponents focus on the latter. So far, so same old. The choice any society has to make on guns is this: how do we achieve a balance between our desire to permit what is responsible (hence good for society) and our desire to restrict what is irresponsible? One system that works is “Guns are, within certain limits, available to all”. Another which works is, “Guns are, with certain exceptions, available to none”. There may be a better system, but I don’t know what. And neither, I suspect, do you.
Thanks for some stimulating debate. I gained a lot of food for thought from my visits to places like NY and Dallas, and this kind of exchange provides even more.
I like this statement, I use statements like this to remove the rational posters from the people with no grip on reality.
My personal view has long been that there simply is no logical reason in modern times to allow the free use and sale of any technology, especially when the only raison d’etre for that technology is to kill people. I also wonder why we say that we have the ‘right’ to bear arms—like driving, or cigarettes, gun ownership is a privilege. The fact that we can restrict convicted felons who have completed their prison terms—and thus have repaid their debt to society—from owning guns is proof that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right.
I live in a country (Japan) that has extremely strict gun laws controlling the sale, trade, and possession of firearms. Perhaps incidentally, there are far, far fewer murders in Japan than other countries, although this may be more due to cultural issues than anything else.
I would note the following:
-
These gun controls have not completely eliminated guns from society: the mafia (yakuza) are still able to get their hands on them, although from what I can tell it is hard even for them to do so. Also, since merely possessing a gun is illegal, it is rare for even yakuza to just ‘carry one around’, since they can (and will) be stopped at any moment.
-
Murders in Japan are rare, but now unknown. Knives, or a blunt object to the head, are the weapons of choice in Japan. Premeditated murders are sometimes carried out by poisoning, but this is rare (even ‘common’ poisons are hard to come by, and you need a fair amount of knowledge to be able to effectively kill anybody with impunity).
So it would seem that gun control opponents would be able to make an argument that ‘gun control doesn’t work’, because the Japan example proves that people still murder even without guns (guns don’t kill people, people kill people) and that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
What these statements forget, however, is that like icebergs, much of the truth lies beneath the water.
The fact that guns are much harder to come by (even for outlaws) means that accidental shootings in Japan are almost unheard of. How many children in the US are killed by ‘playing with guns’? I recall exactly one instance in Japan in the 15 years I have been here – it made national headlines for months. In comparison, the Colorado story was old news in the US a few weeks after the incident. Oh, it popped up in editorials from time to time (and still does) but other, bigger and better tragedies, have pushed it off the newspaper map.
Second, since guns simply aren’t ‘around’, it is surprisingly hard to kill someone on the spur of the moment. Yes, people still kill each other, but to a far less extent than if they had a Saturday Night Special floating around. God knows how many cheating husbands/wives and their lovers have escaped sans clothing but also sans hole in the head by running out the door while the enraged spouse ran to the kitchen to get the Ginsu. Simply put – a gun allows you to kill from a distance. A poster on this thread indicated that ‘killing with one shot was rare’ (oh, gee – only one bullet wound isn’t that big of deal!). First, what that poster forgets is that I doubt someone in a rage sufficient to want to pull a trigger is going to stop at one. Second, it may not be that the wounded dies immediately, but (as my time as a medic in an emergency ward in NY proves) it is complications from the wound—not the wound itself—which ultimately kills.
There are lots of things to like and dislike about Japan, some things similar to the US, some different. However, gun control does work. Even the police don’t carry guns – and you know what? They are still able to arrest people and not fear for their lives—because they know that it is sufficiently difficult for even outlaws to get guns. And you rarely hear about police accidentally shooting a suspect.
For those people who get their jollies out of killing helpless animals, fine: that’s what shotguns are for. Never heard of anybody needing to go hunting with a pistol. And hunters probably don’t need Uzi’s or automatic rifles either.
I would also refute the post that said a person putting up a sign that said ‘I don’t own any guns’ on his doorstep would be at a greater risk than his gun-toting neighbors. The poster has failed to make the argument fair. What is true for one may not be true for the whole, and what is not true for one may in fact be true for the whole. In other words: one person owning a gun in today’s society is at a greater risk than the group as a whole, in a society that does not own guns. Put simpler: one person not owning a gun may be at risk; if society as a whole chooses to disown guns, the group overall is much safer than one gun-carrying person in a society with guns.
The real problem with gun control, say gunnies, is that the ‘government wants to take our rights away from us’. So all gun control advocates are in cahoots with the government? This, from a group with backing from the NRA, a group with more political connections than maybe any other lobbying committee in the US?
Gunnies are adolescent, acne-faced teenagers with a dire need to make up for their obvious lacking in stud-liness by holding a weapon. These were the same airheads who wanted to sign up for military service because the recruiters said ‘you get to shoot all kinds of guns and stuff, oooooh’. Not because they wanted to serve their country. Not because they could get an education. They wanted to shoot guns and wear a uniform.
Next time a little kid blows his brains out by playing with a gun his dad left lying around, dig him up and put a little Purple Heart on his chest – a sacrifice to the gunnies and their ‘right’ to kill.
So Webmstr
Is it your point of view that my grandfather should have stepped aside and let those assholes rob him???This is not anywhere near a perfect world.
Maybe you are promoting that kind of behavior???
A certain percentage of people are going to try to get away whith what they can get away with. To hell with anyone else.
I guess I did forget about the weapon my grandmother had. A Rosary.
There was a lot of flotsam in here, but some of the info is too good to lose. Plus, it’s the longest thread I’ve ever started! heh 
In other words…
bump
Doctors Kill More People on Accident than Firearms
Number of physicians in the US: 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000 (AMA).
Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000.
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups): 1,500.
Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
“FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one Doctor.” Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand.
zen101
statistics are a mofo
Wow. Talk about “…out of the mists of ancient history.”
Uhm, I can dig the sentiment, zen. But that one’s kinda been shot down. Several times.
IOW, that horse is dead, quit beating it.
I have been gone a while. When/where was it shot down? I’d like to see the arguments againt’s it’s validity. And while I’m not married to it and an ethos, it’s certainly no more ridiculous than many (if not most) of the anti gun period rhetoric.