As taken from the Kellerman Survey:
Murder risk,
Variable Odds adjusted ratio
Illicit drug use 5.7 times
Being a renter 4.4
Household member hit or
hurt in a fight in the home 4.4
Living alone 3.7
Guns in the house 2.7
Household member arrested 2.5
If this survey is correct, and it damn well better be, I propose the following to reduce the murder rate in the US:
First get rid of all illicit drug use, ban people from renting homes or other domiciles, increase public education that hitting household members is BAD, promote living with someone… anyone, and keep everyone out of trouble so as not to be arrested. Then we will see a 18 times fewer risk of being murdered. Forget about the guns, it’s being a drug using, abused, renter, who is living alone that is the real problem.
I jest. This study makes a much sense as banning a rifle because it has a flash hider and bayonet lug and therefore offers a higher risk of causing mayhem. Oh wait… I guess thay already did that huh?
JJohn, why do you assume the “message” in Kellerman’s study is “ban personal handguns”? I would think the results of this study should prompt such questions as “how can we reduce the risks which seem to be associated with keeping guns in the home?” Please note that Kellerman’s study is merely an assessment of the relationship between ownership of household weapons and the occurence of homicide in the homes which were studied. The study should in no way be seen as an endorsement of a ban on handguns, either by those for or against such a ban.
The study should, on the other hand, be evidence to everybody that the mere ownership of weapons does not seem to make one safer in one’s home. (Which is why I’ve got it bookmarked in anticipation of the next “more guns less crime” argument.) I think the study’s conclusions should indicate, among other things, a need for better education of gun owners, which may be a strong argument for liscensing of individuals but is a weak argument for banning weapons entirely.
Sorry xenophon, it’s nothing personal. I have found that when a study like the one in question is found on the web page that you linked, and after I read the Liberal Rantings of the Web Site’s now deceased owner, I come to the conclusion that this study only fuels the fire AGAINST personal firearms ownership.
I assume the message is against gun ownership because nowhere in the study is the other side of the argument presented other than to be refuted. You have to admit that the findings as presented on that site are quite one-sided. Look past the study and read the myths debunked. Many of the facts used to debunk the claims of the NRA are based on shoddy logic in my opinion.
I know however by personal experience that a gun in the home can be used for personal protection. Example follows:
Not long after moving into my apartment in a small suburb of Chicago on the far west side, a pounding on my door woke me out of a rather peaceful sleep. I grabbed my robe and my .357 and went to the door to see what was going on.
About the time that I got to the door, it came crashing in. Apperantly the previous tenant had copies of his keys made and one his “friends” came by for a visit. The pounding that I heard was the unlocked door being slammed against the chain.
I produced my mag lite and revolver and in typical Dirty Harry fashion screamed at the fellow to freeze. He did, the cops arrived and he was arrested without further incident. In this case, a trigger lock MAY have interfered with the protection of my wife and I. But I can tell you that my gun stopped the guy dead in his tracks from causing any more harm to my apartment or myself, without firing a shot!
It is for this reason, that I will never be able to agree with studies that report findings similar to Kellerman. I know that on that night the gun I kept under my bed was dangerous to only one idividual, and it wasn’t me!
JJohn, I understand what you’re saying, and agree that guns can be and certainly are used for legitimate personal protection. But my point regarding the Kellerman study and any “messages” it contains was that this type of well-designed study should not be automatically disputed because the results don’t match our cherished preconceptions.
Just because we’d like to believe the type of incidents you and Joe Cool described are more common than those incidents where a weapon is used against its owner does not mean we should shy away from evidence that this is not so. Kneejerk denial of the study does nothing to advance the very legitimate defense of 2nd Amendment rights, nor does automatic rejection of proposed gun control measures.
As Mandelstam and SPOOFE finally agreed, the question for most of us is what is reasonable rather than an absolute question of yes or no. If we’re to establish that “reasonableness” we’ve got to do it from an informed position, not an ideological one. Ideology should perhaps be reserved for our basic stance on “freedom vs. social responsibility” or “individual liberty vs. collective safety.”
First, cars are an example of how registration does not lead to confiscation.
Second, we all go ahead and register our cars without too much griping, showing that registration is not unduly burdensome or a form of “punishment”.
Third, cars, like guns, are very dangerous implements whose misuse results in large numbers of people losing their lives (there are any number of reasons why nobody’s calling for registraton of knives, etc.). The better job society does in keeping track of them, the fewer people will be killed with them and/or the more people will be held accountable for misusing them. Vehicle registration is not just about paying fees, it’s about fighting crime. Both the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings were solved because the VIN numbers were discovered in the wreckage. If your gun was registered in your name you’d think twice before using it in a crime, and if you didn’t have one, you’d have a much more difficult time getting one not registered in your name. I sure as hell wouldn’t buy one for you.
“Well-designed” is subject to dispute, as we discussed in that other thread referenced earlier. I automatically dispute Kellerman’s studies because he has been trying to demonstrate that “guns are bad” since at least 1986 (the infamous King County “43:1” study was his baby). A record that long indicates, to me, bias on the part of the researcher, and any conclusions he draws must be scrutinized very closely.
However, the car analogy fails miserably in the most important respect: it find use other then an offensive/defensive device.
A firearm is a very specialized item in this respect. It is used to kill or threaten to kill, the end. To this end, without criminals there would be no need for citizens to possess guns per se. But then there would also be no need for them not to possess them.
I agree that between us we could most likely determine what reasonable is or is not. However, when reasonable means giving up more freedoms, I have to draw the line. I feel that it is reasonable to have limits on full-auto machine guns. I feel that it is unreasonable to license and register all gunowners. I can see no public good by doing such a thing.
Gunowners fear that more compromise at this point in history will only lead to more legislation. New gun Legislation did not end after 1936. It did not end after 1968, it did not end after 1994 with the assault weapon ban. My fear is that sooner or later there will be little left to take, except for the guns themselves. It happened in England and Austrailia, I have no doubt, nor should you that it could happen here as well.
I still say that if we want to lower that muder rate, outlaw people living alone
Except that the backers behind registering cars, unlike those who wish to register guns, don’t openly condemn cars and their hideous owners. Nor do they call for the outright removal of cars from the road. See Diane Fienstien’s (sp?) remarks quoted by myself earlier. Several members from all across the Gun Control front have openly express their contempt and disdain for both guns and their owners. When these people push the legislation that requires registration, it doesn’t take too much to figure what comes next. It is already happening in California, see my earlier post concerning that as well.
I gripe everytime I pay my registration fees. Why should a 2000 Dodge durango cost $380 per year and a 1990 Ford Taurus only cost $50 to register? My durango gets better mileage and is no harder on the roads than the Taurus. Believe me sqweels, I bitch plenty every time my license plates are due for renewall.
How is registering my gun, that will never be used in a crime, solve any other crimes, or keep any other crimes from happening?
My gun was registered in my name the day I bought it. How do you think guns can be traced back to were they were initially purchased? I have to fill out a form 4473 every time I buy a gun from a dealer. This form records my name and address, soc number date of birth etc. What else do you want me to register? My shoe size?
First you offend me by suggesting that I would commit a crime. Second you assume that for some reason I am stupid and I would leave the gun laying around for the poilce to find. Third you assume that if any new registration scheme were inacted, that I would comply. You have already assumed that I am a criminal. Criminals like me would see no benefit to registering our guns would we?
Most anti gunners tell me how easy it is to get a gun “on the street”. How would any new registration solve that? If it is that easy I should have no problems getting a gun without asking you for help?
I’VE NEVER SAID THAT I SUPPORTED A TOTAL GUN BAN! I’m sure there should be pleny of things that all the gun advocates can pick at without misreading my posts and twisting my words. I’ve never said that I supported a total ban, find the post (I’ll save you some time, I didn’t make one).
Yes, I think guns can be used to protect someone. You totally misread my post and must have hallucinated or something. Yes, I know cops protect themselves, but cops know what they’re doing, they’ve had training. There are people that have guns and don’t know how to use them. If people have training and know how to use guns (like cops) then I don’t have a problem with that, as long as they use them correctly.
By aynrandlover:
To aynrandlover:
Yeah, that’s comparable :rolleyes:. You have to register your car, and a cars main purpose is not to hurt people. If we register guns, and I hate to burst your bubble, it’s not going to lead to some kind of country where we don’t have any freedom.
To aynrandlover:
Yeah, as long as the army has bigger guns what do I need one for? We aren’t going to need to raise a civilian army any time soon.
By Spoofe:
No, I don’t deny that, I have never claimed to have any knowledge of guns. Nor did I ask for people to be understanding because I don’t have any knowledge.
To Spoofe:
Oh excuse me, I’ve already admitted to not having any knowledge about guns, and does spelling really matter? And if spelling does matter, should someone that can’t even spell his screen name right need to be correcting me?
I’m not so sure about that, aynrandlover.
One of the stated major reasons for having a gun is for self defense. It has been further stated that this good thing outweighs the risk of injury or death to innocents due to negligence by idiots. I don’t know how to argue with that.
Eliminating the criminals would negate the need for self defense, but the innocents and idiots would still be there. Still a lethal combination.
Maybe if you mean responsible citizens?
Peace,
mangeorge
[QUOTE] Originally posted by xenophon41 *
**[list=1][li]Would you have confronted the group if you had not had the weapon available?[]Would the group have threatened you if you had not confronted them?If I were conducting a scholarly study to determine the frequency of DGU’s in this country, should I accept your anecdote at face value? (Not that I doubt your story, mind you; I’m asking if anecdotes should count as compelling evidence.)[/list=1]**[/li][/quote]
[list=1][li][list=a][]The group was looking for trouble, and reclining on my only means of transportation from the premises. I had little choice but to confront them.[]By sitting on my vehicle, they had already insinuated themselves into my life, infringed on my property, and invaded my personal space.[]I absolutely will NOT run and hide when my personal space and property are attacked. I will not be chased from my own home, and I will not ride a bus home because people want to sit on my car to look for trouble. They were the intruders, I defended my rights.[]Yes, this is regardless of whether I was armed.[/list=a][/li][li]See 1A above. They were drinking and obviously looking for trouble. I was leaving and needed my car, I had to go through them to get it.Whether you choose to accept my story at face value is of no concern to me. I honestly don’t give a shit either way. It was an illustration to clarify a point I was making. The fact is that Kellerman did not pay any attention to any use of a firearm unless it produced a dead body. That, among other things (using a single county rather than a wider sample, for instance), makes his study useless as a tool to determine whether owning a firearm increases or decreases your safety. However, to answer your question, it is, in fact, a defensive use of a gun. The fact that it didn’t produce a corpse would have kept me out of Kellerman’s study, but doesn’t change the fact that I used it defensively and saved myself from the possibility of great bodily harm.[/list=1][/li]
[quote]
[list=A][li]I didn’t cite Kellerman; Dignan did. I criticized Lott-Mustard, and expressed regret that I could not find a link to Kellerman’s study. Fortunately, I found this link posted in the thread that you cited, so I can say categorically that[]Kellerman’s study was designed in such a way that it would have shown a correllation between gun ownership and a reduction in the risk of gun-related homicides, if such a correlation existed. Since the reverse correlation exists, that is what the study showed. So therefore[]I think I will begin to quote Kellerman whenever I damn well want to, and feel justified in doing so.[/list=A]**[/li][/QUOTE]
[list=a][]Doesn’t matter. I answered your statement about junk science, and pointed out that you willfully omitted the worst junk of all.[]Kellerman’s study was designed in such a way that it would show, no matter what facts he found, that guns are bad. What the study showed is that numbers can be twisted to make any claim about anything.You can quote anything you like. You can feel any way you like. But don’t think that your smug feelings of self-importance make your factoids any more true. The simple truth is that your opinion and your beloved study are both contrary to facts. Period.
Doesn’t matter. Everyone has the right to bear arms until they prove themselves to be irresponsible. You can’t punish people preemptively (ala Mr. Crisp from Yellowbeard)
In order to abridge freedom of speech, you need to demonstrate and provide extraordinary proof that it is absolutely necessary. One does not tread lightly on Constitutionally protected freedoms. Is speech dangerous? Yes. But is it a basic right of mankind to be able to speak your mind freely? Yes. So should we accept the risks of free speech in order to reap the benefits of living in a free society? HELL YES.
In order to abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms, you need to demonstrate and provide extraordinary proof that it is absolutely necessary. One does not tread lightly on Constitutionally protected freedoms. Is an armed populace dangerous? Yes. But is it a basic right of mankind to take up arms to defend himself, regardless of whether the enemy is a criminal, an invading army, or an opressive government? Yes. So should we accept the risks of an armed populace in order to reap the benefits of living in a free society? HELL YES.
Get it? Probably not. That’s the sad part. Whether you think the 2nd Amendment is still relevant doesn’t matter. The fact is, it is still the Law of the Land. If you don’t like it, try to change it (Good luck!). But for now, you still have to obey it.
When somebody uses a gun irresponsibly, prosecute them. Don’t try to ban guns. When a person operates a vehicle irresponsibly (drunk driving, hit & run, crashing into a building, etc), the DRIVER is penalized. You don’t try to ban cars. When a person stabs someone to death, you prosecute the murderer, you don’t ban knives. If a person bludgeons somebody to death with a rock, you don’t ban rocks, you prosecute the murderer. Come on, people, why is this so difficult?
Except that the study completely ignored incidents such as the one I described. Once again, kids, pay attention: Kellerman studied gun-related DEATHS. (And by the way, the link you found in the previous thread is only a summary with of the Kellerman study. Obviously you know that, but I’d just like to point out that in addition to reporting a flawed study, the summary itself is very clearly biased toward the viewpoint that guns are bad. You’d do better to find a link to the actual study)
Just for kicks, here is an excerpt from guncite.com:
Kellermann tabulated gunshot deaths occurring in King
County, Washington, from 1978 to 1983. Table 1 below is
taken from Kellermann's paper (Table 3 on p. 1559).
Table 1. Classification of 398 Gunshot Deaths involving a
Firearm Kept in the Home
Type of Death No.
=================================
Unintentional deaths 12
---------------------------------
Criminal homicide 41
---------------------------------
Suicide 333
---------------------------------
Unknown 3
=================================
Total 389
=================================
Self-protection homicide 9
As we see from Table 1, a ratio of 389 violent deaths to 9
justifiable homicides gives us the famous 43 to 1 ratio.
Let's apply the same methodology to non-gun deaths and
non-gun self-protection homicides in the home, for King
County, Washington.
Table 2. Estimation of Violent Deaths in the Home Not
Involving a Firearm
Type of Death No.
=================================
Unintentional deaths 0
---------------------------------
Criminal homicide[sup]1[/sup] 50
---------------------------------
Suicide[sup]2[/sup] 347
---------------------------------
Unknown 0
=================================
Total 397
=================================
Self-protection homicide[sup]3[/sup] 4
This ratio of 397 non-gun violent deaths to 4 justifiable
homicides reduces to 99 to 1.
So having applied Kellermann's methodology to non-firearm
violent death, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to
1 with a gun in the home, to 99 to 1 without.
Please note, the purpose of this exercise is not to show
the absence of a gun in the home is riskier than having
one. This exercise does no such thing. It is merely to show
how deeply flawed Kellermann's study really is. Further, a
number of tremendously important factors are left
unaccounted.
----------------------
Notes:
1. Non-gun criminal homicide calculation:
According to Kellermann, firearms were involved in 45
percent of all homicides in King County.
41 firearm criminal homicides / .45 = 91 total criminal
homicides.
Non-gun criminal homicides = 91 / (1 - .45) = 50 non-gun
criminal homicides.
2. Non-gun suicide calculation:
According to Kellermann, firearms were involved in 49
percent of all suicides in King County.
333 firearm suicides / .49 = 680 total suicides.
Non-gun suicides = 680 / (1 - .49) = 347 non-gun
suicides.
3. Self-protection calculation:
According to the 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report (p. 24),
from 1993 to 1997, non-gun justifiable homicides were
13% of all justifiable homicides. 30% was used instead
of 13%.
9 firearm justifiable homicides / (1 - .3) = 13 total
justifiable homicides.
13 total justifiable homicides - 9 firearm justifiable
homicides = 4 non-gun justifiable homicides.
We weren’t discussing rights here Joe_Cool, but needs. The need to own a gun vs the need to not own a gun, as stated in that portion of aynrandlover’s post which I replied to.
Just one death or injury demonstrates the need for a ban on firearms. Or automobiles, or whatever.
But whether or not that need is outweighed by other factors (ie the 2ND) is what has to be determined.
The right to keep a firearm for self defense does carry an inherent risk to innocents. True, this risk is largely due to irresponsible gun owners, but is does exist.
I tried to find something in my reply to warrant this little diatribe;
but I couldn’t No man is an island
Peace,
mangeorge
My need or lack of need to own a gun is exactly ZERO concern of yours. The fact is, I own several. My right to continue to do so is protected by the Constitution.
I do not need your permission to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. I do not need to justify my needs to you, in order to exercise said right. YOU need to prove to ME an overwhelming need to restrict my liberty, but you seem to think that I need to provide YOU with MY overwhelming need to prevent YOU from taking MY rights. It doesn’t work that way, buddy-boy.
Those are the facts. If you don’t like them, too bad. Develop coping skills.
What on earth are you ranting about?
What permission did I offer or withdraw?
Well, this ain’t the pit, and we’ve gotten way off-topic anyway. So I give up.
No more discussion with joe not-so-cool for me.
Peace,
mangeorge
first off, mangeorge, I actually didn’t mean a responsible society. We don’t outlaw accidents; that is, it ain’t illegal to be an idiot.
Well, in SDMB it is, but that’s another story
D:“If we register guns, and I hate to burst your bubble, it’s not going to lead to some kind of country where we don’t have any freedom.”
Oh you are way off. “If we restrict freedom it doesn’t lead to some kind of country where we don’t have any freedom.”
Let me try and spell out the regulation-based slippery slope argument for everyone out there who still, miraculously, can’t see the charm it has.
Utopia does not exist.
Perfection (in society) is asymptotic (otherwise a utopia would exist. The other alternative is that no specific course of action is ever any better than another. I hope we all disagree with that. I mean, we are in GD here ;))
There is some point where we stop regulation as a means to perfection (in society).
For regulation to stop we would have reached a point of negligible return of security/freedom by trading freedom/security.
For the returns of such ventures to diminish all changes in a society must not require new regulation or all changes must stop.
I can’t see how changes in society could ever stop without the stop of population change, technology, and so on, so we should be able to safely say that change is about the only constant in society.
If, then, all new changes in society do not require regulation then over time the cumulative effect of non-regulated change (meaning growth here, really) will far outweigh all the regulated change of the past…that is, we will again return on our asymptotic path to freedom until such a time that any existing regulation is negligible.
(7) goes against (1)…we have made a utopian society, albeit an appollonian goal-oriented one, but in any case no further work is required, all social contracts are final, and things can only get better.
That is, it is idealistic to assume an anti-slippery slope argument in respect to legislation (on a cumulative and hence freedom encumbering scale).
So D, you are either ignoring the fact that laws pile up (and hence restrict freedom on a cumulative scale) or you truly believe that some day in the undetermined future we quit making stuff illegal.
