# Gun control: "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness" sez CDC **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2003, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448 "2003-10-03T22:17:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2003, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/61 "2003-10-06T09:25:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Well I would like to have a gun in a dangerous situation… but then that is a psychological reaction. The example of the 100lb lady vs the Big man seems unfeasible once both are armed with guns. The 100lb suddenly has a great chance of dying of gun wounds instead of being raped… not that either is a good choice. Agreed that when they both have guns the lady might be killed, but what choices does she have? Without the gun her only option is to hope the guy doesn’t do too much damage, trusting the good intentions of a rapist/thief. At least with a gun she can fight back effectively and has a very good chance of winning. Regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2003, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/62 "2003-10-06T10:13:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Testy \* > I disagree that an improvised weapon will “level out the situation.” My belief is that improvised weapons are just barely better than nothing at all unless the user is extensively trained, probably two or three times per week for several years. > > For a situation like “Una vs the behemoth,” the only realistic option is a firearm. No, it doesn’t level it out as much as a gun, but an improvised weapon may be better than no weapon at all. If the Bad Guy isn’t expecting her to fight back at all, she might also have surprise on her side and that’s valuable in a fight, too. The little lady is _never_ going to convince the “behemoth” that she’s his physical equal - the goal in that case is to convince him that it’s too much trouble for him to bother her. That could be accomplished by (as Una did at one point) convincing him that she has friends/allies who might come to her aid. It could be done by body language and an improvised weapon that indicates that she might be willing and even capable of fighting back and possiblity injuring him. Clearly, the most powerful example of this would be a woman with a “hand cannon” and the behemoth unarmed - but even then, you have to know something about how to use that gun AND be willing to fire it at another human being. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rashak Mani \* > Well I would like to have a gun in a dangerous situation… but then that is a psychological reaction. The example of the 100lb lady vs the Big man seems unfeasible once both are armed with guns. The 100lb suddenly has a great chance of dying of gun wounds instead of being raped… not that either is a good choice. And the behemoth suddenly _also_ has a great chance of dying of gun wounds, whereas before there was very little chance of him getting hurt. THAT’s what levels the playing field, and can make the Bad Guy consider backing down - remember, most thugs don’t want to get hurt, either. Without the gun - the little lady almost _certainly_ gets hurt, and may be killed. With the gun, her odds are certainly no worse, but suddenly his odds of getting badly hurt go way, way up. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rashak Mani \* > Gun control doesnt need to prohibit home guns… especially in rural areas where “defense” of the home is a more probable occurance. Now, this really had me puzzled until I realized you were posting from Brazil. Here in the US, crime is much lower in the rural countryside, some areas will even go a decade or more with even a theft, much less a murder. It’s in US _urban_ areas where you’re more likely to need to defend the home. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rashak Mani \* > A new brazilian movie actor that comes from the slums said in an interview that when he was serving the military with a rifle in his hand and a uniform he suddenly was a mini dictator. He remember having a busload of similarly poor people file out and submit to frisking at gun point just for kicks. He later thought about how just taking that role of authority had made him drunk with power. Wow, major cultural difference here. Our military is forbidden to take on policing of US citizens. A US soldier who did something like that on US soil to US citizens - or even non-citizens - would probably be brought before a court martial. (The National Guard is sometimes called out in extreme situations, but they aren’t regular military in the sense a full-time soldier is. In such situations, the National Guard is actually under control of the state governor, not the Federals in DC. Oh, bother, this can get complicated…) Those who carry a gun in the US in an official capacity - the military, the police, etc. - are also given strict limits as to their use. I had five uncles who were police officers in St. Louis for 30-40 years apiece. If I recall, only one ever drew his weapon on another person. He did shoot two people (both were attacking) and, in fact, killed neither. Nonetheless, there was a full investigation of each incident and he was required to justify his actions in both cases. Yes, guns carry a certain authority. But it’s not unlimited authority (at least in this country). If a person of authority abuses the privilege of carrying a gun they can be punished, which tends to quash the impulse to frisk a busload of poor folks on a whim. Sure, we have some bad cops - you have bad folks in any group - but widespread abuse of firepower is less a concern of the average US citizen than fear of crime. Or maybe it’s because a sizeable number of folks own and are famillar with guns _before_ they join the police or the military that most of our recruits don’t get “drunk with power” once a gun is put in their hands. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2003, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/63 "2003-10-06T10:52:42Z")
I think we’re basically in agreement. Anything at all is better than being defenseless. I just have some serious doubts about the efficacy of improvised weapons. If she does surprise and hurt the guy he might leave her alone. On the other hand, if he isn’t disabled, he might dig in and fight in which case she would almost certainly be badly hurt. I’m basing that opinion on some fairly extensive armed and unarmed martial arts studies over the previous twenty years. (Jiu-Jutsu, Kali, and Thai-boxing.) It is a great credit to Una that she was quick-minded enough to avoid rape/robbery/whatever by using her wits and avoiding confrontation. Nevertheless, I dislike the thought of someone that size being considered as prey and if she were properly armed she wouldn’t have to pray for a cop on the corner or some good Samaritan hanging around. Regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2003, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/64 "2003-10-06T11:43:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rashak Mani \* > \*\* > One aspect of the law was that it allows for registered and controlled gun ownership but heavily limits gun “carrying”. \*\* We already have laws in the United States that limit the carrying of firearms outside of the home. > [@](#): > > \*\* > One of the stronger exceptions is that in rural areas its more OK to have a gun since the “law” is more distant. Whilst in the city the idea is to keep guns away and avoid a US style escalation of gun violence and crime. If you carry a gun without a specific license your in trouble. Makes it much harder for criminals. \*\* Even here in the states in generally takes longer for authorities to respond to an emergency in rural areas then it does in cities. However why should people who live in urban areas have to wait for the police to defend them? Can the police guarantee to protect any particular individual? These laws don’t seem to make it more difficult for criminals to carry firearms in the United States. Why would it make it harder for them in Brazil? > [@](#): > > \*\* > If someone started giving too much romantic attention to my girlfriend and was way bigger than me… I might also “want the proper equipment”… so that is why I said “psychological” reaction. \*\* I still don’t know what a psychological reaction is. Is it a rational or irrational response? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Most human beings arent ready to handle the power and consequences of having and using guns. \*\* Most human beings who are responsible enough to drive an automobile, handle their own finances, and make their own life altering decisions are responsible enough to use a firearm. It ain’t rocket science and despite what some believe it doesn’t turn ordinary people in stark raving lunatics bent on murder. > [@](#): > > \*\* > You might think you are ok carrying guns… but is it ok for all other to be doing the same ? \*\* Not all others. Marc ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2003, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/65 "2003-10-06T12:03:51Z")
God made [Wo]Men. Samual Colt made Men equal. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2003, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/66 "2003-10-06T12:06:34Z")
> [@](#): > > A new brazilian movie actor that comes from the slums said in an interview that when he was serving the military with a rifle in his hand and a uniform he suddenly was a mini dictator. He remember having a busload of similarly poor people file out and submit to frisking at gun point just for kicks. He later thought about how just taking that role of authority had made him drunk with power. Rashak This army guy held up a bus and frisked the passengers at gunpoint? I have to ask what was done about this? Were the civilians so cowed and submissive that they allowed this? Did they protest later? What happened to the actor/army guy? I couldn’t imagine something like this happening in the US. Army or not, someone would be held to account for an activity like that. If the army in Brazil is given to activities like this I would think that the average citizen would want all the firepower he could get his hands on. Regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/67 "2003-10-06T13:00:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by monty2\_2001 \* > \*\* > Concealed Carry laws are flourishing in the USA, and doing very well. Crime is dropping all over. > > \*\* Yep! And interestingly, crime is dropping even lower against those who are actually carrying a gun, e.g. the number of rapes of women who are armed is much lower than the number of rapes against women who arent carrying a gun. Armed American women experience just about the lowest rape vicitmization rate of any women anywhere in the world. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/68 "2003-10-06T13:32:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rashak Mani \* > \*\*Most human beings arent ready to handle the power and consequences of having and using guns. \*\* This is a societal issue, not a “most people” issue, and a HUGE assumption on your part. With over 270 million guns in the US, if “most people” were unable to handle the responsibility of firearms ownship, this country would look like any number of warzones in Africa. That is not the case. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/69 "2003-10-06T15:47:31Z")
> [@](#): > > In my mind the main problems with guns is that they tend to ESCALATE a situation. That’s certainly a reasonable assumption, and for that reason I don’t blame the first few politicians who enacted gun-control legislation in hopes of reducing crime. However, it’s been tried hundreds of times, and it’s basically never worked. Reasonable assumptions must yield in the face of facts. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2003, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/70 "2003-10-06T17:47:00Z")
Criminy, this is where my thread wound up… I thought it just dropped off the page… Anyway, I had hoped (foolishly, apparently :)) to avoid the typical Gun Control debate (I see, for instance, that it didn’t take too long for someone to show up with few facts and plenty of accusations of “circle jerks” and such). My biggest concern was the creation of laws that had no point… I’d like to see Minty Green or RTFirefly address that. How does one control guns if one has no idea what effect a law would have? And would you support repealing a certain gun control law if it was found that it, in fact, most likely had no effect on crime? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2003, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/71 "2003-10-06T19:26:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Guns have done very little good for the USA. Good one! Tell us another. And I’ll note that once again, it’s the anti-gun folks tossing about the first derogatory remarks about gun owners. Circle jerkers, indeed. What’s with you people and civil conversation? Do we have to hold a gun to your heads in order for you to remain civil? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2003, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/72 "2003-10-07T16:23:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > \*\*My biggest concern was the creation of laws that had no point… I’d like to see Minty Green or RTFirefly address that. How does one control guns if one has no idea what effect a law would have? \*\* I actually took this issue up with **minty green** in another thread. His response was that he wanted a $500k grant to study the effects of the law in question. I told him that I thought he should bear the burden of proof on this point. As best I can recall, he did not respond. But that’s how I feel for what it’s worth. It seems to me that those who support gun control have had plenty of opportunities to see their ideas tested. The evidence seems to indicate that gun control doesn’t work. At this point, those who support further gun control measures should bear the burden of proof. Just MHO of course. \*\* > [@](#): > > And would you support repealing a certain gun control law if it was found that it, in fact, most likely had no effect on crime? \*\* Of course, that’s the real kicker. When I debate gun control with folks, they often end up saying something like “Of COURSE state gun controls don’t work. States have pourous borders yadda yadda” To which I respond “So would you support repeal of those laws?” The usual reply is silence at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/73 "2003-10-07T19:00:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Achernar \* > \*\*I actually think this bothers me more than anything else. Dividing the world into “people who can’t be trusted with guns” and “normal people like me.” While I’m not saying that you shouldn’t trust people in general, this mentality that we can separate people into trustworthy and untrustworthy groups runs grossly counter to my understanding of human nature. \*\* I was using “crazies” as shorthand for people who leave guns around kids, shoot themselves with “unloaded” guns, shoot their friends while drunk, etc. – people who shoot themselves or others without any criminal intent. It’s a numbers game from a scientific standpoint. I was not judging anyone except by their actions. You shoot someone while playing with your gun at a party: “Crazies:” “Check.” ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2003, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/74 "2003-10-07T19:20:21Z")
> [@](#): > > I was using “crazies” as shorthand for people who leave guns around kids, shoot themselves with “unloaded” guns, shoot their friends while drunk, etc. – people who shoot themselves or others without any criminal intent. Exactly. As Achernar said, you don’t know if someone is responsible or not until they prove themselves otherwise. The government can NOT morally assume that everyone is irresponsible… innocent (of irresponsibility) until proven guilty, and all that. Of course, that all gets thrown out the window the second you mention poor little statistically-insignificant-but-emotionally-prominent Timmy that accidently shoots Billy while playing Cops 'n Robbers. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/75 "2003-10-07T22:12:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > I actually took this issue up with **minty green** in another thread. His response was that he wanted a $500k grant to study the effects of the law in question. I told him that I thought he should bear the burden of proof on this point. As best I can recall, he did not respond. [You recall poorly](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=185570&perpage=50&pagenumber=4). We discussed the lack of perfect data and the reliability of the gun control _mechanism_ (as applied to assault weapons) at length. > [@](#): > > But that’s how I feel for what it’s worth. It seems to me that those who support gun control have had plenty of opportunities to see their ideas tested. The evidence seems to indicate that gun control doesn’t work. At this point, those who support further gun control measures should bear the burden of proof. I disagree. I believe that those who are in favor of unrestrained firepower bear the burden of clearly justifying that lack of restraint. The costs of gun ownership are clear and measureable; the benefits are as opaque as could be. > [@](#): > > Just MHO of course. Likewise. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2003, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/76 "2003-10-07T22:31:38Z")
> [@](#): > > I believe that those who are in favor of unrestrained firepower bear the burden of clearly justifying that lack of restraint. Minty, Minty, Minty… no matter how many times you’re reminded, you just can’t seem to keep yourself from deliberately misrepresenting the pro-rights side of the debate. C’mon, man, you know full well that nobody in this thread is advocating “unrestrained firepower”. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2003, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/77 "2003-10-07T22:33:53Z")
(Stinkin’ Reply button… must resist urge to click on it… but it’s so pretty and smooth…) > [@](#): > > The costs of gun ownership are clear and measureable Like the Kellerman study, which, along with concluding that it’s more dangerous to own a gun, also found that “living alone” is even more dangerous than THAT… Yeah, THAT’S clear. > [@](#): > > the benefits are as opaque as could be. Only if one bandies about claims of Gary Kleck “lying” without providing support for that claim. 1.5 million DGU’s, Minty… seems clear to me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2003, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/78 "2003-10-07T22:44:18Z")
Posted by **Vlad Dracula:** > [@](#): > > The goals of anti-gun legislation (as with any anti-weapon or anti-self-defense legislation) are: > > [snip] > > Reducing the public’s ability to effectively riot, revolt, or otherwise resist the will of their masters. **Vlad,** do you really think facilitating armed revolt is what the Second Amendment is **for?** Or even that this is a legitimate consideration in the discussion of gun rights? It isn’t. When the police (or the National Guard, the Army, etc.) arrive on the scene to take control of any situation or disturbance, the police (etc.) should immediately become the **only** armed persons on the scene. Any other outcome is a formula for tragedy. Does anyone in this forum seriously care to dispute that? By the way, this was discussed in another thread: “Is the Second Amendment meant to facilitate armed rebellion?” – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201061](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201061) ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2003, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/79 "2003-10-07T22:46:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Vlad, do you really think facilitating armed revolt is what the Second Amendment is for? I won’t speak for our friendly resident impaler, but I note that he didn’t mention the second amendment. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2003, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448/80 "2003-10-07T23:03:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > C’mon, man, you know full well that nobody in this thread is advocating “unrestrained firepower”. Shorthand, with a dollop of rhetorical flourish thrown in for good measure. If you desire perfect delineation of the pro-gun position, substitute “essentially unrestricted private ownership of firearms.” And if you think _that_ is an overstatement, tough luck. My point of comparison is the rest of the civilized world, not myopic focus on the _de minimis_ gun restrictions in this country. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-insufficient-evidence-to-determine-effectiveness-sez-cdc/205448.md?page=5)