Are you kidding? Stay where you are, or move to Idaho.
So catsix is going to try to make the case that defensive gun use saves a significant number of lives. (And let us stay focused here, the claim is that it saves lives, not prevents the loss of a wallet or toolbox.) I wanted to avoid this stupidity, but oh well. Out comes John Lott’s work. Let us find out more about Lott’s work shall we: (from Science April 18 2003)
A study based on data that has somehow “disappeared” by someone who falsifies his identity to defend himself. This is your champion? He’s worse than how you portray Feinstein! I don’t think you want to be associating with that type.
So let’s look at some numbers:
Now rates range from this 65,000 episodes of defensive gun use to Kleck’s 2,000,000 uses and everywhere in between. None of which actually answers the question. How often did this percieved defensive gun use save a life? When the bully threatened me, if I had pulled a gun on him, that would have been called a defensive gun use, but clearly it would not have saved my life compared to me just standing up to the creep. Someone can be using a gun to essentially intimidate someone in a conflict and self-percieve it as a defensive gun use. The reality remains the same. Most people killed by guns are killed in the context of arguments (which includes those involving drugs or alcohol as well as over money, etc.). One is hard pressed to argue that arming everyone is likely to make that number decrease. Gang killings and other killings related to the drug trade also make up a sizable percentage. Very few are killed during break-ins or during the course of a mugging. Although precisely because they are unusual, they often get on the news.
Given that the total annual gun homicide rate is 8 to 15,000 in this country (source - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm ) and that in 2000 the total homicide rate was about 16,000, and that few are related to home break-ins or other circumstances that most law-abiding citizens find themselves in, it seems that if the Kleck 2,000,000 episodes of defensive gun use estimate is correct that one can only conclude that loaded guns are being drawn in percieved self-defense unnecessarily about 1,999,000 times a year.
A sobering thought that. Gives one pause.
The number of times someone pulls out a gun believing that they are using it in self-defense tells us nothing of value, other than how afraid someone was. The vast vast majority of the time that someone pulls out a gun in percieved self-defense their life was not in danger.
Now as to rates of fatal anaphylaxis from pink bunny exposure, well about a thousand people die of severe allergic reaction per year with about 40,000 severe cases that are non-fatal. No data exists as to how many followed exposures to pink bunnies, but rabbits are a highly allergenic animal. So we may be in the same ball park here.
At times I’ve seen DC to be quite… uh… civil. But I think you need some perspective. Please check out the following threads:
And somewhere in there you’ll find the evidence that he lied, you’ll see him fighting unfairly and puffing up his ego.
Sorry to shoot down your hero, but it’s reality time.
You can call me names all you want,Snake, but I refuse to believe that I’m anyone’s hero.
Some useful statistics:[ul][li]The UK is a very slightly “more criminal” place than the US. The UK and the US are about as violent as each other. (Annual variations of a percent or two hardly being “skyrocketting”, incidentally.)[/li][li]However, the US murder rate is 4 times that of the UK.[/li][li]The US murder rate with firearms is a massive 28 times that of the UK (accounting for the US having 5 times the population - it’s 134 times bigger otherwise!)[/ul][/li]Make of those statistics what you will. My preferred summary is this: The number of people killed in the US who are not killed in the UK are all killed with firearms.
Lott’s not the only one who found upwards of one million defensive gun uses per year. You have totally ignored Kleck and Gertz. Why? Can’t smear them?
Since you have absolutely no proof to back you up on this opinion, no matter how well phrased, this is not a fact. It seems to you that it’s either not correct or that people are improperly using firearms.
Do you have any way to factually discredit these numbers?
Once again, this is your opinion. If you’d like it to be accepted as fact, you will have to provide some kind of proof to this claim.
Since the US and the UK are culturally identical, have exactly the same population demographics, the same rates of illegal drug trafficking and gang activity, you can definitely ignore all other factors and just focus on ‘More people were shot to death in the US than the UK.’
Except that they don’t, and you’re still focusing on the firearm when the crimes are being committed by people.
I contend that when people have such easy access to a far more effective means of killing, the proportion of assaults which lead to death rises dramatically.
How do you explain a similar assault rate but massively different murder rate?
catsix,
In now several threads running you have said things that are just out and out false. I’m beginning to think of you like I think of Bush; either you are consciously lieing or you are really too dense to understand that what you say is false. You certainly do not read what you yourself post.
You claimed that over 700,000 to millions of people a year have had their lives saved by pulling out a gun. Your cites do not show that. Your cites show how many times people pulled out a gun in percieved self defense. It doesn’t show whether a single one of those times was justified or not, or if even one life was saved as a result.
You say that I ignore Kleck, but then quote me referring to him. You then quote me discussing his numbers and their significance.
I really must laugh at your being offended by my “smear” of Lott, after so many on the gun rightist side have spent so much energy smearing Feinstein and by association assume that anyone who is interested in regulated guns in any way is also a liar who really wants to ban them all. Goose/gander, remember?
As to the rest, like Sentient I am employing something called basic logic coupled with the math my third grader can do. There are fairly few people walking around carrying concealed guns. There are very relatively few who keep a loaded weapon at there bedside. If posters like enipla are to be believed (and I do nelieve enipla; he has a very good track record for accurate statements so far, unlike some others) most gun owners are very responsible and do keep thier weapons locked up securely. Yet even though across the country only a very few people uninvolved in gangs or the drug trade or unfortunately near someone who is at an inopportune time or involved in an argument are killed by guns … even though there really is very little chance of these nice law abiding citizens getting attacked by someone who intends to kill them … a very small percentage of Americans are pulling out weapons of deadly force 2,000,000 times a year (if Kleck is to be believed). Boy if those 2,000,000 episodes are really indicated then the rest of us should be dropping right and left. Sorry if I don’t see that as an argument in favor of the need to keep your gun handy at all times, especially since most gun murders are the results of arguments that escalate as high as the force handily available allows.
If defensive gun use saves lives it does so rarely, and at significant risk.
The US happens to have a lot more people involved in gang warfare and the violence surrounding illegal drug trafficking than the UK does, and these things tend to lend themselves more toward rivals killing each other than rivals assaulting each other.
That’s something I think people conveniently overlook in a rush to compare the US with the UK by just bleating out ‘The US has more guns!’
Citation?
I think you’ll find they’re rather similar, since any major difference would be reflected in the total crime rate.
To paraphrase Anatole France, Holmes’ opinion, in its majestic equality, forbids the frail weakling as well as the burly brute to deter assault, to avoid injury, or to defend himself using the most effective tools available.
Collapsing the question into a simple binary of perfect/imperfect is simply not a valid approach. By this sort of reasoning, the best ministrations of the Mayo Clinic are no better than the beads and rattles of a witch doctor – neither one works all the time.
IMO, a large share of the blame falls upon the people who do want to take people’s guns away. The gun culture is in part a reaction to that threat. If it weren’t there, a lot more gun enthusiasts would just do their thing at the firing range without making a big deal out of it (just as, for example, a lot more people who prefer to shtupp someone of the same sex would just go to the bedroom and do so without frightening the horses if it weren’t for the vocal gay-bashers).
One big difference also is the way that the US prosecutes its War on Drugs, which has not decreased drug use, but which has increased the stakes and the firepower used at all levels. But that would be another thread.
I actually find the huge variation in reported rates of defensive gun use to be interesting to try to explain. (Assuming that no one else has falsified information, and I doubt that either the governmnetal numbers - lower - or Kleck’s - are falsified.) A lot has to do with methodology. The lower number were questions asked by individuals who identified themselves as working for the government. The higher numbers were anonymous reports asking if they ever used a gun in a situation that they percieved as self defense.
The second study is going to get a lot of people admitting to gun use who wouldn’t admit to gun use to a government representative. Perhaps because they did not legally own or have a right to own the gun or were using it in an illegal manner?
Again, I dismiss the defensive gun use as insignificant to the question of death rates associated with guns, just as the number from assault weapons and accidents are small enough to be of little public health concern. But I remain very concerned about those idiots who have no legal right to a gun and who have them illegally, and wonder if the data in toto supports how often they pull these things out “defensively”.
Not presented as a fact, just reasoned speculation.
Snakespirit - I was refering to this thread only, I haven’t looked at any of the threads you link. You obviously have a long running issue with Diogenes from other threads. He is not my hero, I was merely making an observation based on this thread only. You have not stuck to the OP. Do you suffer from high blood pressure?
But why did you skip (on the same website) this statistic on burgularies which is one of the crimes most prevented by gun ownership?
Yeah, you can pick and choose statistics, and argue a few percentage points, like this one:
Map & Graph: Crime: Burglaries (per capita) (Top 100 Countries)
Country Description Amount
- Australia 22.13 per 1000 people
- Dominica 18.62 per 1000 people
- Denmark 18.49 per 1000 people
- Finland 16.87 per 1000 people
- New Zealand 16.62 per 1000 people
- Estonia 16.52 per 1000 people
- United Kingdom 13.91 per 1000 people
- Poland 9.44 per 1000 people
- South Africa 9.22 per 1000 people
- Canada 9.11 per 1000 people
- Iceland 8.57 per 1000 people
- Montserrat 8.56 per 1000 people
- Switzerland 8.25 per 1000 people
- Slovenia 8.24 per 1000 people
- Czech Republic 7.24 per 1000 people
- United States 7.23 per 1000 people
But the POINT is that the crime rate in the US is DECREASING as more and more states are enacting “shall issue” concealed carry, and the crime rates in Australia, New Zealand and the UK are INCREASING since enactment of increasingly restrictive firearms bans.
But of course, as I am consistantly told by so many on this board, ‘this is just coincidence!’ Right. Just coincidence…
It would take a lot more analysis than we can do here to get a complete picture of crime and how guns figure in to it. You can select a few statistics, so can I.
I stand by my statement.
[QUOTE=SentientMeat]
[li]However, the US murder rate is 4 times that of the UK.[/li][li]The US murder rate with firearms is a massive 28 times that of the UK (accounting for the US having 5 times the population - it’s 134 times bigger otherwise!)[/list][/li][/QUOTE]
Gee, you think this may have something to do with the fact that firearms are largely unavailable in the UK?
Also worthy of note is the fact that the statistics you quote are 4 years old. I’ve been talking trends, and trends in relation to firearm ownership and right to carry.
Your statistics are certainly worthwhile, and thanks for pointing out that site, I’ll be going back there again and again – it’s a wealth of information. Especially I’ll be going back to see the next set of data (2005?) to compare it to the year 2000 data that’s there now, to see how the trends continue.
It could also relate to the person who did use the firearm not wanting to get things involved with the legal system if law enforcement would decide to investigate the events.
This is only my opinion, but it does seem that if merely brandishing the firearm and chasing off the intruder/attacker resolves the situation without injury or shots fired, I could see how someone would consider that the end of the matter but law enforcement might not.
I also think that DSeid has a point regarding how the ‘war on drugs’ is handled in the US vs. perhaps the UK. It seems that the stakes are higher here, but that is just an impression.
It’s a correlation, and I do not know what if any causal effect exists.
I only seem to remember seeing once on either 60 Minutes or 20/20 that a survey of convicted burglars had indicated that burglars in the US spent more time casing the homes they robbed than those in Europe because the American burglars did factor in firearms ownership.
I also wonder, although I’ve never seen research into this, if the ‘home invasion’ type burglary which has been happening in SW PA in the last couple of years is mostly targeting elderly people because those who commit these invasions tend to rely on a couple of assumptions: that the older people will have more cash in their homes and that they won’t be armed.
Sorry, that burgularies list was so hard to read. Here it is again in an easier format:
Map & Graph: Crime: Burglaries (per capita, per 1000 people)
Countries with recent known gun confiscations bolded
**1. Australia 22.13 ** more than 3x U.S.
2. Dominica 18.62
3. Denmark 18.49
4. Finland 16.87
**5. New Zealand 16.62 ** more than 2x U.S.
6. Estonia 16.52
**7. United Kingdom 13.91 ** almost 2x U.S.
8. Poland 9.44
9. South Africa 9.22
10. Canada 9.11
11. Iceland 8.57
12. Montserrat 8.56
13. Switzerland 8.25 (gun ownership is mandatory)
14. Slovenia 8.24
15. Czech Republic 7.24
16. United States 7.23
Of course this is just one crime, burgulary, BTW. It’s worthwhile to visit the website and see all the statistics. Here’s a good place to start.
Hmmm. It shows that about half of the murders in the US are committed with firearms. (0.02 per 1000 vs. 0.04 per 1000).
If I answer, then I won’t be sticking to the OP, will I? Is this a trick question?
Wow, nice of you to drop in and give us some rational perspective.
We needed that.