"If I only had a gun": 20/20 on ABC Fri

[FE3O4ENAIL]

@elucidator

Good! More tea? A scone, perhaps?

Sorry I’m late to the party, but it’s:
(Bonsai ) (Japanese: 盆栽, (literally “bon-planted”, where a ‘bon’ is a tray-like pot typically used in bonsai culture [2]) is the art of aesthetic miniaturization of trees, or of developing woody or semi-woody plants shaped as trees, by growing them in containers. Cultivation includes techniques for shaping, watering, and repotting in various styles of containers.

[FE3O4ENAIL]

[quote=“FinnAgain, post:18, topic:492645”]

If someone asked “Is Banzai a technique for artfully trimming miniature trees?”
Is the answer “Yes, Banzai trees can be truly spectacular.” or “No. Because most people don’t know how to do it properly.”

QUOTE]

[FE3O4ENAIL]

About the show, I think they had a point about private sales (the gun show loophole).

[Lumpy]

@elucidator

How rare? Granted, we have a duty to resist evil, I am not a doctrinaire pacifist, but where is that line? You state the blindingly obvious as revelation, that one must be willing to defend against evil, but you don’t give us any guidance.

Clearly, you would be willing to use lethal force to protect your family, hell, who wouldn’t? But what about protecting a toaster? If you would refuse to kill someone to take his money, would you scruple at killing to stop him from taking yours?

So, then, how rare? How common are these home invasions so anxiouxly protected against? And how often is a lethal threat posed?

I would use what I believe are more or less the same guidelines that the police use in determining use of force. If I’m threatened with the loss of my life, the loss of an innocent life, or great bodily harm to either, I would give one warning if possible, then shoot if necessary. If presented with a felony property crime such as theft or vandalism, I would order them to stop, use appropriate force to make them stop, and be prepared to use lethal force if they resisted with force.

[Sage_Rat]

Gun threads always spin out of control before anyone can add anything like data; you’ll end up on page six, and since you’ve not replied to anyone, you’ll be ignored. But so here’s some data on concealed carry, which supports that overall concealed carry prevents crime and saves lives. Most likely not because people actually act to defend themselves, but because criminals are less likely to attempt something.

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewconte...ntext=expresso (PDF)

@Starting at page 50

This inverse correlation (more guns-less crime) is one of several which seem to contradict more guns = more death. To reiterate, for decades the gun control lobby has emphasized that, in general, the American jurisdictions most restrictive of guns have consistently had the highest violent crime rates and those with the fewest restrictions have the lowest violent crime rates. For instance, robbery is highest in jurisdictions which are most restrictive of gun ownership. As to one specific control, the ban on carrying concealed weapons (CCW) for protection, “violent crime rates were highest in the states [that flatly ban CCW], next highest in those that allowed local authorities discretion [to deny CCW] … permits, and lowest in states with nondiscretionary” CCW laws under which police are legally required to license every qualified applicant. Also of interest are the extensive National Institute of Justice-sponsored opinion surveys among incarcerated felons, both juvenile and adult: Large percentages of the felons replied that they often feared potential victims might be armed and aborted violent crimes because of that fear – and “the felons most frightened ‘about confronting an armed victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative number of privately owned firearms.”

@From page 47

4. LATER AND MORE SPECIFIC MACRO-HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.
   Malcolm presents reliable trend data on both gun ownership and crime in England for the period 1871-1964. Significantly, these trend data do not at all correlate as the mantra would predict: Violent crime did not increase with increased gun ownership nor did it decline in periods in which gun ownership was lower.

In the U.S. a decade from the mid-1960s to the mid-‘70s saw the murder rate double. The fact that this coincided with vastly increasing gun sales was taken by many as proof positive that more guns = more death. That, however, did not at all follow. It was at least equally possible that the causation was reversed, i.e., that the decade’s spectacular increases in murder, burglary and all kinds of violent crimes caused fearful people to buy guns. The dubiousness of blithely assuming that the gun sales caused the rise in murder rather than the reverse might have been clearer had it been known in the 1960s- ‘70s that virtually the same murder rate increase was occurring in gun-less Russia. Clearly there was no basis to assume guns were the reason for the American murder rate rise when the Russian murder rate exhibited the same increase, yet virtually none of those murders involved guns.

Reliable information on both gun ownership and murder rates in the U.S are available only for the period from the end of WWII on. Significantly, the decade from the mid-‘60s to the mid-70s is a unique exception to the general pattern. That pattern is that, decade-by-decade, the number of guns owned by civilians has risen steadily and dramatically – but murder rates nevertheless remained stable or even declined. As for the second half of the 20th Century, and especially its last quarter, a study comparing the number of guns to murder rates found that over the 25 year period 1973-97 the number of handguns owned by Americans had increased by 163%, and the number of all firearms by 103%. Yet over that period the murder rate declined by 27.7%. It continued to decline in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 despite the addition in each year of two-three million handguns, and c. 5 million firearms of all kinds. By the end of the year 2000 the total American gunstock stood at well over 260 million – 951.1 guns for every 1,000 Americans – but the murder rate had returned to the comparatively low level prior to the increases of the mid-‘60s-‘70s period.

In sum, these data for the decades since the end of WWII are further evidence failing to bear out the more guns = more death mantra. These and related data have been summarized as follows:

“The per capita accumulated stock of guns (the total of firearms manufactured or imported into the United States, less exports) has increased in recent decades, yet there has been no correspondingly consistent increase in either total or gun violence… About half of the time gun stock increases have been accompanied by violence decreases, and about half the time [they have been] accompanied by violence increases, just what one would expect if gun levels had no net impact on violence rates.”

I.e. concealed carry prevents violent crime, while as gun ownership in the general populace has no effect.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...49d27cf26b913a

A recent study concludes that permissive concealed-handgun-carrying (or “shall-issue”) laws have sharply reduced crime rates, including the rate of homicide. The method of the study has been critiqued by several authors. In this paper, I report a quite different approach that exploits the minimum age requirements for concealed-carry permits to more effectively control for unobserved variables that may vary over time. Because even permissive concealed-carry states require permit holders to meet minimum age requirements, any deterrent benefits from these laws should be concentrated among adults and, therefore, should be reflected in the gap between adult and juvenile victimization rates. My results suggest that shall-issue laws have resulted, if anything, in an increase in adult homicide rates.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/467988

Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county- and state-level data indicate that approximately 1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly. Similarly, we predict that rapes would have declined by over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggravated assaults by over 60,000. We also find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth, where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim is minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates consistently reduce crime. The estimated annual gain from all remaining states adopting these laws was at least $5.74 billion in 1992. The annual social benefit from an additional concealed handgun permit is as high as $5,000.

Google Books (Quoting not possible)

http://www.jstor.org/pss/116970 (Quoting not possible)

[billfish678]

@enipla

As I was saying, I think that the test in the classroom was more than just a set up. The ‘student’ was always in the same seat. The ‘gunman’ knew what target to go for as soon as he entered the classroom.

This ‘test’ was interesting, but loaded from the very start. The student never had a chance. The test was designed that he wouldn’t have a chance.

.

Forgive me, but I’ve been outa town all week and have NOT seen the 20/20 show.

So, it was a set up where the shooter knew which guy outa 20 had a gun?

Then, there is this, which if I missed in this thread, I apologize.

It sounds like the “bad guy” not only knew who had the gun, but was an EXPERT shooter to boot.

I’d hazard a guess that most thugs using guns are NOT expert shooters, in addition to not being blessed with psychic powers.

[enipla]

@billfish678

Then, there is this, which if I missed in this thread, I apologize.

It sounds like the “bad guy” not only knew who had the gun, but was an EXPERT shooter to boot.

I’d hazard a guess that most thugs using guns are NOT expert shooters, in addition to not being blessed with psychic powers.

That’s what I saw. There where 4 tests. Each time the student that had the gun sat in the same seat.

The ‘bad guy’ was the firearms instructor for the students. So he knew a little bit about them, and knew exactly who to draw down on after he burst into the room.

The ‘test’ looked fair to me…. Until I started thinking about it. And saw them repeat it again and again.

Burst in door, shoot teacher, turn left and shoot the 4th from the left on the first row.

[Lumpy]

@billfish678

Forgive me, but I’ve been outa town all week and have NOT seen the 20/20 show.

So, it was a set up where the shooter knew which guy outa 20 had a gun?

Then, there is this, which if I missed in this thread, I apologize.

It sounds like the “bad guy” not only knew who had the gun, but was an EXPERT shooter to boot.

I’d hazard a guess that most thugs using guns are NOT expert shooters, in addition to not being blessed with psychic powers.

In addition, the defender had his gun in a retention holder, at hip postion while sitting down, AND was required to wear the class uniform of an ass-length sweatshirt with the hem pulled way down over the holster.

I don’t think a trained SWAT team member who spends his weekends as a rodeo quickdraw shooter could have won that contest.

[Chronos]

Sage Rat, I would be interested to see similar statistics which, first of all, include countries other than the US, and second, control for population density. On the first score, many developed nations do considerably better than we do with respect to violent crime, and it would be a good idea to understand precisely how they do it, and if we can apply any of the same methods. On the second score, state-by-state comparisons of gun laws vs. violence in the US tend to be contaminated by the fact that the states with the most permissive gun laws also tend to be those with the lowest population density, and one would theoretically expect violent crime per capita to be proportional to population density.

Also, in case you overlooked it, your third quote (the one from Science Direct; incidentally the link is broken) comes to a conclusion that supports the “guns are bad” premise.

[billfish678]

@enipla

Burst in door, shoot teacher, turn left and shoot the 4th from the left on the first row.

Geezus

The target/student/dupe was on the FIRST ROW was well?

Naw, this test wasnt even remotely rigged :rolleyes:

Anything else about this test that wasnt fair?

Not that these things alone arent enough.

[XT]

Haven’t read through the thread as yet (I’m pretty sure it’s the usual train wreck where a large percentage of the posts have nothing to do with the 20/20 show that is basis of the OP), so:

@enipla

Still, no one will talk about the 20/20 program.

I saw it. My impression was that it was pretty obviously a put up job (it IS 20/20 after all…not exact a pro-gun organization by any stretch). What especially had me rolling my eyes was the ‘demonstration’ in the class room where they armed a student and then ‘proved’ that said student couldn’t possibly defend him/herself from a (trained AND prepared) gunman rushing into the classroom. They even had the students convinced…or at least they were convinced in the edited version that they showed (I suppose the students given the guns COULD have been brain dead enough to have totally missed how the entire situation was manipulated so that they didn’t have a chance to ‘prove’ anything other than what 20/20 pretty obviously wanted them to ‘prove’).

The show really didn’t show anything meaningful about such a situation…which is a shame because it would have been interesting if they had at least tried to keep some shred of objectivity (you know…like tried it as a double blind, with the gun man being untrained and unprepared for an armed student, the unarmed students not aware of what was going to happen and, you know, actual students, the teacher being similarly unprepared for what was going to happen and the armed student being…well, what they were in the show, unprepared and surprised). Instead it was so obviously a put up job that it’s very bias pretty much destroys any credibility it might have otherwise had (the part about obtaining guns at gun shows was actually the most valid point they made…they should have stuck with that subject instead of trying their demonstrations), and turned it from being a genuinely interesting question into yet another piece of anti-gun schlock.

-XT

[XT]

@gonzomax

Cars have gone through a process of becoming safer and safer. We recognized the danger and took steps to make them safer. They are crash tested to a safety std. They now have seat belts and air bags.

And yet more people die a year in automobile accidents than in gun related accidents. True, there are more cars than guns…but not a lot more cars than guns.

Gun fans attempt to win by defining the arguments away. But since I am not a gun user, I will offer my definition. A pistol is a weapon that shoots a bullet every time you pull the trigger. If you stick a magazine in and when you hold the trigger down bullets come flying out, you have an automatic weapon. Same for rifles. If you take time to aim and shoot it is a rifle. Stick a magazine in and shoot it away, you are using a machine gun.

What to say to something like this? A pistol is a weapon you can hold in your hand…there can be pistols that shoot a single bullet every time you pull the trigger and pistols that shoot bullets automatically when you depress the trigger. This is semi-automatic vs automatic. Sticking a magazine into it doesn’t make it automatic of course. Same for rifles.

Granted, you aren’t exactly a paragon of clarity in your posts, but assuming you meant to say what you in fact did say above it’s fairly clear you have no idea what you are talking about…which probably explains why you think ‘Gun fans attempt to win by defining the arguments away’…since, being wrong, they probably make you look like you don’t know what you are talking about.

Gun fans talk about how they are target shooting . But if they buy a gun to shoot a person who might break into their homes ,the end point is shooting a human being. You can not wave away the connection. Add in the real crazies who think they are a militia protecting the country from an oppressive government, and you have people who are actually training themselves to shoot people.

And yet…how many law abiding citizens shoot people with their guns on a yearly basis? If we take out all of the criminals using guns, how many deaths are we talking about here? IIRC it’s something like 2000 (feel free to dispute that with some facts if you like…just for clarity I’m talking about accidental gun deaths here, not those involved in a crime). That doesn’t even seem like a lot…in perspective it’s a minuscule amount of deaths per year.

Even if we look at the gun related deaths involved in a crime it’s not a hell of a lot of deaths per year (IIRC something like ~14k…double that if you include suicides using guns). Gun related deaths aren’t even among the top 5 killers in the US…in fact, according to a quick google search it’s not even on the top 10 list:

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

* Heart disease: 652,091
* Cancer: 559,312
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809
* Diabetes: 75,119
* Alzheimer's disease: 71,599
* Influenza/Pneumonia: 63,001
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 43,901
* Septicemia: 34,136

So…my question to you gonzo old boy is, if all these ‘gun nuts’ are out there training to shoot people why are so few people dieing in the US due to guns? There are over 80 million gun owners in the US (this doesn’t could the illegal or unregistered gun owners)…and the incidence of gun related deaths per year (all told) are, according to this cite:

FACT:In 2005 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S:

* 12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent (5% of all U.S gun deaths combined).

80+ million gun owners…30,644 deaths (total). Do the math.

-XT

[SenorBeef]

I don’t think it’s really meaningful to include suicide statistics in with total gun deaths. Maybe some wouldn’t do it if they didn’t have a gun available, but I’d suspect the vast majority would move on to another method.

Similarly, even if you made all guns dissapear magically, would you expect 30,644 fewer deaths per year? Some (I assume majority) percentage of those suicides would still happen, and a percentage of those homicides would still happen by other means. So the number you’re looking to reduce is actually (gun deaths - suicides/murders that would still happen by other means) - it’s unfair to assume that in the absense of guns, all these people would not have committed suicide or murder.

So the actual number we’re looking at is probably a few thousand.

Edit: Blah. I usually try not to let myself get sucked into these derailments. I hate how gun threads do this. An OP might bring up a specific point for discussion relating to some aspect of the gun debate, and then it quickly devolves into the general anything to do with guns debate.

[Czarcasm]

@xtisme

And yet more people die a year in automobile accidents than in gun related accidents. True, there are more cars than guns…but not a lot more cars than guns.

How do those accident rates compare when it’s number of times a car is used vs. number of times a gun is used?

[drj1959]

Well since we are posting facts and figures, 240,000 is the number of people killed by doctors and medicine every year. Pediatricians kill more kids in a year than all gun deaths in the US. As to guns and self defense, unless the NRA is making up newspaper articles, every month their magazine has a number of stories about people adequately defending themselves with firearms. Most of these are older (way older) who would have no chance in an altercation. Perhaps they didn’t see the 20/20 show which I guess was meant to tell them that they couldn’t possibly protect themselves the way they did. If we want to start breaking stats down, find out that 50,000 plus die in cars every year and more from cars. How many people kill themselves in cars and take others with them, kind of hard to tell, but it is supposed to be significant. Get rid of cars? Doctors? Pharmaceutical companies? The conservative estimate is that Vioxx killed over 50,000 before being pulled of the market and it NEVER SAVED ONE LIFE> EVER!!! So is it really a safety thing? or an anti-gun bias? If one hates guns for whatever reason, just admit it. Don’t try to convince anyone that it is about safety as there are far more things to get fired up about that would impact far more lives than guns.

[billfish678]

@Czarcasm

How do those accident rates compare when it’s number of times a car is used vs. number of times a gun is used?

Well, if you are owning a gun for the purpose of deterence, then I guess you are using it 24/7/365.

So, how many minutes is a use?

[dropzone]

Real discussion after the Valentine’s Day shootings at Northern Illinois University, our alma mater:

Me: Jesus, if that happened when we went there it would’ve been a shoot-out because so many people I knew were packing.

Wife: And more people would’ve died.

Me: Yep. Nobody I knew could shoot worth shit.

[XT]

@Czarcasm

How do those accident rates compare when it’s number of times a car is used vs. number of times a gun is used?

Why do you think this would be a meaningful statistic?

@SenorBeef

I don’t think it’s really meaningful to include suicide statistics in with total gun deaths. Maybe some wouldn’t do it if they didn’t have a gun available, but I’d suspect the vast majority would move on to another method.

I agree, but in an effort at fairness I figured I’d include those statistics as well. Even included though it doesn’t crack the top 10 causes of death in the US. My guess is it’s well down the top 20 list for that matter.

And of course if we take all of the deaths due to guns involved in a crime then it drops to the level somewhere around swallowing tooth picks or falling off a curb.

Similarly, even if you made all guns dissapear magically, would you expect 30,644 fewer deaths per year? Some (I assume majority) percentage of those suicides would still happen, and a percentage of those homicides would still happen by other means. So the number you’re looking to reduce is actually (gun deaths - suicides/murders that would still happen by other means) - it’s unfair to assume that in the absense of guns, all these people would not have committed suicide or murder.

Again, I agree. Was including the figures in an effort to be fair…and also because even included the total figures are just not very high. That was the point I was trying to make to gonzo (well, probably not to him…but maybe to someone following along).

Edit: Blah. I usually try not to let myself get sucked into these derailments. I hate how gun threads do this. An OP might bring up a specific point for discussion relating to some aspect of the gun debate, and then it quickly devolves into the general anything to do with guns debate.

Yeah, me too…but I saw gonzo’s post and felt it needed to be responded too since it was pretty bad. I think the basic question about the OP has been answered, though I’m sure there is nothing like a consensus on it…the show was pretty obviously a highly biased program designed to show what 20/20 wanted it to show, that being that (to paraphrase) ‘even if you are armed you would have no chance to use your gun, or if you did get the chance you’d be killed anyway or you’d kill an innocent bystander, so really what’s the point’?

-XT

[XT]

@dropzone

Wife: And more people would’ve died.

Me: Yep. Nobody I knew could shoot worth shit.

Yeah…I know what you mean. The other side of course is that these nut balls who are going off the deep end and deciding they are going to shoot up a classroom aren’t exactly crack shots either. They aren’t trained military types with years of experience a nerves of steel. And…they are getting to shoot pretty much unopposed, which makes things a bit easier when roaming around looking for targets. It’s possible that less folks would have died had someone fired back (even if, as is likely, they missed). Unlike the guy in 20/20’s fine demonstration, these bozo’s aren’t trained shooters with years of experience…and they don’t know that they of course don’t know that some student is going to be shooting back at them either.

Most likely people would still have died regardless…we’ll never know though. Myself, I think that if one of these nuts ran up against initial resistance they probably would have turned tail…or at least been sufficiently suppressed that it would have at least thrown off their aim.

-XT

[Chronos]

Yeah…I know what you mean. The other side of course is that these nut balls who are going off the deep end and deciding they are going to shoot up a classroom aren’t exactly crack shots either. They aren’t trained military types with years of experience a nerves of steel.

Of course they’re not.