I'm buying a gun

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
141

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but I do not think that the evidence supports them; as I said before, studies I have seen do not seem to show the drawbacks greatly outweighing the benefits, and some show the benefits outweighing the drawbacks.

I don’t know why you keep bringing up the argument that there’s only one good outcome and several bad outcomes. First, it seems to depend on how finely you want to divide “outcomes.” But even if there is only one good outcome and several bad outcomes, it is a logical fallacy to deduce that the bad outcomes must therefore be more likely.

I agree that not everyone is psychologically fit to own a gun. If you are prone to fits of violent rage, then you should probably not own one. But again, this is not generally something random or sudden for an individual. A person doesn’t suddenly become violent once he buys a gun; an adult should be capable of making that judgment about himself. (And of course people who have demonstrated their unfitness by prior violent acts–these being the best predictor currently known for the likelihood of further violent acts–are generally disallowed from owning guns.)

Well, once you point out all of the people who call guns a panacea, I will agree that they are wrong; but this is really a strawman argument. A gun is a tool for self-defense. It is far from the only one, and in fact not the most important one. The gun is no use until the attack has begun; some attacks (robberies, rapes, etc.) may take a long time to complete, during which time the gun can be very useful as a tool for defense, not retribution.

But again, your counterarguments are hypotheticals, and the evidence I have seen does not seem to show them to be common–at least not common enough to vastly outweigh the good outcomes–in reality. Note that these arguments ought to apply equally well to police; and police still go armed. Police, of course, are trained in handgun use, but this sort of training is not something magically restricted to police; as I (and several others) have said, getting training is definitely recommended if you want a gun for self-defense.

There are a few types of gun accidents that I would not classify as negligence, mostly materials failures and mechanical malfunctions. These are quite rare (and mostly due to negligence even then) but manufacturing defects do sometimes happen.

I don’t think I’m demonstrating particularly great faith in humanity here. What I am saying is that most of the risks you quote can be vastly reduced with training. (The fact that gun accidents continue to happen is plenty of statistical evidence that not everyone is intelligent enough to learn how to use their guns.) I do think gun training should be much more widely available and promoted. But as with most tools, people end up making individual choices about how proficient to become in their use, and some of them end up lopping off fingers in band saws.

I don’t know what you mean by “preemptively” here. Are you imagining people going out and shooting “potential killers”? That seems somewhat unlikely. On the other hand, pulling a gun on a rapist might be considered “preemption” but I would certainly consider it proper.

[I agree with you that the initial analogy was flawed as regards prophylactic measures; I was proposing an analogy that I felt better fit. But really I don’t see much point to arguing over analogies; one subject of debate is plenty.]

142

So basically Soapbox Monkey is freaked out about the VT shootings and wants a gun because he feels powerless now. Don’t buy a gun to make yourself feel safe. That means you have to admit to being scared. Why should you be scarred? Carrying a gun around to class and whatnot is really not going to get you anywhere good. Even if you get the concealed carry permit, the least that will happen is that you’ll get thrown out of school if caught. You think they’ll be happy with the fact that their students are carrying around guns, especially after what happened? You’re probably a lot more likely to die in a tornado. And you can’t avoid tornadoes.

Just give it some time, there’s no need to be paranoid every time some whacko goes off and kills people. The sad thing is that nobody actually paid attention to his problems sooner as he was certainly giving out all kinds of warning signs beforehand.

143

Where can we see these studies?

144

There you go, interjecting a discordant note of unwanted reality into the discussion. Why do you hate America?

Stranger

145

Omphaloskeptic is no doubt alluding to the studies done by John Lott: see More Guns, Less Crime. Lott’s studies are extensive and wide ranging, including many socialogical variables and using a reasonable clear an unbiased statistical methodology; on the other hand, there are some other methodological complaints about them, including the alleged fabrication of one critical study, and a lack of supporting data on others, which throws a shadow over the entire body of work. (Lest we be too hard on Lott, I could point to any number of “studies” done by, say, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence that are so blatently methodologically unsound as to be deliberately fraudulent.) Most debates about the effectiveness gun control degrade into ad hominin discussions and semantic distortions anyway, making it impossible to have any kind of nuanced discussion regarding the degree of contribution any particular factor might make.

From an anecdotal perspective, having a firearm at hand has benefitted me on a couple of occasions; though I’ve never had to shoot anyone, or even discharge a weapon to avert aggression; having one in hand, displayed with the very real intent to use it was sufficient to divert an apparently imminent attack. On the other hand, I have no wish to go though the legal nightmare of being involved in a shooting (even if justified) and am pleased to live a lifestyle now where being attacked is a remote possibility, so I don’t feel the need to keep one ready for protection (prohibitive in California anyway). I used to enjoy the challenge of shooting accurately, but like many hobbies my interest in it has passed. I can certainly recognize, though, that some people live in circumstances or hold jobs where possessing and carrying a firearm would be a safety measure, but defending against the unlikely chance of a random lunatic is far, far down on the list of concerns.

Stranger

146

Nitpick.

An “alleged fabrication of one critical study” is rather more than a “methodological complaint.” If the guy made up a study out of whole cloth, that’s more than simply a difference of opinion over how to interpret data; it goes to the very credibility of the author. After all, those who called for Michael Bellesiles’ head over the problems in his book Arming America argued that his deceptions meant that none of his conclusions could be trusted, that they (to use your words) threw “a shadow over the entire body of work.”

James Lindgren, the Northwestern law professor who was so critical of Bellesiles, looked into the Lott case and found a whole lot of troubling issues regarding where Lott got his figures, and regarding a study he allegedly conducted in 1997.

Regarding where Lott got the figures for his claim that 98% of defensive gun uses involve only brandishing the gun, Lindgren notes how Lott’s own claims about the source of this figure changed over time:

Then, having finally got around to claiming that the figures came from his own study, Lott resorts to the “dog ate my homework” school of excuses when asked to show people the data from the study he allegedly conducted. According to him, the data, and all records associated with the study, were lost in a computer crash. As Lindgren notes…

Lott’s excuses for having absolutely no record of such a large survey beggar belief. He even claims not to remember the names of the students and assistants who allegedly worked on it with him.

Lindgren is honest enough to admit that Lott’s 98% claim “is not central to his book, More Guns, Less Crime,” but notes that questions about the figures and the alleged study do weigh on questions of Lott’s credibility. Something similar could be said of Michael Bellesiles’ book, Arming America. Having taken the time to actually read the whole thing (something that quite a few people who enter the debate appear not to have done), i tend to agree with those, like historian Jon Wiener, who have argued that most of Bellesiles’ broader historical arguments stand up even if you remove the problematic data and evidence that has been so heavily criticized.

I wonder why you would say this? Personally, i’d like it if we had no fraudulent studies, no deliberate attempts to mislead people. I don’t think we should go easy on one untrustworthy researcher just because others have also been shown to be untrustworthy.

147

Since the North Hollywood Bank shootout, many jurisdictions have restricted civilian access to body armor. Not saying it’s impossible (or even particularly hard) to get, but you may have to 'splain your motivations to the local Sheriff before they’ll authorize the purchase.

All the recent civilian armor purchases slated for the kids in Iraq probably makes this easier than in the past.

148

As I said before, I think that many of those jurisdictions only limit/prohibit purchases by felons. If you are John Q Public, you are totally within your rights to go and spend $5000 on some DragonSkin armor. Although I’d like to hear which jurisdictions completely ban civilian ownership of body armor.

149

It’s sounds ridiculous to walk around in body armor all day, right? Yet, it’s probably more effective than carrying around a gun. More guns is a bad idea, not a good one, and I’ll tell you why. More guns in the hands of people who are A) trained B) smart C) not crazy D) not intoxicated, is indeed a great idea. Hey if you can find me someone who falls into all four categories 100 percent of the time then I’ll be behind giving them a gun. But I just imagine if everyone walked around with a gun. How is it going to work in a bar? People get drunk, they get into arguments, there will be shooting. I know drunk people. This is just one example of our negative character traits getting in the way. Now what happened here was that the shooter was probably only crazy, but that’s the worst thing. I wouldn’t say that Soapbox Monkey isn’t crazy either after he decides to carry around a sidearm now that this is happening at colleges. He feels powerless and wants power, so that’s what a gun is good for. But getting a gun for power based on an emotional response is a bad choice. It should be a calculated response to your environment. I live in Denmark, if it weren’t illegal to get a gun here (i don’t really even know anyone who’s shot a gun, actually) I still wouldn’t get one because I don’t feel the need. If someone comes up to me looking for trouble I’ll run, and unless it’s a ninja with a shuriken then I’m not worried.

Secondly I lived in New York, and didn’t feel the need for a gun there either. Why? because if someone draws a gun on you and you draw a gun on them, someone is going to get shot. I’d rather hand over my wallet, than risk a gunfight.

I don’t really know enough about the system to make any comments really. I know that I’ve lived in places where there are no guns, and places where there are more guns, and I prefer the places with fewer guns. I don’t need to shoot stuff to feel free, honestly. It’s a freedom I have no use for in our present state of affairs.

I’m not an idealist though. I know that there are tons of guns in America and they aren’t going away. I don’t mind the fact that responsible owners, like those here have made calculated decisions to buy and responsibly own guns. I know they are the good guys, but what if there is a guy who has a gun in the house catches his wife cheating on him? We all have that ability to lose our mind in reaction to some kind of traumatic event.

As for the OP, I’d suggest he talk with a therapist. It’s really a bad idea to purchase a gun because it will make you feel better for such a perceived threat. Less likely than lightning! If he had said this a month before I wouldn’t really be so concerned, because whatever the reason it wouldn’t have been made in a desperate attempt to get some peace of mind over such a silly threat. It is a silly threat too. Do you really expect to see wave after wave of mass murders in our colleges now?

150

I realize I’ve lived a sheltered life. I don’t think I have ever been in a situations where a gun would have been of any use to me.

151

I can think of three, two involving dogs and one a human.

152

I said that I had a sheltered life.

From the anecdotal evidence in this thread, I’m beginning to wonder if the posters here are a representative sample. :slight_smile:

153

Yeah. WWII. :wink:

154

I didn’t carry a gun then either.

155

I agree that they are not identical in purpose. But it seems to me much more likely that the person forced to choose between one or the other will have the body armor as the option and not the gun. For example the people who are not legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon due to age limits or other legal restrictions. Or the people who are legally allowed to carry concealed weapons but find themselves in the environment where guns are not allowed, like a college campus.

156

Which brings to mind the possibly apocryphal story of asking a Russian soldier what the work for “safety” on the rifle is and he responds after some thought, “Is gun. Is not safe.”

157

The word is “предохранитель”

(predohranitel)

:slight_smile:

158

And we could all live an equally sheltered life, I think society would be better off. I remember reading Beyond This Horizon[sup]*[/sup] as a kid, and thinking, “How would that work?” Well, in fact, it wouldn’t; such a society wouldn’t be any kind of utopia, and the sort of perfect sober marksmanship and accountability illustrated therein is pure fantasy. Most of the people I’ve known who have been in real combat have a very biased and frankly paranoid view of the world around them, and don’t (or more probably can’t) just switch off. (One fellow, a very former Marine sniper who spent some time in the late 'Sixties over there in the Bad Place, refused to drink coffee because it would make his nerves unsteady, “and you never know when you might need to take that 500 yard shot at someone.” Uh-huh.)

There are, however, many people whose location or vocation puts them in a credible amount of danger, and not everyone can live in a low crime neighborhood or have a job that doesn’t having them carrying sums of cash at oh-dark-hundred. I can certainly understand and sympathize with the desire to have available some means of responding to an armed threat. (Just handing over money or giving an aggressor what he wants not always sufficient for self-protection even if you don’t find such a philosophy repugnant, and I’ve been less than impressed with my experiences with “nonlethal” weapons like pepper spray, and those experiences have been mirrored by many peace officers who, of course, carry sidearms themselves.)

On the other hand–and while I don’t want to make any simplistic arguments about how it is all “the fault of media violence”–Hollywood and the t.v. have given most people–for whom it is their only exposure to the use and effects of firearms–a highly distorted view of both the effectiveness and damage of firearms. We’re used to seeing the hero shooting the gun out of someone’s hand, or giving a small revolver to an untrained sidekick and watching said person shoot an attacker (just before he offers the coup de grâce shot to the hero) with such precission that the attacker immediately collapses without firing his own weapon. These are absurd scenerios; anyone who has spent any time training with handguns knows how difficult it is to shoot one accurately enough to hit a small target like a hand even under ideal conditions, and a simple “stress test” exercise (where you draw and fire at a quickly revealed or moving target while various distractions like sirens and flashing lights) will demonstrate how tough it is even for a trained person to draw and accurately hit a man-sized target at even moderate distances.

Then there’s the hero who takes one in the shoulder or the abdomen, but it turns out to be “only a flesh wound.” The shoulder is packed full of muscles, tendons, nerves, critical skeletal structure, and blood vessels, and any shot thereto is likely to do some permanent debilitating damage. A shot to the gut is even worse; any puncture of the intestines virtually guarantees a long hospital stay and is frequently lethal even if they aren’t immediately disabled. That stuff makes Bruce Willis look tough in successively absurd Die Hard sequels, but in real life that guy would be hamburger before the third reel.

So, cinema-fueled fantasy is that you can tuck a Beretta 92 into your waistband, and when suddenly attacked, draw and fire, instantly disabling an attacker while not striking any bystanders. Reality is that even with some fairly intensive training–say the extensive training and monthly certification done by the Los Angeles Police Department (which, along with the FBI, leads training standards among law enforcement in the United States)–is likely to fire multiple shots before striking an attacker in a critical area, and if struck themselves in an area unprotected by body armor, may suffer permanently debilitating injury.

This doesn’t mean that firearms can’t be useful–against an armed attacker they are the only means of effectively defending one’s self, fantastical visions of Jet Li-like disarming multiple attacker katas aside–but the better bet is to avoid, as best possible, the sort of situations where you’re most likely to be a victim. It’s quite true, and illustrated by the situation that has so stirred the o.p., that you can’t avoid incidents of completely random, unhinged violence, and especially from a determined attacker, nor can you rely on law enforcement to be availible and knowledgeable about the situation should you be under attack. But it’s also true that some people kept a level head and used an effective defensive strategy that didn’t involve confronting the attacker. The argument can be made that even one armed defender could have potentially stopped the attacker and saved lives, but that’s a hypothetical; an armed defender might have hit other bystanders or been shot before being able to stop the determined lunatic, too.

In short, the o.p.'s response to the statistically unlikely chance of being a victim in such an incident has many considerations and reprecussions beyond a knee-jerk response of “I’d rather go down in a fight.” Claims of their being no utility or possibility of effective defense with a firearm are, well, just not true, but the idea that you’re going to walk around in public perpetually prepared to draw, fire, and disable in an instant reflect a lack of experience of the reality of combat, or rather the pseudoreality of the silver screen.

Stranger

[sup]*[/sup]The utopian society in Beyond This Horizon supports public dueling as a way of resolving disputes or dealing with insults, and it is legally accepted that all citizens will carry and use weapons for that purpose. People who elect not to duel or carry weapons have to wear a “peace brassard” which indicates such, and are by default second class citizens who can be insulted or bullied without reprecussion. This resulted in a “polite society” where everybody acted rationally almost all of the time (except obnoxious and drunk audience members who could be dispatched without causing any public upset) and everybody is just so happy pretty much all of the time that the main character suffers great pangs of existential angst. Yeah, it’s about as bad as it sounds, and definitely not one of Heinlein’s better works.

159

If this event scares you this much, you may not be cut out for defensive gun use. You have to have your wits about you as much as possible with screaming, gunfire, blood, and an environment where split second decisions will end another life forever. Hopefully its the bad guy, not a bystander that ran into your line of fire or a plain clothes policeman.

The mindset of someone who can survive lethal encounters consistently is not unreasonable or fearful.

For a second lets say you are armed and this guy walks into the classroom, what are you going to do, expect him to stand there while you try and draw on him?

Your best chance is to do your best to find some cover so you can ready a weapon and if he is occupied with easier targets, fire from cover. Your best hope in many cases would simply be to stall him, you are both waiting for the other to make a lethal mistake.

160

I think this is why operant conditioning is used in military training. Most of us react to a situation like the VA Tech shooting by freezing, panicking, or cowering. I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same. If I were trained in how to respond in situations like that, I, like most people, would likely do so without even thinking about it.

By the way, there’s a great book by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman called *On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society * I highly recommend. It discusses everything from distance in killing (easier to kill with a gun than a knife; with a fighter jet than with a gun); to how the military managed to get soldiers in war from a 15-20% shooting rate in WWII to 90% by Vietnam (in other words, only 1 out of 5 soldiers in WW2 fired their weapons aggressively; by Vietnam, it was 9 out of 10). He managed to get interviews from people who have actually killed in war, some of whom never told anyone before about how they felt.