My grandfather, a retired police officer, used to scare the bejeezus out of Grandma by cleaning his service revolver while he suffered from senile dementia in his nineties.
Now that I live with and care for a brain damaged father I wouldn’t dream of allowing a gun into the house. I’m glad some of my neighbors don’t own them either. We’re safer if the local thieves know there are also other places in town where they also won’t get their heads blown off for burglary.
Sorry to disagree, Reeder. Maybe these are reasons you can respect.
For some, possibly present company included (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt). Unfortunately, for others a firearm for self protection is like a fuzzy ‘blankey’; it’s an irrational haven from all of the world’s evils…
gremlin:
It’s not just the mentally handicapped. I was nearly killed (OK, maybe a slight exaggeration) when a shotgun went off (through a wall) near my head. The gun had been loaded by my younger brother, in spite of the fact that both the gun and the shells were stored well out of reach of him in separate rooms. Still, kids are like monkeys and guns are like bananas and monkeys can be damn inventive when they want their banana. Somehow my brother had managed to overcome the obstacles and successfully loaded the gun. Later, when my father was taking it from the closet to clean it and sell it, it accidentally went off. Fortuanately the load was bird shot, the walls were thick, and I managed to escape with nothing more than a lot of stings and welts.
If a kid can steal guns from a relative’s ‘favorite hiding spot’ and use those guns to shoot up a school, what makes one think that an intruder wouldn’t have a better chance of procuring those guns before the owner have a chance to use them? What if that burglar take the mandatory gun possession laws to heart and acquire one himself for use of committing his crimes?
How come when this subject comes up, people cannot recognize that no matter how many statistics they come up with, they cannot truly support either one of the ideas that “more guns equals less violence” or “more guns equals more violence”? Sure, statistics can anecdotally support either position, but they’re bogus arguments. A country with a low violent crime rate that happens to not allow private citizens to own guns (or the converse) is not indicative of anything. Other factors that are involved include differences in culture, population density, application of law (i.e. harsher/easier punishments for violent crimes), social programs available to the truly desperate, etc, etc.
Because there are so many contributing factors, it’s impossible to figure out which ones are the most significant. The result is that any rational person can grab a handful of the factors and build an argument to appear to support either view. Which view people choose to support generally comes down to some emotional bias they have.
The only conclusion this brings me to is that we don’t know, which very clearly tells me that it should be up to the individual to decide what’s best for himself. It’s a fantastic idea, this “freedom”.
And the OP cites and asks for thoughts regarding a specific instance where increased gun ownership has been shown to reduce crime. What’s your point?
The OP and the mindset are actually quite solidly based in logic. You may disagree with the conclusions, but the facts are there for the finding, if you were interested in reading them. Your post, however, most certainly IS anti-logical and disconnected from the point of the thread.
Nice to meet you, Pot. My name is Kettle.
This is ridiculous. The criminal is blamed for his ACTIONS, not his upbringing. I’m sorry he had a hard childhood, but it’s not my problem, since I had nothing to do with it. It’s unfortunate that not everybody is born to Mike and Carol Brady, but the fact that his mommy didn’t love him enough absolutely does NOT excuse or legitimize criminal behavior. My childhood was far from idyllic, but I work hard to earn the money to buy the things that I have without resorting to criminality.
If a person thinks he is entitled to what I own just because he doesn’t have it, he’s quite mistaken. And if his actions intrude upon my life and the sovreignty of my home, or threaten the well-being of my family, then he forfeits his rights, and more importantly, maybe his life.
Frankly, I’m getting really tired of reading your posts, because they have very little connection to any sort of logic or reality.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
**
Cite?
Since no one else took you up on this:
People living in a household where a firearm is kept are almost five times more likely to die by suicide than people who live in gun-free homes. (Ref.: Kellerman et al, Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. New England Journal of Medicine 1992;327;467-72)
Joey: my comment wasn’t attempting to cast aspersions upon the mentality of various gun owners; while you are undoubtedly correct to some degree (I believe a very small one), it is also undoubtedly correct that many people turn to food, tobacco, alcohol and drugs for the very similar reasons. Without some kind of reliable “data” on the mentality/psychology of gun owners, these types of comment are little more than derogatory, inflammatory rhetoric.
Cher3: Dr. Kellerman’s anti-gun bias makes his numbers somewhat suspect, as his famous “43 times” is a perfect example of junk science, and has been thoroughly refuted in this forum.
Besides, that particular study isn’t accessible from the NEJM’s website, without being a subscriber to the print edition. Kinda hard for any of us without access to the NEJM hardcopy to read, analyze and verify the conclusions for ourselves.
However, there are several excellent articles accesible from the NEJM’s website. More than a few are critical of Dr. Kellerman’s, et. al., methodology.
And the National Center for Health Statistics will give you a more realistic breakdown (no “spin” on the raw numbers, or their trending) of violence and accident rates involving firearms.
Technically, the original statement was correct. The risk of suicide is not higher with a gun. However your point is valid - the risk of SUCCESSFUL suicide is higher for households with guns. Still, suicide is a completely different problem and removing access to “effective” means for committing suicide doesn’t address the real problem. Take away guns and you’ll just see a lot more people jumping from tall buildings or driving their cars into bridge embankments.
ExTank:
That coin has two sides. Without some kind of reliable “data” on the effective, defensive use of guns by innocent citizens to deter criminal violence, the previous type of comment is little more than delusory rhetoric.
I’ve read quite a few different studies. Probably the one I’ve studied the most (quite a while back) was the Kleck study. I find that most “card-carrying” advocates (especially the NRA) cite the Kleck study more often than many of the others. Also, there’s quite a bit of background information available on the Kleck study, including interviews with Gary Kleck where he sheds some insight into the details and methodology.
As I indicated earlier, the Kleck study, while technically faithful to the theme of defensive gun uses, is virtually useless at measuring the ‘quality’ of “insurance” that an average citizen gets from having a gun.
Frankly, I don’t want to ‘argue’ with you. I’m merely reiterating the point I made earlier and that galt said a bit more eloquently: The studies and statistics are useless on both sides. They’re biased, skewed, and draw invalid conclusions. They epitomize the art of “lying with statistics”. For anyone to claim that the “studies” validate (or invalidate) any sense of security or “insurance” by owning a gun is making a claim of faith - not of fact.
Legalizing everything would guarantee NO crime. Should we do it, no!
If by crime you mean all forms of crime I dont see how having a gun would make one LESS likely to tax dodge. If you mean gun related crime, then you know what would make a reduced crime rate? Having NO GUNS at all.
Qwerty: Okay. We’ll just wave the magic wand and turn the clock back 500 years. Or shatter the Bill of Rights in pursuit of eliminating firearms from society.
Joey: So if I understand you correctly, either we can’t have any reliable information because anyone who gets involved is automatically biased, or no objective truth in the matter is available or ever will be (I would ask why? too complicated?)?
The real problem with statistics and statistical studies, other than the fact that a clever, unscrupulous statistician can manipulate data to reach desired results, is that whether they are done correctly or not, it still takes another statistician to interpret and possibly duplicate the data in a way more meaningful than a simplified soundbite on the evening news.
Maybe you’ve read this gentleman’s analysis of both the Kleck-Gertz survey and Hemenway’s critique here?
Actually, the answer is neither and/or both. There simply is no way of obtaining reliable data. If you use police crime statistics, then possibly the numbers will be too low. If you rely on surveys, then possibly the numbers will be too high. And that’s assuming that everyone has honorable intentions. In both cases, we can have individuals who fabricate DGUs in order to make their situation seem more serious or to paint themselves as heroic. Also, in both cases, we can have under reports by people who want to hide the fact that they were scared enough to pull a gun or that they even have a gun, etc…
One of the biggest flaws that I see is that we have no way of determining whether any reported DGU is a legitimate DEFENSIVE USE. Was there actually someone else present; did that someone else pose an actual threat? Of this, I can relate a personal story.
A friend and I (kids at the time) were walking home in a rural community. We decided to take a shortcut through a cornfield. Where we came out happened to be near a neighbor’s back yard - an elderly woman. I guess she heard us walking and talking through the cornfield, because as soon as we emerged, she started taking shots at us with her shotgun. Fortunately, we were unharmed. I’m sure that old woman considers her actions as a legitimate use of her gun for defensive purposes. I would disagree.
I can think of several other times in my life when I, an innocent passerby, have been threatened by people with guns in the name of self defense. In fact, in my 40 plus years on this planet, my life has only been threatened by guns either in accident scenarios or misguided defensive scenarios - NEVER in a crime scenario. The point is that what some people consider a legitimate DGU, often is not.
This barely even scratches the surface of things I find wrong with these DGU studies. There are a lot of cases where I would consider the use of a gun a legitimate defensive measure, but the events that precipitated that use were completely avoidable (i.e. the gun users were not exercising good judgement in their behaviors up to the point where a gun was required for defense).
Couple all of this with the fact that most of these surveys and studies are conducted by people who have some specific agenda and I have to admit to myself that we may never know the objective truth.
The question we should be asking is what are nations such as Japan, the UK, Germany, and Switzerland doing right? Why do they have both lower crime rates and lower defensive gun uses?
Apologies for the delay. There’s been a lot going on at work, keeping my mind occupied and time at a premium
What are they doing different? Quite a bit, I suppose. But that’s not really pertinent to the equation, as I see it.
They have different histories, leading to different social evolution. Their societies, attitudes and mindsets are significantly different enough from ours (U.S.A.) that only the roughest comparisons are available, and these rapidly break down on closer scrutiny.
We, like them, are a product of our respective histories.
Some interesting factoids about homicide rates in America. Pay particular attention to the rankings by age, sex and race.
Maybe social and economic inequity is playing a greater role in spawning violence and criminal activity than firearms?
I would be a fool to argue that firearms, and their accessibilty, don’t have their role in the equation; IMO, anyone else would be a fool to think that heavy restrictions or an outright ban on firearms would be any more successful than Prohibition or The War On Drugs.
Cure the [social] disease, and the symptoms go away.
Why not? There have been some excellent arguments pointing out the Constitutional question, but my problem with mandatory ownership is from another perspective.
I am a volunteer Hunter Education instructor, and we focus VERY strongly on firearms safety. I have assisted with other training classes, and have seriously considered approaching the local school board about holding gun safety talks with the kids.
The problem with the premise of universal ownership is that you will not have universal responsibility. Hell, a large portion of the population can’t even drive their cars responsibly.
So, let those who choose to own firearms do so - free of restrictions and infringements exactly as the Second Amendment states. Support “must issue” concealed carry permits in your state, and let the criminals take their chances. And acknowledge that those who choose not to own a gun do so.