So I’m reading another Sam Harris article on self defense:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-truth-about-violence
The whole thing is pretty interesting but this part especially so:
True or no?
It’s an overly simplistic approach to assessing danger. For example, in the relative safety of Beverly Hills, what percentage of those crimes are committed by strangers vs. someone you know? What percentage of those crimes could honestly be prevented by a gun, and does that percentage justify the increased risk to you and your family that goes along with having a gun in the house?
For that matter, it sounds like he’s presupposing that a gun is the best defense against all of those crimes.
If you look at the statistics for my age group on causes of death, the #1 thing I should be worried about is accidents, primarily motor vehicle accidents. The #2 thing I should be worried about is killing myself (which statistically I’m most likely to do with a gun). Homicide is #3 on the list, except that the vast majority of those don’t apply to me because I’m not in a gang and I’m not involved in the drug trade. Realistically, violent crime is somewhere between HIV and Heart Disease, and that’s based solely on my age without taking into account my socioeconomic status.
To put it another way, if I were to open my eyes to the reality of violence, as Sam Harris suggests, then for every $1000 I spend on guns to protect myself from violent crime (say, the cost of a basic handgun with a small gun safe, a few boxes of ammo, a CCW licensing class and permit, and several hours of range time to practice), I should spend $15,000 on improving my motor vehicle safety.
Now, it’s certainly possible that I could fully understand how improbable it is for someone in my position to ever need a gun for self defense and yet still have one, just in case. But if I made that decision and spent the money without addressing any of the actual threats to my health and safety, I’d be making an irrational decision.
There are people on this board who just enjoy shooting, and who have handguns locked in a safe that they only use for going to the range, and who have said that if their home was invaded that they would remove the gun from the safe and hunker down in their bedrooms while waiting for the cops to come. That’s an entirely rational position, IMO. If you already have the gun, by all means, use it. But for a lot of people it doesn’t make sense to go out and buy one. And a lot of people, again IMO, focus on this narrow, unlikely threat of violent crime not out of an rational assessment of reality, but out of simple fear.
I don’t see that he is presupposing a gun is the best defense. I think the article, if you read the whole thing, makes it clear that avoiding dangerous situations is the best defense. See:
“The primary goal of self-defense is to avoid becoming the victim of violence. The best way to do this is to not be where violence is likely to occur. Of course, that’s not always possible—but without question, it is your first and best line of defense.”
Now if trouble does find you, I would like to know what is a better defense than a firearm? If we can agree on this point, or agree to disagree, can address the others. I hate to talk about too many points at once.
Certainly a firearm is a much better defensive weapon than a knife or a stick. But that doesn’t really address all the elements of the cost/benefit analysis.
It also doesn’t change the fact that Harris is being a little disingenuous with the way he’s presenting the stats. SSimply saying “you’ve a 1 in 250 chance, though it’s higher than that, of being a victim of a violent crime” along with the “unlocked doors” statement is him deliberately using the iidea - and it’s a commonly used one - that “violent crime” is something that happens when Bad Guys come into your house. But a huge, huge number of those crimes are nothing of the sort; they’re family members hurting each other, or date rapes, or angry confrontations between neighbours that started out as some trivial dispute. They’re quite often situations where a gun would make no difference or would actually increase the severity of the outcome. And as steronz points out, even when you consider that, you then have to consider that crimes are not evenly distributed. They are clustered to quite an extreme degree. Violent crimes in New Orleans, Gary, or East St. Louis are vastly more common than violent crimes in Los Gatos, Buffalo Grove, or (insert some other little suburb here.)
A true picture of the necessity of gun safety would require an honest examination of the numbers to divvy out crimes that aren’t likely to be deterred by a gun and then consider the position of the person involved. It is of course never impossible that one could be the subject of a home invasion that would unfold in a manner where a gun would help. But a LOT of bad things are not impossible for which we don’t take dramatic, expensive and risk-incurring steps to prevent.
I’m not saying Harris is full of crap. In fact, if you read the article, he has a lot of smart things to say about fundamental safety, and one would be wise to listen to him, because his basic approach is logially sound; do not put yourself in dangerous situations, avoid escalating conflict, don’t bother protecting your physical property. Those are his first pieces of advice, and they are all wise. **Nowhere in his article does he say “go get a gun.” **That isn’t his point here.
The idea that Obama supporters see any distinction whatsoever between “gun nut” and “any person who has ever used, owned, thought about using or owning, or defended the use or ownership of any gun by any person for any purpose (except of course Platinum Plus Citizens like soldiers, police, Dianne Feinstein, and the dozens of armed guards who surround Barack Obama at all times)” is perhaps the most disingenuous thing ever posted in the long and distinguished career of gun confiscators posting horseshit on this board.
But somehow, you managed to surpass it. There are plenty of Obama supporters who defend the use of guns. Completely ridiculous.
It depends. I’ve said in other threads that if I were legitimately concerned about a home invasion, I would fortify my house. I’d install a heavy metal door at the top of the stairs, which I would deadbolt every night, and have a hard line with which to call 911. If someone broke into the house, I would hunker down in my fortress and wait for the cavalry.
If I were getting mugged or carjacked, then I think statistics say that the safest thing to do is comply with the assailant’s demands.
If my wife decides to murder me in my sleep, I’m hosed no matter what I do. (eta: and this is a case where I’m safer not giving her access to a gun :))
I’m sure you can find a scenario where I’d want a gun; wouldn’t be that hard. But the more scenarios we exclude, the less likely I am to feel like I need one. As RickJay points out, if we take Sam’s statistics and start breaking them up by crime and specifics, the numbers look much less impressive.
It’s not sufficient to just look at the beneficial reasons for having a gun. I agree that if an intruder is in your bedroom heading towards you it may be the best deterrent. But a gun isn’t the only solution for that situation. Having an alarm system would likely have deterred him in the first place or caused him to flee as soon as it went off.
If a gun is in the house, all the possible outcomes must be considered. It’s not enough to assume a gun will only be used for defending the owner from an intruder. A gun in the house means there are many other situations where it can be misused. A child or their friends may find it either intentionally or by snooping around. Someone in the house may become enraged and use the gun to solve the conflict (argument, discovery of affair, etc). Someone may become depressed and use the gun for suicide. The gun may accidentally discharge while being handled. And so on.
Consider this situation: Boy Shot When He Followed GPS Directions to Wrong Driveway. Diaz was following GPS directions to a friends house so they could go skating. When he pulled into the wrong driveway, the homeowner came out thinking it was a home invasion. Diaz was shot as he was pulling away. If there wasn’t a gun in the house Diaz would still be alive today. You could argue that one day it may really be a burglar, but it’s far more likely that someone lost is pulling into the driveway rather than an intruder.
Running away.
Is that what this guy should have done?
I those are mostly good points, except the part where you say Sam was being disingenuous. FWIW, when I was a victim of violent crime the bad guys really did come to my house.
In fairness, I said “…a little disingenuous.” He is definitely omitting a few parts of the statistical story. His overall message is hard to argue with, though. Harris generally preaches common sense. His advice on the best way to survive a home invasion - flee your home - is certainly not some “stand your ground” nuttery.
Of course I’ve no doubt that, sometimes, the bad guys come to your house. It can happen. But an honest examination of the facts does not begin with the implicit assumption that that is representative of ALL, or even most, crime.
If I can use a particularly extreme example, one type of crime people far overestimate the danger of is child abduction, at least around here. It’s one of the crimes parents are most concerned about, but it’s actually exceedingly rare for a stranger to abduct a young child; that’s one of the reasons it’s so newsworthy. By comparison, people are quite often absolutely shockingly cavalier about water safety - swimming, boating, and the like - despite the fact that it kills many, many children (and adults.)
I voted for Obama twice and I own several guns. I know a lot of Democrats that own guns.
I thought he said that if you are cornered you should attack then flee:
“This is the core principle of self-defense: Do whatever you can to avoid a physical confrontation, but the moment avoidance fails, attack explosively for the purposes of escape—not to mete out justice, or to teach a bully a lesson, or to apprehend a criminal. Your goal is to get away with minimum trauma (to you), while harming your attacker in any way that seems necessary to ensure your escape.”
Were you being a little disingenuous to leave the “attack” part out. FWIW, in my home invasion fleeing wasn’t an option.
Protecting one’s 1st Amendment rights means defending oneself against government censorship or government persecution for one’s speech. The First Amendment starts “Congress shall make no law…”
It doesn’t mean protecting yourself from individual nutjobs who want to harm you because they disagree with you.
This is a major and salient distinction in the discussion of gun rights. A significant and loudly voiced group argues that the 2nd Amendment is necessary to protect our rights from a tyrannical government, that we need the 2nd Amendment to keep them from infringing upon the 1st. You claimed (“guessed”) that Harris agreed with them, but he explicitly says that he does not. He favors gun ownership because he wants to protect himself until law enforcement can arrive, not from law enforcement.
This is not equivalent to the “Stand your ground” philosophy at all.
Stand-your-ground laws eliminate the legal obligation to retreat; they give the threatened person a choice. I don’t think “Never retreat” is part of the philosophy.
It is not part of the law; it is part of the philosophy, if so it can be called. Really a cultural attitude.
What is this cultural attitude?
Who said anything about the “Stand your ground” philosophy?