The Million Mom March-or is it Farce?

[Whack-a-Mole]

RTFirefly

Somebody asked about defensives uses of handguns. The estimates are between 3 and 6 million defensive uses of handguns a year. The commonly accepted number is 3.6 million from research by Gark Kleck. I don’t know of anything that breaks it down into “what would have sufficed” because it isn’t a valid question. It is effectively impossible to determine what would have sufficed.

Also, citizens kill 3,000 violent criminals a year with handguns, and wound another 17,000 more (police by comparison kill about 1,000 and wound 5,000 with their firearms, the injure FAR more with nightsticks and such).

That’s interesting but I’m having a hard time reconciling those numbers. The Bureau of Justice statistic I quoted said 670,500 people faced a firearm during the commission of a crime in 1998. Where did the other 3 million or so people come from in Gary Kleck’s survey? Add to that that 3.6 million handgun defenses and only 20,000 dead and wounded? Less than 1% of the time the guns were actually used? While that’s possible (I know simply having a gun pointed at me would stop me in my tracks…no need to shoot) it still seems remarkably restrained. Either that or people are generally lousy shots.

I’m not trying to be pissy here. I think this discussion is much more meaningful when everyone understands and agrees (as much as possible) on the numbers used to support their arguments.

[Whack-a-Mole]

RTFirefly

I don’t know of anything that breaks it down into “what would have sufficed” because it isn’t a valid question. It is effectively impossible to determine what would have sufficed.

I agree that this may be a difficult one to nail down but not necessarily impossible.

One could gather stats on defense using any weapon other than a gun. How often is it done? How successful are they? One might then also try and compare similar crimes where a handgun was used and where one wasn’t. This is less useful since even if a crime is similar the people involved are different. One person might fight back where another would cower in fear in the same situation. Still, numbers like that might show a broad trend that, taken with a grain of salt, might still be telling. Especially in terms of success vs. failure rates comparing handguns to, say, baseball bats.

[Weirddave]

OOOH! RTF pitched into my thread. For the anti-gun stance, he’s the big gu…er…legislation. I will reply to this thread tonite, but I have no time right now. Stay tuned!

[RTFirefly]

Sorry, dave; I’ll duck right back out again.

Jeff_42: I think you were quoting Glitch, not me. (I don’t think you confused anyone more than momentarily, though.)

[pepperlandgirl]

**School’s teach sex ed to promote safe sex. Therefore cutting down on STDs. But
the main birth control they teach is absitence (SP?)
If schools teach students how to safely handle guns. Handle Guns There’s more
to handling a gun then knowing how to fire it. **

                 Yes, but guns are made to be fired, aren't they? What's the point of learning how to handle a gun if you
                 never intend to use one? 

So what if you “intend” on using one? I “intend” on going to college, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. I “intend” on doing a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen that way.

**
I’m not advocating target practice, or how to load and clean a gun. I am
advocating teaching how to handle them safely. Would you rather have a child
find a gun and pick it up out of ignorance? Or would you rather have a child find
a gun, and be able to make an educated decision about what to do about it? **

                 You're setting up a false choice here. The only options are not 1) never tell your children anything
                 about guns at all or 2) teach them how to hold a gun. You can teach your kids that they should not
                 pick up a gun at all, and that they should tell an adult if they ever find a gun lying around. If some
                 parents want to teach their kids how to handle a gun then that is their right, but I would not want my
                 hypothetical children going to school and being told that it's okay for kids to handle guns. It's not okay
                 with ME, and I'm their hypothetical mother. 

I realize I make the sex/guns parallel a lot, but I do it for a reason. Both sex and guns are potentially very dangerous, and children need to learn about both. Yes and you can tell your children to 1)never have sex or 2) show them how to protect themselves. So you can tell your children 1)Avoid guns and forever be ignorant of them and to a certian extent, afraid of them or 2) Educate them. Educating a child is not tantamount to saying it’s ok. Teaching about sex is not giving the go ahead to have sex while they are still too immature to handle it. In history class teaching about the problems of slavery is not going to give them ok to eventually own slaves. THe things that students learn at school are helpful for two ways. For some instances it shows HOW to do something (math, how to write a great piece of literature, etc)…and in some cases it shows how NOT to do something. (History teaches about racism, government, hate etc) Guns would be teaching them about how NOT to do something (How not to kill somebody/themselves. How NOT to have accidents, etc) So, as a mother you would like your children to live in ignorance?

[Glitch]

Jeff:

First, yes, under adrenal stress human beings are remarkably poor shots. A trained police officer will hit with approximately 1 in 4 bullets at a range of 15’ or less. An untrained shooter will hit with 1 in 9. The vast majority of gun owners are untrained in the sense that even if they go to the shooting range, they likely do not develop the mindset that police officer’s have in order to improve their accuracy. In fact, one study showed that even professional marksmen who lack mindset training hit at a rate of 1 in 7 under adrenal stress, where as somebody with only 1 week of training with a firearm and 2 weeks of mindset training hits at a rate of 1 in 5. Noteably, under normal conditions a trained police officer can hit the center of mass 9/10 times, and an untrained shooter can hit roughly 7/10 times. Adrenal stress is a major factor. Plenty of shootouts end without anybody hit. Finally, the reported number of deaths and injured are those that could be confirmed and were reported. The actual number injured, not dead, is likely a fair amount larger. Criminals do not normally report injurey nor seek medical attention unless they are very serious (and even then they will often try to tough it out), since it will likely result in their being caught. Often, it is expected, the defender doesn’t even realize they have injured the assailant because they are under the influence of “fight or flight” or, at least, not seriously seeing as how he ran off. Often, they don’t report it, fearing legal action taken against them, retribution from the criminal and his friends or that they won’t be taken seriously. Under adrenal stress and without severe injury it isn’t difficult in the slightest for the would be assailant to run away (also, true for us as the defender, which as an aside is an important safety tip).

Second, Kleck’s study includes instances where the visible presence of a firearm caused the criminal to flee. This accounts for a very large number of defensive uses. Some of the higher estimates, like 6 million, include cases where a gun was simply present with the defender or laughably some studies included whether the defender even OWNED a gun, let alone had it with them which is why nobody takes the 6 million number seriously (I should point out that the gun control crowd is guilty of this as well, and one study in particular included gun ownership causing a death or suicide even if the gun itself wasn’t used or even present, simply owned).

Third, Many criminals, about 50%, flee or surrender immediately when a firearm is trained on them or displayed. The other half fight back, and have a considerable chance of winning (about 75%). Police studies have shown that the cases where the person loses and lives they invariably made one of several errors, including appearing hestitant (lacking mindset). This errors are due to a lack of instruction on how to use a firearm in self defense. It is also noted that when the defender wins, they typically did things right either by chance or by training.

If you wish to point out flaws in Kleck’s study then feel free. Go and read it, and let us know what you think the errors are in his methodology. I do not mean this sarcastically or insultingly, but in all seriousness.

[tracer]

Lamia wrote:

**
School’s teach sex ed to promote safe sex. Therefore cutting down on STDs. But the main birth control they teach is absitence (SP?)
If schools teach students how to safely handle guns. Handle Guns There’s more to handling a gun then knowing how to fire it.**

Yes, but guns are made to be fired, aren’t they? What’s the point of learning how to handle a gun if you never intend to use one?

You sexual organs are made to be boinked, aren’t they? What’s the point of learning how to handle your genitalia in you never intend to use them?

[pepperlandgirl]

I agree tracer, thank you =)

[Lamia]

**
I realize I make the sex/guns parallel a lot, but I do it for a reason. Both sex and guns are potentially very dangerous, and children need to learn about both. Yes and you can tell your children to 1)never have sex or 2) show them how to protect themselves. So you can tell your children 1)Avoid guns and forever be ignorant of them and to a certian extent, afraid of them or 2) Educate them.
**

Frankly, I think your sex ed/gun ed parallel is bogus. Virtually everyone has sex at some point in their life, the same is not true of handling guns. You could tell your children never to have sex but this would be worse than useless as it is going against their biology. There is no similar biological drive to handle firearms. And as far as I know there isn’t a sex ed class on earth where children actually have sex. You have been suggesting putting guns into the hands of children, not simply telling them what a gun is or how it works. I would not want my children handling a gun, no matter what the circmstances, and no one has the right to teach my children to handle a deadly weapon against my will.

**
Educating a child is not tantamount to saying it’s ok. Teaching about sex is not giving the go ahead to have sex while they are still too immature to handle it. In history class teaching about the problems of slavery is not going to give them ok to eventually own slaves. THe things that students learn at school are helpful for two ways. For some instances it shows HOW to do something (math, how to write a great piece of literature, etc)…and in some cases it shows how NOT to do something. (History teaches about racism, government, hate etc) Guns would be teaching them about how NOT to do something (How not to kill somebody/themselves. How NOT to have accidents, etc)
**

Teaching children never to touch a gun would also prevent them from killing someone or having a gun accident. I have never handled a gun, and this strategy has effectively prevented me from ever injuring or killing someone with a gun.

**
So, as a mother you would like your children to live in ignorance?
**

I’d much rather they be ignorant of how to use a gun than have them taught how to use a gun and then go on to kill themselves or another child with one.

[pepperlandgirl]

Frankly, I think your sex ed/gun ed parallel is bogus. Virtually everyone has sex at some point in their
life, the same is not true of handling guns.

Yes, and everybody is recquired to learn at least up to Algebra II. However, in my life as an author, I will probably never use it. But schools must ASSUME it’ll be useful to me, so they teach me. People may or may not plan on using guns, but it should be ASSUMED that a situation will arise that involves a gun. And should that situation arise, one should be prepared. Better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it. (The ‘it’ being education/knowledge.)

Teaching children never to touch a gun would also prevent them from killing someone or having a gun
accident. I have never handled a gun, and this strategy has effectively prevented me from ever injuring
or killing someone with a gun.

So what about the children who were told by their parents not to play with firearms, yet still picked one up and accidently killed someone/themselves because they didn’t know what they were doing? Obviously just teaching a child not to touch a gun is not enough, or else there would not be so many accidental shootings.

I’d much rather they be ignorant of how to use a gun than have them taught how to use a gun and then
go on to kill themselves or another child with one.

I know how to handle a gun, I have never killed anybody. My best friends know how to handle guns, they have never killed anybody. My parents know how to handle guns, they have never killed anybody. So your assumption is that if someone knows how to handle a gun, they are automatically going to shoot people with it? Are they automatically going to use it?
I know people on this board know how to handle guns, and use them. How many people have you killed?

[Lamia]

**
Yes, and everybody is recquired to learn at least up to Algebra II.
**

Actually no, everyone isn’t.

**
However, in my life as an author, I will probably never use it. But schools must ASSUME it’ll be useful to me, so they teach me. People may or may not plan on using guns, but it should be ASSUMED that a situation will arise that involves a gun. And should that situation arise, one should be prepared. Better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it. (The ‘it’ being education/knowledge.)
**

Schools cannot possibly prepare children for every situation they may encounter in their lives. It would be foolish of them to even try. If someone wants to learn how to handle a gun, there are plenty of other ways for them to learn how to do so. It should not be the responsibility of a public elementary or middle school.

**
So what about the children who were told by their parents not to play with firearms, yet still picked one up and accidently killed someone/themselves because they didn’t know what they were doing? Obviously just teaching a child not to touch a gun is not enough, or else there would not be so many accidental shootings.
**

Similarly, children who are instructed in gun safety may disobey the rules they have been taught. Children often do things that adults tell them not to do. All the gun safety isntruction in the world will not change that, which is why I would prefer any children of mine to stay away from guns altogether until they are old enough to make responsible decisions about handling them.

**
I know how to handle a gun, I have never killed anybody. My best friends know how to handle guns, they have never killed anybody. My parents know how to handle guns, they have never killed anybody. So your assumption is that if someone knows how to handle a gun, they are automatically going to shoot people with it? Are they automatically going to use it?
I know people on this board know how to handle guns, and use them. How many people have you killed?
**

You’re very good at putting words into people’s mouths. I never said that everyone who handles a gun kills someone with it. But it’s pretty difficult to murder someone with a gun unless you know how to use one. That is not knowledge that I think young children are prepared to handle. Handling a lethal weapon responsibly requires maturity and a well-developed moral sense, things that young children cannot be expected to have.

[Weirddave]

I translate this thus: I don’t like guns and am afraid of them. I also don’t trust my children to be smart enough to learn what they are taught. I may be wrong, but that’s what your last few posts seem to be saying.

[pepperlandgirl]

**Yes, and everybody is recquired to learn at least up to Algebra II. **

                 Actually no, everyone isn't. 

Ok, most schools recquire at least three years of math, and after three years, one should be up to Algebra II. Either way, math is not going to be used by all students…yet schools * assume * it’s in everybody’s best interest to learn at least 3 years worth of math.

Schools cannot possibly prepare children for every situation they may encounter in their lives. It would
be foolish of them to even try. If someone wants to learn how to handle a gun, there are plenty of other
ways for them to learn how to do so. It should not be the responsibility of a public elementary or
middle school.

Obviously with parents who don’t want to teach their children things such as gun control/safety, schools are going to have to step in. They teach about sex/health. They teach cognitive skills. They teach reasoning skills. They teach speaking skills. They teach team work and cooperation. All of those things may not be needed by everybody but it’s safe for everybody to learn them. Gun control/safety should be just as important as anything else.

Similarly, children who are instructed in gun safety may disobey the rules they have been taught.
Children often do things that adults tell them not to do. All the gun safety isntruction in the world will
not change that, which is why I would prefer any children of mine to stay away from guns altogether
until they are old enough to make responsible decisions about handling them

So on a message board created to fight ignorance, you are basically saying ignorance is bliss and the best possible solution. It is easier to hide something from children rather than prepare children for life.

You’re very good at putting words into people’s mouths. I never said that everyone who handles a gun
kills someone with it.

No, that’s exactly what you said

I’d much rather they be ignorant of how to use a gun than have them taught how to use a gun and then
go on to kill themselves or another child with one.

No, it is not difficult to murder someone with a gun if you don’t know how to use one. You point and shoot. But it’s pretty difficult to accidently shoot someone when you know what you are doing. People who know nothing about guns also know nothing about safety and make mistakes. People who are familiar with guns are familiar with safety and are least likely to make mistakes.

I translate this thus: I don’t like guns and am afraid of them. I also don’t trust my children to be smart
enough to learn what they are taught. I may be wrong, but that’s what your last few posts seem to be
saying.

I think you are absolutely right dave

[Lamia]

I presume you are addressing me, although you didn’t mention my name in your post.

**
I translate this thus: I don’t like guns and am afraid of them.
**

Yes. As an American I have the right to own a gun, but I also have the right NOT to own a gun. I choose to exercise the latter.

**
I also don’t trust my children to be smart enough to learn what they are taught. I may be wrong, but that’s what your last few posts seem to be saying.
**

I don’t have any children, so whether or not I trust my children is a non-issue. I do not, however, trust children in general to handle lethal weapons. Children are not just short adults. We don’t allow children to vote or drive cars or enter into legal contracts or do any number of other things because they are not developmentaly ready to understand everything involved. It’s fine and good to tell children not to point a gun at someone unless they want to kill them, but sometimes children think that they do want to kill someone. It’s unfair to expect a child to have the same emotional control as an adult. It’s also unfair to put a gun into a child’s hands and expect him or her to have an adult’s understanding of when it is appropriate to use it and when it is not.

[pepperlandgirl]

but sometimes children think that they do want to kill
someone. It’s unfair to expect a child to have the same emotional control as an adult. It’s also unfair to
put a gun into a child’s hands and expect him or her to have an adult’s understanding of when it is
appropriate to use it and when it is not.

Oh, I see, teaching a children how to handle a gun safely is tantamount to giving them a gun for their birthday or Christmas.
“Here Johnny, I know you are old enough to know how to safely handle a gun. So here, take this semi-automatic. You might need it someday!”

Uh, no. SOrry. That’s not how it works. Nobody expects a child to have the “same emotional control as an adult” But nobody should just think it’s enough to say “Don’t touch.” and except the child to always listen.

I’m sorry you equate learning about a gun to owning and using a gun on a regular basis, but that’s not how it goes. Nobody is saying “Teach a child how to handle a gun, including target practice. And has a graduation gift, give them one!”
No, I’m saying, and I think some people here agree with me “Teach a child how to safely handle and deal with a gun should they ever encounter one” Period. End of discussion.

[Lamia]

**
Obviously with parents who don’t want to teach their children things such as gun control/safety, schools are going to have to step in. They teach about sex/health. They teach cognitive skills. They teach reasoning skills. They teach speaking skills. They teach team work and cooperation. All of those things may not be needed by everybody but it’s safe for everybody to learn them. Gun control/safety should be just as important as anything else.
**

When I first came to college I was surprised to learn that some of my fellow students had no idea how to do their own laundry. I have found myself in situations where I needed to wash clothes far more often than I have found myself in situations where I needed to handle a gun, so I think knowledge of laundry is more useful to the average person than knowledge of firearms. And yet the American public school system has completely failed to instruct children in how to do the laundry. Why? Because schools are not meant to teach people everything they may ever need to know in life and it is ridiculous to expect them to do so.

**
So on a message board created to fight ignorance, you are basically saying ignorance is bliss and the best possible solution. It is easier to hide something from children rather than prepare children for life.
**

Again, you are putting words into my mouth. I never said “we should hide all knowledge of guns from everyone forever” I said “I would prefer any children of mine to stay away from guns altogether until they are old enough to make responsible decisions about handling them”. I don’t want my children handling guns until I feel that they are old enough to do it responsibly. This is no more promiting ignorance than forbidding an eight year old from taking the family car for a spin is promoting ignorance. I have not raised any objection to talking to children about guns, or even to other people teaching their own kids how to handle a gun. It is the idea that schools should be allowed to force a gun into my child’s hands against my will that troubles me.

**

You’re very good at putting words into people’s mouths. I never said that everyone who handles a gun kills someone with it.

No, that’s exactly what you said

I’d much rather they be ignorant of how to use a gun than have them taught how to use a gun and then go on to kill themselves or another child with one.

**

I think it should be clear to anyone that these two quotes do not say the same thing at all.

**
No, it is not difficult to murder someone with a gun if you don’t know how to use one. You point and shoot.
**

I don’t think that I’d be able to kill someone with a gun. I have no idea how to tell whether or not a gun is loaded or if the safety is on. I don’t know how to load a gun or take off the safety. If I were handed a loaded gun that was ready to fire I could point it at someone and pull the trigger, but I doubt my aim would be any good. I’d probably have better luck pistol-whipping someone than trying to shoot them.

**
But it’s pretty difficult to accidently shoot someone when you know what you are doing. People who know nothing about guns also know nothing about safety and make mistakes. People who are familiar with guns are familiar with safety and are least likely to make mistakes.
**

They only make mistakes if they try to use a gun without knowing how. If you believe a child can learn to obey the rules of gun safety, why can’t you believe that a child can be taught not to touch a gun at all?

[Weirddave]

I don’t think that I’d be able to kill someone with a gun. I have no idea how to tell whether or not a gun is loaded or if the safety is on. I don’t know how to load a gun or take off the safety. If I were handed a loaded gun that was ready to fire I could point it at someone and pull the trigger

See, this is the problem. You have no idea how to handle a gun. If you come acros one, there is no way you can make it safe. While you are waiting for someone else to come make the gun safe, who knows what could happen? Anyone could pick up that gun and shoot themself, you or anyone else-on accident or on purpose. You can’t even safely pick up that gun and put it out of reach until a professional comes because you don’t know how! How safe is that? In my mind that is a much more dangerous situation than someone picking up a gun, ejecting the magazene and pulling back the slide. That gun is now safe. If you don’t know this, the potential for disaster is HUGE.
Nobody is saying that you must own a gun, fire a gun or anything like that, but it is only prudent that you know how to handle one, just in case. I’ll adress the ability of kids to learn tomorrow, I’m tired.

[Glitch]

RTFirefly: Didn’t mean to ignore your questions. I didn’t see them until this morning.

You assume that I do not support some gun control. I do. I have said this many times. I support gun control that works. Mandatory background checks even on private sales, for example, is a good idea. Registration & waiting periods aren’t a bad idea, but it is simply ineffective, why knowingly take up a goose chase? Anyway, I 1 gun a month will be akin to registration and waiting periods. It will be ineffective. Any gun dealer willing to make a straw man sale, is certainly not going to keep himself constrained to a one gun per month rule.

So, what is the answer? In my opinion and the facts back this up, are efforts like “Project Exile” (note, the decline in violent crime in Philidalphea since the start of “Project Exile”) and allowing law abiding citizens to own firearms. We throw the book at criminals who use or even own guns against the law. When we catch a dealer selling guns illegally we throw the book at him too. Personally, I think a manslaughter charge for ever murder done by a gun he illegally sold is justifiable. Selling a gun to somebody who by law is supposed to have one is no different then throwing rocks onto the freeway from an overpass.

Why does throwing the book at 'em work? It doesn’t prevent a criminal from buying a gun … we can’t stop that anymore than we can stop illegal drugs or illegal alcohol in the 20s. It puts them in federal prison where they can’t cause any harm.

[Glitch]

It’s always been clear that increasing the number of people packing heat would lower the risk of being killed by someone who’s already a violent criminal, but raise the risk of being killed by an otherwise law-abiding citizen having a bad day over some trivial confrontation.

That is not clear at all. The statistics do not suggest that the lack of the presence of a gun would have prevented a homicide. All it says is that since guns are available that people who decide to kill somebody use them. It doesn’t say that they wouldn’t have done the homicide anyway. It also doesn’t say who the perpetrators of these domestic homicides were. Were they already violent criminals who simply commited another act of violence against somebody they already know? The answer to this is likely yes. 80-90% of all violent crime is commited by a recividist. So, these aren’t “otherwise law abiding citizens”, these are violent criminals who shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place but purchased it illegally.

So, if you want another solution that works to reducing violent crime, how about we try locking these guys up, and keep them locked up without parole or earned time off, or other bullshit.

[RTFirefly]

Glitch: relax - I’m not assuming anything about you here, other than that you’re an intelligent person who’s coming from a point of view a bit different than mine on this issue, but who might know a few things I don’t.

In answer to the first of your two posts to me:

I really was trying to ask you an honest question about whether it was realistically possible to crack down on the specific transgressions you’d mentioned - ‘straw man’ transactions, and black-market gun sales.

With respect to the latter, I was admitting my ignorance and hoping you could clarify: I don’t have much idea of what is meant by the black market in guns, and without that, it’s hard for me to make a claim about whether the police are capable of cracking down on such transactions, or evaluating anyone else’s claim on the subject.

I agree with you on throwing the book at gun dealers who sell guns illegally. But it seems to me that one-handgun-a-month laws are part of a reasonable arsenal of tools for (a) catching problem gun dealers, and (b) discouraging them from cooperating with straw-man purchases in the first place.

After all, why don’t they sell directly to felons they’re not supposed to sell to now? Because they’d have to show the transaction on the books, or falsify their records. Straw-man purchases allow them to sell to the felons while having their papers in order, which covers their ass. With a one-a-month law, they’d have to falsify records to sell guns (pl.) to a straw purchaser. These records can be subpoenaed and used in court against them, and raises their risk of jail.