# The police have no duty to protect individuals (yep, another gun debate) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2001, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222 "2001-04-08T03:05:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2001, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/61 "2001-04-15T00:36:54Z")
Extank, may I take those six points of yours and print them out? Maybe even post them to my webpage (I’d give you full credit, and even a link to this thread, if you like)? ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2001, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/62 "2001-04-17T00:14:40Z")
**Kimstu:** apologies for the delay in replying; I was waiting or a few more responses. Since you picked up the ball and admirably ran with it, here goes: Your reply was English enough for me to get a fuzzy grasp of the inherent falws of survey methodology of several surveys. Suffice it to say that I’d rather not get to focused on methodology until I have the time, money and energy to receive a more comprehensive education in statistical methods. [quote] But but but—that assumes 1500 **random** respondents, yes? [quote] Well DUH! I keep saying there needs to be a smiley “smacking oneself in the forehead”! I’d have a monopoly on the damned thing. > [@](#): > > If the survey is **deliberately** selecting for male “head of household”, and querying another adult only when that male isn’t available, obviously the results are going to be way skewed towards male heads of households, not equally representative of the adult population overall. Too true. But this, IMHO, isn’t _necessarily_ skewing the results, as, IIRC, males are the majority of gun owners, and therefore most likely to be the primary enactor of a DGU. For an accurate assessment of DGUs, don’t we have to query the portion of the population that actually owns a firearm, and is therefore most likely to use one in a DGU? Then weigh _that_ sample to reflect rates of gun/non-gun ownership in the overall population? Perhaps using several different weighting techniques to compare outcome? I admit that this would be “extremely difficult to impossible”, as there are no hard-and-fast numbers on rates of gun ownership, just various estimates from different gov’t agencies. But could this still be used to provide a baseline from which to extrapolate a probability range? > [@](#): > > It **was** more difficult, even for many criminals, to obtain alcohol during Prohibition than it is now; it **would** be more difficult, even for many criminals, to obtain guns if all guns were banned than it is now. And as the supply of bootleg (or later, cocaine and crack) went down, street price went _up_, and competing criminal organizations and gangs engaged in viciously brutal “turf wars” for control of both sources and markets, without regard for bystanders. It has typically been this type of (spectacularly) violent crime that politicians like to cite in their drive to enact new gun control laws, as well as the disturbingly more frequent (but still statistically insignificant) incidence of mass shootings. They could very well be helping to create the very criminal activity that they’re trying to stop. IMHO, we should stop the War On Drugs; just legalise ‘em and tax the livin’ shit out of 'em, like cigarettes. _Then_ see what happens to the violent crime rate. > [@](#): > > _Pace_ people like **TurboDog** ,… I’m missing the reference. 😕 > [@](#): > > …vicious treatment of criminals does **not** produce an appreciably safer and more just society (see, e.g., the recent Harper’s article about the horrific Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Phoenix, AZ), and gun advocates who support vicious treatment of criminals just pump up the “wacky gun nut” stereotype. I’m not sure exactly what treatment qualifies as “vicious” in your view; I couldn’t access on-line the _Harper’s_ article that you mentioned. I did find the [Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office](http://www.mcso.org/index.asp) homepage. That jogged my memory about “Sheriff Joe” from Dateline, 20/20 or 60 Minutes (I can’t remember which) and his somewhat novel concepts of “incarceration”. Not being a penologist, I’ll refrain from comment, but am willing to listen to your views on the matter, if you’d care to elaborate. He can’t be _all_ bad: [Maricopa Animal Safe Hospice](http://www.mcso.org/submenu.asp?file=Mash) My ideal “hard-line” would be to stop plea bargaining away firearm’s charges; and, if convicted, the maximum sentence on the firearms charge be served seperately from any other crime sentence (assault, rape, etc.). Project Exile has yielded some good results in Richmond, VA. It hasn’t stopped crime, but _violent_ crime has dropped considerably there. I used to think that “Truth In Sentencing” was a great idea, but have cooled towards it considerably in recent years as regards misdemeanors and non-violent felonies. I still like “Three-Strikes-You’re-Out” for _violent felony_ offenders. If the corrections system can’t rehabilitate, then let’s incarcerate until it can. And yes: I’d much rather see an effective system of true rehabilitation developed, as opposed to new systems of incarceration. > [@](#): > > “Mandatory” gun safety training in schools is too draconian for the numerous parents who prefer that their children not be involved with guns to any extent whatsoever, not even in safety training. After all, if parents can opt their kids out of sex ed on account of moral objections, they should be able to do the same with gun ed. Fair 'nuf. In that case, I would have the parent sign a statement declaring their declination of such training/education. Should their kid get VD, or get pregnant, or hurt themselves or someone else with a firearm, the parents have no one to blame but themselves. The training concept I advocate isn’t to encourage gun ownership; it wouldn’t even entail live-firing of a firearm. Just a block of instruction on the 10 Basic Rules of Firearm Safety, and where NOT to put your fingers if you happen to pick one up (and, as always, with the undelying message of "if you don’t know what you’re doing, DON’T pick one up!). It doesn’t even have to be a long or extended course; it could be a single afternoon’s instruction rolled into another class. Considering that approximately 48% of American households have a firearm in them, basic education on gun safety could conceivably cut _accidental_ deaths and injuries even further. I still like the “graphically realistic” approach and “guest lecturer” concept, though. It moves the real consequences of firearm abuse from abstract to concrete. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2001, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/63 "2001-04-17T00:27:38Z")
Sorry for the double reply, but I just realized something (and yes, I did preview). These two statements: > [@](#): > > Not being a penologist, I’ll refrain from comment :AND: > [@](#): > > If the corrections system can’t rehabilitate, then let’s incarcerate until it can. And yes: I’d much rather see an effective system of true rehabilitation developed, as opposed to new systems of incarceration. may seem contradictory, but that’s just because they’re poorly worded. I’ll refrain from commenting on what _forms_ of correction (incarceration) are more effective or beneficial to society and/or the incarcerated. But I do _feel_ that rehabilitation is possible, and much more socially desirable (in the long-term) than simply locking someone up for a period of time. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2001, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/64 "2001-04-17T17:58:22Z")
**ExT:** _For an accurate assessment of DGUs, don’t we have to query the portion of the population that actually owns a firearm, and is therefore most likely to use one in a DGU? Then weigh that sample to reflect rates of gun/non-gun ownership in the overall population?_ We could. Ideally, this should work out to exactly the same result as we’d get from querying a truly random sample of the adult population as a whole about their DGUs. But all kinds of potential sampling errors lurk (for example, **if** it’s true that gun owners are indeed more likely than non-gun-owners to make a false positive report of a DGU, then by sampling only gun owners, we bias our results in a way that won’t be corrected simply by weighting them to reflect gun ownership rates). Basically, the whole thing is really complicated. This is why I think Smith is right in complaining that all the results and critiques of results so far are essentially inconclusive, and why I don’t think the data currently supports **any** more definite general conclusion than “annual DGU incidence may be less than 100,000 and may be as high as a few million.” Other points: Never mind the reference to **Turbo Dog** , I was just flashing back to a debate with him in a previous gun thread. 🙂 No, I don’t have any other references about Sheriff Arpaio of Phoenix, but if even a quarter of what was said about him in that _Harper’s_ article is true, he’s a veritable poster child for brutality in the penal system, no matter how nice he may be to lost pets. We’re talking beating and maiming of suspects here—not just convicts, mind you, suspects—sadistic treatment of prisoners, childish stigmatizations like pink underwear for convicts, pretty much anything you could suggest in the way of ostentatiously ferocious and/or humiliating treatment to showcase how “tough on crime” Sheriff Joe is. And it hasn’t done a damn thing to reduce crime rates in Phoenix. I’m not in favor of “pampering” prisoners, but I totally believe that for the majority of them, especially non-violent criminals, treating them as human beings who still have rights, dignity, and potential for future good is **far** more productive than using them as punching bags to show off our own self-righteous vindictiveness. (That doesn’t mean we have to let them plea-bargain out of firearms charges, though; you may well be right on that point.) As for Prohibition analogies, the War on Drugs issue is a whole other debate; I’ll just point out that while I agree on the need to change our approach, especially by getting rid of mindless mandatory harsh sentencing for drug offenses, I think that legalization would have a whole set of problems of its own that would not necessarily constitute an improvement. You’re right that prohibition of alcohol in the 1920’s sparked a significant increase in certain types of crime and violence. But recall, that was because there was a genuine demand for the substance, among lots of otherwise law-abiding people, and the only sources of supply were illegal. Wherever there’s high demand for something in the general population beyond what the legal sources (if any) can fill, there are going to be illegal organizations moving in on the market, and fighting their turf wars with weapons rather than with competing television ads. But it’s not at all clear to me that demand for guns in the general population is as inelastic as the demand for alcohol was. Though I don’t advocate massive additional gun bans, for example, I have to say that looking at it realistically, I think that American gun owners could pretty easily accept quite a bit more banning (e.g., no low-quality “junk handguns”, no whatever-the-gun-scare-of-the-moment-is) before turning to illegal sources of supply. After all, there are still lots of guns available; just as U.S. booze drinkers aren’t rebelling en masse over the illegality of absinthe and creating a huge, violently criminal black market for it, I bet we’re still a long way away from the point where most law-abiding gun owners would consider their firearm purchase choices so intolerably restricted that they’d turn to the black market to increase them. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2001, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/65 "2001-04-18T03:07:40Z")
> [@](#): > > I bet we’re still a long way away from the point where most law-abiding gun owners would consider their firearm purchase choices so intolerably restricted that they’d turn to the black market to increase them. I’m not even worried about most gun owners; I’m scared shitless over a very small handfull. And if _I’m_ scared of these people… > [@](#): > > You’re right that prohibition of alcohol in the 1920’s sparked a significant increase in certain types of crime and violence. But recall, that was because there was a genuine demand for the substance, among lots of otherwise law-abiding people, and the only sources of supply were illegal. You’re right, bad analogy. Alcohol was a much more readily manufactured commodity (in fact, rather quick, if you didn’t mind the taste or the chance of going blind), with a short shelf life and fast turnaround of prodcut. Firearms, OTOH, are durable goods (if treated moderately well). If properly prepared for placement into storage, they can last a _very_ long time and be ready for use in short order. So even if the desire was as prevalent a desire for firearms, it would primarily be a one-time purchase. Perhaps bullets are a better one, as they are pretty much a one-time use item, like alcohol, unless you invest in some reloading equipment, which would be analogous to a production still. And there has not been, to my knowledge, any interest paid by pro-control advocates towards bullet reloading equipment or supplies. So don’t you think it’s possible to construct an interview questionnaire that might possibly catch a person fabricating a DGU on a survey? Questions, and slight variants of the same questions, to catch any potential untruths? Fire these questions off one after another, keep the pressure up and don’t let them think too long about their answer. > [@](#): > > We could. Ideally, this should work out to exactly the same result as we’d get from querying a truly random sample of the adult population as a whole about their DGUs. But all kinds of potential sampling errors lurk (for example, if it’s true that gun owners are indeed more likely than non-gun-owners to make a false positive report of a DGU, then by sampling only gun owners, we bias our results in a way that won’t be corrected simply by weighting them to reflect gun ownership rates). But if gun-ownership is in itself a demographic (predominance of certain geographic regions, races, ages and incomes), random sampling may underreport. Which is why I suggested the method that I did, with the “questionnaire” caveat above. I think a verbal interview could be constructed in such a way as to at least reduce, if not mitigate, response bias. I think someone, somewhere, is certainly intelligent enough, and hopefully unbiased enough, to concoct, conduct and analyze such a survey. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2001, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/66 "2001-04-18T06:06:19Z")
**ExTank** and **Kimstu** get on a roll! I’m impressed by the quality of the conversation. Apologies for not stopping by sooner. **ExTank:** I’d love to discuss my thoughts on handguns and concealment in a new thread. But one conversation at a time. Lets run with this one for a while longer. Since **Kimstu** gave an excellent reply to your objections to the Hemenway report, I’ll leave that lie. I don’t really have anything to add to that part. I don’t think that Hemenway is self-contradictory, and I think she explained that well enough, if you don’t agree, I try to address that in more detail. **Good job Kimstu** I agree that “43 times” statistic from Kellerman is likely to be an inflated figure. But, my feeling is that even if this number is **20 times** larger than reality, even a 2 to one chance of accident vs. self defense would be sufficient reason not have a gun in the house if I had children. Regarding your analogy of prohibition and the drug war, you make a good point about failure to stop the sale of guns completely. But I don’t think the analogy holds very well beyond that. Drugs and Alcohol are addictive, and thus the demand for them will be present regardless. Guns aren’t addictive, and I don’t believe that the demand would be high if they were illegal. Drugs and alchohol are also consumables, so there is a constant demand for additional quanties, which once again, wouldn’t apply to guns. I agree that the price would indeed go up, and if it goes up high enough, there will be incentive for smuggling. BUT, criminals will also be less likely to be able to obtain them, especially the low-rent criminals. Gun crime would almost certainly go down, and gun accidents would drop dramatically. Even so, gun prohibition is a non starter. The constition forbids it, and there is no real desire in the USA for total prohibition. > [@](#): > > I often find it amusing (and insulting) that people who have an avowed dislike of guns, who have never owned a gun, never fired a gun, know nothing about their operation, their myriad types, or even of the many existing different gun-control laws currently on the books pipe up with ad hominem rhetoric about gun owners and the “gun culture.” Fair enough. For the record. I do not own any gun. I have fired many. I grew up in El Paso, Tx, where plinking was a common pastime for a Saturday afternoon. I’ve fired a large range of guns from a 50 calibur black powder muzzle loader to a semi-auto AK47; also several different handguns both clip & revolver. I’m not very accurate with really powerful handguns, but I’m quite good with a rifle or .22 target pistol (if the target isn’t moving). My father-in-law would be considered gun-culture, and I wouldn’t call him a nut. He’s very safe IMO. He also doesn’t live anywhere near a town, while I do. If I lived out in the country like he does, I would quite likely own a shotgun and a rifle. I know very well that the bulk of the gun culture isn’t nuts, but I _also_ know that most of the gun culture doesn’t object to restrictions on gun purchases like background checks and waiting periods. For the honest, this is only an inconvenience. > [@](#): > > I may not toe the NRA party-line, but I am in agreement with them when they say that gun control does not equal crime control. True, gun control != crime control. That is, I believe, a strawman put up by the NRA to avoid addressing the real issue. The intent of gun control does is to reduce the _level of violence_ associated with crime. The amount of crime will probably not be changed, but the amount that results in death or serious bodily harm _may_ be reduced by making guns less available. I don’t believe that this is proven, bit it seems likely that fewer guns equals less violence. I’m not aware that this has been proven, however. > [@](#): > > Not being a sociologist or criminologist, I can’t speak with authority on the root cause of crime or criminal behavior, but I strongly suspect that the issue has more to do with civil rights, economic disparity, educational disparity, (perceived and/or actual) disparity in employment opportunity, conflicts of subcultures (or cultural isolation), and so on. I feel that addressing and resolving these issues will go a lot further towards reducing violent [firearm] crime than gun control or bans. Agreed. Careful, You’re starting to sound like a liberal ;). The best solution to violence is take away the causes of violence, absolutely. I personally believe that legalizing drugs would do more to end gun violence than anything else we can do. As for your talking points. I think you have an excellent perspective. Like Kim, I disagree with 5, except perhaps to allow it to be an elective (like drivers ed). Realistically, people who live in cities don’t really have any place to use firearms, so I would think option 5 only makes sense for rural schools. I see a potential problem with [1] because I think it would make stolen weapons easy to fence. I strongly agree with your option [2]. Just like driving a car, you shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun until you can prove you know how to use one safely. I also strongly agree with option [3]. In fact, this is my largest concern. It is just too easy currently for juveniles to get their hands on guns. We need to hold gun owners more accountable for preventing the unqualified from gaining access to their guns. When I was in junior high school, i vividly remember one of my friends showing me his father’s handgun and pulling it out of the drawer _(drawer!)_ where he kept it. We probably would have taken it out and fired it if we though we could get away with it. I was in the 4th grade… He also knew where the bullets were kept, and while we never put the two together, he and I used to carefully remove the bullets from the casings and then use the powder to make homemade fireworks. Sometimes I marvel that I lived to adulthood. :eek: tj ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2001, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/67 "2001-04-18T11:25:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* > > > [@](#): > > > > I will forever be amazed at the mentality that is convinced that possession of a firearm is the answer to the ineffectiveness or indifference of a police force > > I will forever be amazed at the amount of bleeding-heart rhetoric that is spewed by people who don’t like guns. > > Please educate me, O Wise One, how a gun, in the hands of someone properly trained and educated in it’s use, can not possibly be an effective defense against one who wishes you harm. Are you suggesting that all gun owners have this training? At any rate, I would posit that zoony wasn’t arguing that guns are completely ineffective, but rather that they aren’t the best solution. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2001, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/68 "2001-04-18T23:43:04Z")
**Tejota:** welcome back! > [@](#): > > Drugs and alchohol are also consumables, so there is a constant demand for additional quanties, which once again, wouldn’t apply to guns. Aggreed, which is why I changed the analogy to bullets. Like alcohol, bullets are a “use once” commodity. Spent casings can be collected for reloading a few times each, providing that you know how, have reloading equipment and reloading supplies (powder and bullets, or lead and lead molds). Alcohol can be made at home, providing you know how, have a still or brewing vat, and have the raw materials. You can even reuse the bottles. Where it breaks down is, as you say, bullets aren’t addictive (although I am constantly drawn _back_ to the firing range time and again for some inexplicable reason…🙂 ) > [@](#): > > Careful, You’re starting to sound like a liberal. 😉 SSSHHHH! I have a certain reputation to defend as one of those “inbred, red-neck, hick gun nuts!” > [@](#): > > The intent of gun control is to reduce the level of violence associated with crime. The amount of crime will probably not be changed, but the amount that results in death or serious bodily harm may be reduced by making guns less available. I don’t believe that this is proven, bit it seems likely that fewer guns equals less violence. I’m not aware that this has been proven, however. The cookie-cutter response is that criminals aren’t too concerned about gun control laws. They seem to have no reservations against robbery, rape, assault, murder, manufacturing, transporting or distributing of controlled substances, all of which have extensively detailed laws prohibiting them. Expanding gun control laws at this point (further restrictions on type, ammo, etc) will begin to approach infringement on law-abiding gun owners. This just ain’t the party line, it mine as well. Which is the reason for my 6 Points, several posts above. I’d rather see an owner initiative rather than a government mandate. So “Gun Prohibition” will have more affect on hobbyist and recreational shooters like me than it will on criminals, IMHO. And there _are_ a few groups out there that would dearly love to ban all guns. They’re now smart enough to realize that coming right out and saying so will get them nowhere, so they advocate the “incrementally increasing restrictions” strategy, always couching their terms as “reasonable steps”. **“Steps”** imply ascending, decending or progressive movement towards a goal or destination. This may sound a bit paranoid, but I’m willing to bet that _you_ weren’t whacked over the head with a cardboard sign, spit on and called a “Gun Loving Murdering Motherfucker” at a convention. And no, I didn’t shoot the bastard; the Charlotte, N.C., P.D. was alert and responded quickly, hauling the miscreant in on simple assault charges. As the incident was witnessed by the police _and_ caught on a tape, I just had to fill out a statement and let a medic look me over. My objection to waiting periods has nothing to do with being made to wait; anything worth having is worth waiting for. But waiting periods haven’t been proved to have any effectiveness towards reducing crime, suicides, or catching illegal buyers in the act; with the current state of criminal record keeping, taking three days to complete a point-of-sale background check won’t be any more thorough than an instant one. If at such time as record keeping systems improve, or enhanced databases are constructed, _then the same will still hold true._ Waiting periods are designed, IMHO, for one purpose only: to backdoor ban gun shows. Which are **not** a major (or even minor) source of illegal firearms. The last firearm I purchased (last Sep.) was at a gun show. I filled out the paperwork, and the dealer called NICS on his cell phone and submitted my purchase info. I waited about two hours, due to heavy volume of calls. I could conceivably have had to wait several days, as NICS routinely breaks down. This would have been bad, as the dealer had come from around Tyler (Texas) to attend this largish show in east Dallas County. No sweat. I sat and talked calibers and loads with the dealer and several other customers and browsers, drank a coke, swapped business cards, walked about a bit and came back. The check came up clean, of course, and I paid the dealer, who knocked $25 off the price of the pistol, waived the 4.5% credit card surcharge, _and_ threw in an extra magazine, just because I’m a hecuva guy. > [@](#): > > Realistically, people who live in cities don’t really have any place to use firearms, so I would think option 5 only makes sense for rural schools. Really? I’ve rarely had any problem finding a place to go shooting (indoor and/or outdoors ranges) anywhere I’ve gone, and my job takes me to a lot of different places. For instance, I hadn’t been to Springfield, IL, in over 15 years. But at the recent Spiffled Dopefest, I found an indoor shooting range with a simple internet search, and myself, **thinksnow** and **Weirddave** went shooting that Saturday afternoon. A “place to go shooting” may be closer than you think, even in New York City or Los Angeles. > [@](#): > > I see a potential problem with [1] because I think it would make stolen weapons easy to fence. > [@](#): > > [1.] Don’t ban private transactions, but “flag for investigation” any non-licensed person engaged in regular/routine purchases from a licensed dealer. A person buying several guns a week, every week, may just be building an extensive collection. They may also be reselling on the side to others who cannot legally purchase a firearm. A quiet look-see at these individuals may help reduce “strawman” buyers. I don’t quite see how; this recommendation is geared towards stopping the potential “strawman” buyer _at the point of sale: the gun store licensed dealership._ Just to make sure that we’re on the same sheet of music, a “strawman” buyer is a person, legally capable of buying firearms, who purchases with the intent of reselling to parties who are **not** legally capable of buying firearms. This is illegal, across the board, by the Gun Control Act of 1968. These “strawmen” would have a regular record of purchase (lots of hits at the FBI’s NICS) and should be flagged for, as I said, a quiet “look-see” by the ATF or the FBI. They _may_ just be buying lots of guns for themselves (God alone knows why, but it’s their money :rolleyes: ), but they may also be reselling them just as fast as they can find a buyer that won’t stand the scrutiny of a background check. The NRA is shooting itself in the foot by objecting to the FBI’s trying to use these NICS records to attempt to identify patterns of gun trafficking. Most gun stores that I know of (including Pawn Shops that buy/sell/trade firearms) that buy guns from your average Joe _have_ to be extremely cautious, as a “trafficking in stolen merchandise” charge is going to put an end to their business, most likely their livelihood. A police report of a stolen firearm will most likely be circulated to local gun stores, with make/model/caliber specifics. The last time I _sold_ an unwanted firearm to a gun store (Sep. 99), they ran a NICS check on me to _sell._ No sweat. We talked guns and ammo for the 20 minutes it took for the check to come back (clean again, of course). Of course, if a thief takes their stolen firearms out of the local jurisdiction… Which is the impetus of #3; as most firearms used by criminals (around the 60% rate, IIRC) are stolen from the homes of lawful gun owners, making owners criminally and possibly civilly liable for their firearms in the event of theft would help curtail that particular channel by encouraging owners to pay more attention to adequate storage and security. But as I said before, this needs a common sensical, even-handed approach in enforcement, and has a potential for abuse by anti-gun politicians. Reducing accidents is really just a benny; accidental death rates from firearms are ridiculously low already, compared to other forms of accidental death. And an accident is, by definition, preventable, so firearms accidents shouldn’t have any greater signifigance than their ranking among _all_ accidental deaths. Each of my 6 points address a specific issue, but they also interact with each other. Better training reduces accidents (2 & 5); better record keeping catches criminals (thiefs and “strawmen”) (1 & 4), either directly by denial or by aiding law enforcement; enhanced enforcement makes firearm trafficking and gun crimes a “losing proposition” (this isn’t one of “the 6”, but I addressed it in a subsequent post); enhanced security reduces a major supply _and_ also reduces accidents (3 & 6). **sturmhauke:** actually, _not enough_ gun owners have this training. Too many (I would guess at least a simple majority) buy a gun with some vague notion that it’s somehow going to make them safe. They never bother to read the instruction manual, which almost always includes the basics of firearms safety, but they also rarely bother to take their new firearm to a range and shoot it, to become familiar with it. Maybe once, when they first purchase it, but after that, it most likely sits in a nighstand or a dresser drawer, or wedged up under a matress. Additionally, they have a lot of Hollywierd misconceptions about the mechanics of self defense. While most never have to use their firearm (most likely a handgun) in self defense, the few who do are probably a greater danger to themselves and their loved ones than the criminal through sheer ignorance. But **SPOOFE’S** contention is correct: the criminal who faces a potential victim armed with even a little knowledge, a little training and a gun is going to have a significantly reduced chance of sucesfully victimizing them; against a person with even “average” knowledge and training (self defense course), he’s going to be one sorry SOB. But maybe not for long :D. (that’s a joke! don’t go ballistic about “bloodthirsty gun owners”; I just have a slightly twisted sense of humor). ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2001, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/69 "2001-04-19T00:02:16Z")
**Tejota** said to **Ex Tank** ; > [@](#): > > Careful, You’re starting to sound like a liberal . Dang! I was gonna say that. ☹ I have nothing to add, I’m learning. I gotta say, though, that is about the best debate I’ve read on the SBMB. Should be required reading for participation in GD. With some editing (heh heh). 🙂 Peace, mangeorge ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2001, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/70 "2001-04-20T02:55:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ExTank \* > HCI’s seriously cooked **“13 Children A Day”** [die from handguns] figure. From [The Department of Health and Human Services](http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2000pres20000724.html): > [@](#): > > Firearm deaths from children and teens dropped significantly between 1997 and 1998, according to a new mortality statistics report released today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The report shows 3,792 children and adolescents under age 20 died in 1998 from firearms, down 10 percent from 4,223 in 1997, and down 35 percent from the high of 5,833 in 1994. **this is a decrease from 16 deaths per day in 1994 to 10 deaths per day in 1998.** My emphasis. (These are the most recent figures that I could find.) So, at one time, it was actually MORE THAN “13 Children per day,” **ExTank**. If HCI is at fault, it’s that they don’t adjust their claims to reflect new data. I suggest that you do the same. Do you think that ten per day is acceptable? (Please remember that these numbers are averages. That’s why you may go for days without hearing of a child killed by a gun. And then, at the end of the year, you learn that nearly 4,000 children died so you could keep your guns.) Got anything to say? ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2001, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/71 "2001-04-20T02:58:22Z")
[The Department of Health and Human Services](http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2000pres/20000724.html) Sorry; this should work. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2001, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/72 "2001-04-20T04:15:10Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by jab1 \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ExTank \* > HCI’s seriously cooked **“13 Children A Day”** [die from handguns] figure. From [The Department of Health and Human Services](http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2000pres20000724.html): > [@](#): > > Firearm deaths from children and teens dropped significantly between 1997 and 1998, according to a new mortality statistics report released today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The report shows 3,792 children and adolescents under age 20 died in 1998 from firearms, down 10 percent from 4,223 in 1997, and down 35 percent from the high of 5,833 in 1994. \*\* Why would we lump 18 and 19 year olds in the same group as children? I understand that at adolescent is simply someone who has undergone puberty without reaching full maturity. However it seems to me that maybe we need to refer to people who are 18 or older as adults since that’s what they are legally. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I suggest that you do the same. Do you think that ten per day is acceptable? (Please remember that these numbers are averages. That’s why you may go for days without hearing of a child killed by a gun. And then, at the end of the year, you learn that nearly 4,000 children died so you could keep your guns.) > > Got anything to say? \*\* Nobody dies so that I can keep my guns just like nobody gets brain damage so I can keep my super glue. Of all those “children” that died how many deaths were the result of accidental shootings? How many were suicides? How many “child” homocide victims were involved in criminal activities? I don’t feel any guilt over their deaths just because I happen to own a few guns. Should I? Marc ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2001, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/73 "2001-04-20T05:24:57Z")
> [@](#): > > The report shows 3,792 children and adolescents under age 20 died in 1998 from firearms… I’m curious… how many people under the age of 13 are killed each day from guns? \>13 is what I’d consider a “child” to be. Note, please, **jab1** , that the reason why some people are derisive of the “13 children a day” stat isn’t because of the number, but because of the reference to “children”. It’s meant to appeal to emotion, not to reason. “Won’t someone PLEASE think of the children?!?” ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2001, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/74 "2001-04-20T12:40:46Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by **MGibson** :_ > Of all those “children” that died how many deaths were the result of accidental shootings? How many were suicides? How many “child” homocide victims were involved in criminal activities? That’s kinda the reason for the concern, Marc. Although I agree with you that these kids\* didn’t die “so you could keep your guns” (a bit of provocative hyperbole, there), I’m disturbed by the fact that ten Americans under age 20 die each day as the result of pieces of lead being fired into their bodies. Should I be less disturbed if most of the shootings were “accidental”, or the result of suicides? Should it bother me less when an 18 year old is killed than it does when a 13 year old is? It would be wrong for the country to overreact to this kind of fact by banning handguns. However, it’s equally wrong to deny the relevance of these deaths to the question of gun _control_. I would urge you to consider **ExTank** ’s approach, which is to recognize the problems but lobby for _reasonable approaches_ which do not endanger 2nd Amendment rights. \*\*\*\*\*[sub]Yes, at the ripe age of 42, I consider anyone under 20 to be a “kid.” Sue me.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2001, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/75 "2001-04-20T15:33:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > _originally posted by **MGibson** :_ > > Of all those “children” that died how many deaths were the result of accidental shootings? How many were suicides? How many “child” homocide victims were involved in criminal activities? > > That’s kinda the reason for the concern, Marc. Although I agree with you that these kids\* didn’t die “so you could keep your guns” (a bit of provocative hyperbole, there), \*\* Not a provacative hyperbole that I appreciated. It makes me, and other gun owners, sound like heartless bastards that don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone else. I don’t see how a statement like that is designed to do anything but smear the oppositions character. But maybe I’m just being overly sensitive. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I’m disturbed by the fact that ten Americans under age 20 die each day as the result of pieces of lead being fired into their bodies. Should I be less disturbed if most of the shootings were “accidental”, or the result of suicides? Should it bother me less when an 18 year old is killed than it does when a 13 year old is? \*\* It must have some difference to someone otherwise we wouldn’t lump adults (18-19) with children. If it didn’t make a difference why would the CDC specifically single out “children?” So far as the accidents go I have to admit that I’m not all that concerned about them because they are very low. > [@](#): > > \*\* > It would be wrong for the country to overreact to this kind of fact by banning handguns. However, it’s equally wrong to deny the relevance of these deaths to the question of gun _control_. \*\* Personally I think there are other factors which have greater relevance. Like I asked earlier, how many of those child homocide victims were involved in serious criminal activities? Maybe the war on drugs has more to do with violent criminal youths then the availability of firearms. And of course all of those people who committed suicide obviously have some sort of crippling emotional or other mental problems. But I’ve got to admit that I don’t worry about suicides when it comes to gun control ideas. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I would urge you to consider **ExTank** ’s approach, which is to recognize the problems but lobby for _reasonable approaches_ which do not endanger 2nd Amendment rights. \*\* Some of his ideas seemed reasonable to me and others did not. But even ExTank had some reservations about some of his suggestions being perverted by those who just want to get rid of all guns. I strongly disagreed with his idea of a safety card being required to purchase a firearm as well as having to produce one for the police if I call 911 and they want to see it. I already think we have more then enough laws on the books regarding gun control. > [@](#): > > \*\* > \*\*\*\*\*[sub]Yes, at the ripe age of 42, I consider anyone under 20 to be a “kid.” Sue me.[/sub] \*\* That’s fine, I certainly don’t consider a 20 year old to be fully mature. But I don consider them to be adults. Marc ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2001, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/76 "2001-04-20T18:50:43Z")
You appealed to reason instead of emotion here, **SPOOFE** : > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* > **Somebody breaks into your home. That’s not a threat? When does it become a threat? When they tie you up? When they rape your wife? When you’re dead?** How often does this happen, I wonder? I’d bet that most people live to a ripe old age without EVER experiencing this scenario. I base this on the fact that homicide is not the leading cause of death for all people. (For certain groups, yes. For all, no.) > [@](#): > > No, they [DGU researchers] treat ALL the incidents of gun use as reported by gun owners as if each one was **warranted**. What do we call this, class? “_A priori_ reasoning, teacher!” What does it mean? “It means that they were trying to prove a conclusion they had already formed. You’re supposed to make your conclusions AFTER you have your data, not before.” Very good. How should they have conducted their survey? SPOOFE? “I dunno…” Jab? “They should have asked everyone if they had used a gun in the past year, and why. They they would sort the statistics according to the reasons given. Unfortunately, even a person who is guaranteed anonymity might lie if they had ever used their gun illegally, just to be safe.” Which means? “This kind of surveying is worthless. It depends too much on people’s honesty. There probably is no way to find out how often people use their guns legally short of putting everyone under surveillance, _a la_ George Orwell’s _1984_. And that would deprive us of all our other civil liberties.” > [@](#): > > **Gun ownership just needs to be regulated in the RIGHT way, not in EVERY way.** A 30-day waiting period is too long? Why? A lot of people go their entire adult lives without owning a gun. Why can’t you go 30 days? ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2001, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/77 "2001-04-20T19:13:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > You appealed to reason instead of emotion here, **SPOOFE** This is supposed to read “…emotion instead of reason…” This board has gotten so slow, I can’t use “Preview” anymore because it takes up too much of my allotted time. I may go rant in The Pit. (Assuming I can even get in there!) What I have to say is not fit for ATMB. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2001, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/78 "2001-04-20T23:16:19Z")
**jab1:** considering the moderate and civilised tone of the debate so far, I’ll assume the wording of your question isn’t actually hostile, and use the response to further illustrate something I mentioned to **Tejota** and **Kimstu** earlier. Using the link you provided, I found a Health & Human Services Press Release compiled from data supplied by the CDC and NCHS. In spite of the blaring headline for the article, it also addressed other leading causes of death. But the spew of numbers is largely meaningless without some form of context for comparison. But let’s first address the multiple definitions of “child” that the NCHS uses. In an on-line report titled [“America’s Children: Key National Indicators to Well-Being 2000”](http://childstats.gov/ac2000/ac00.asp) at the NCHS’s home page, the section [Introductory Material](http://childstats.gov/ac2000/intro.asp) states in the sub-section **“What Groups Of Children Are Included In This Repoprt”:** > [@](#): > > In order to convey a comprehensive understanding of child well-being, the report looks at the status of all children under age 18 living in the United States. A few indicators provide data on older youth and young adults (persons ages 18 to 24 years). In most cases throughout the report, the word “children” refers to any person under age 18 living in a civilian or noninstitutionalized setting in the United States. And yet another report from the same agency, [Deaths: Final Data for 1998](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_11.pdf) breaks firearm mortality along differnet age lines. The reason for this is not stated, but the age groups in question, shown on Tables 16, 17 and 18 (pgs. 67 thru 71, incl.) break from the demographic cited in your link. The ages 15 to 19 also includes legal adults. 40% of this demographic (2 out of 5) are legal adults, and shouldn’t be included as children for the purposes of counting. To read this report, download (for free) [Adobe Acrobat](http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html) The **Firearm Mortality** section of that report states on pgs 9 and 10 that: > [@](#): > > In 1998 a total of 30,708 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (tables 16 and 18). This number was 5.3 percent lower than the 32,436 deaths in 1997. Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component causes, accounted for 56.7 and 39.4 percent, respectively, of all firearm injury deaths in 1998. The number of firearm deaths among those aged 19 years and under was 10.2 per-cent lower than in 1997. This number has decreased each year since 1994, a peak year, resulting in an overall decline of 35 percent between 1994 and 1998. Despite the decrease, in 1998 **children under 20 years** still accounted for 12.3 percent of all firearm deaths. So with a floating definition of “child”, it’s easy to produce inflated numbers. It’s also easy to inflate numbers when suicides are included, as there has been no study that I know of (and I’ve done some looking on the subject) proving that there is a causal relationship between firearm ownership rates and suicides. There has been some study done on that particular subject, but I somehow doubt that you’d believe me (since I know you won’t believe the study’s author) when I say that Japan, with a firearm ownership rate of about .5%, has a suicide rate 38% higher than the United States. How can this be if firearm ownership is directly related to suicide? My answer is that it isn’t. The [International Journal of Epidemiology](http://ije.oupjournals.org/) has an interesting article backing this up, though. In Volume 27, Number 2 (April 1998), three members of the CDC’s Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, **Krug, Powell & Dahlberg** published an article titled **“Firearm Related Deaths In The United States And 35 Other High- And Upper-Middle Income Countries”**. The PDF version can be found [here](http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf), but requires [Adobe Acrobat](http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html), which is a free download. Be patient; PDF extracts take some time, depending upon the quality of your server and the size of the file. Pay particular attention to page 3 of their study, and compare suicide rates with firearms, and total suicide rates, between America and Japan, Finland, France, Austria, Belgium and Denmark. Can anyone tell me why Scotland and England/Wales would be listed separately? Aren’t they a “United Kingdom”? Note also that Australia and new Zealand have comparable (to the USA) suicide rates and lower rates of gun ownership/stricter gun control laws. So I feel that in a debate about firearms death rates, suicides should be excluded as their is no proven correlation between firearm ownership rates and suicide rates; that firearms are the prevalent method of choice in countries with high firearm ownership rates (about 61% of suicides in the USA are with firearms) is not in dispute by myself or the majority of scholars studying firearms and deaths. But that is a far cry from saying that firearms **cause** suicides. **jab1:** going back to the article you linked, and the source for that article that I linked, let’s crunch some numbers and look at table 16, the data table for **"Firearm Mortality"** There were 30,708 Firearm Fatalities in the United States in 1998, broken down as follows: [sub]extracted from table 16[/sub] **Suicides:** 17,424 **Homicides:** 12,102 **Accidents:** 866 **Undetermined:** 316 This yields 30,709, but I’ll not quibble. Looking at the raw numbers, it would seem that White Males are Natural Born Killers, with the highest totals in all categories. But all is **not** as it seems, as a cursory examination of **Table 17. Death rates and age-adjusted death rates for injury by firearms, by age, race, and sex: United States, 1998** will show. Except for suicides (which I’m not really counting; see above): [ul] [**1.**]White Males have accident rates equal to **all** Blacks (male and female), [**2.**]Black Males have accident rates _80% higher_ than White Males. [**3.**]Black Males have homicide rates that are _725% higher_ than White Males. [**4.**]Blacks overall have a _616%_ higher rate than Whites. [**5.**]Counting suicides, White Males have a _334% higher rate_ than _ **all other categories combined.** _[/ul] **Looking at "Children"** Going back to table 16 and counting _all_ firearms fatalities among _all_ children (male and female) ages 0-14 (we’ll deal with the next higher age category in a moment) yields the astonishingly low total number of **612**. Not quite a 2 a day rate. But the next age category, ages 15-19, has an across-the-board _420% increase over **all the previous age categories combined!** _ While it may be possible to interpolate the age 15-19 category to exclude 18 and 19 year olds (legal adults), **Kimstu,** my personal statistical math teacher, would be quick to point out (and rightly so) that the distribution of deaths among all the ages in that category is unknown, so extracting a portion of those deaths would be problematic, at best. Without raw data, any accurate interpolation within that category is impossible. My question is this: **Why The Sudden And Pronounced Spike In Firearms Deaths?** Simply saying “Guns Did It!” is puerile and, IMHO, a criminal diversion bordering on depraved indifference from the underlying social issues I cited in my previous post. **Looking at "Accidents"** Once again looking at table 16, we can do some simple arithmetic and see that, in 1998, ages 0-14, there were a total of 121 child deaths attributable to firearms accidents. Once again, inclusion of the [mixed adult/non-adult] next higher age category 15-19 pushes the number up to 262, _a 116% increase_ over all of the previous age categories combined. Another view of accidental deaths is provided by [The National Safety Council](http://www.nsc.org/), on this chart [Injury Facts: Deaths Due To Unintentional Injuries, 1998](http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/99008.htm). Note that the NSC’s numbers don’t necesarily coincide with the NCHS’s. Also note that the NCHS combines numerous causes of death into broad categories, as seen on the various tables they provide. While the NSC don’t provide a nice summary table, I’ve done so: **Five Leading Causes Of Accidental Death, Broken Down By Age Categories:** **Ages 0-4** \*\*1.\*\*Automobile: 800 \*\*2.\*\*Drowning: 500 \*\*3.\*\*Fires/Burns: 310 \*\*4.\*\*Suffocation: 140 \*\*5.\*\*Falls: 80 **Ages 5-14** \*\*1.\*\*Automobile: 1,800 \*\*2.\*\*Drowning: 350 \*\*3.\*\*Fires/Burns: 260 \*\*4.\*\*Falls: 80 \*\*5.\*\*Firearms: 80 **Ages 15-24** \*\*1.\*\*Automobiles: 9,300 \*\*2.\*\*Drowning: 650 \*\*3.\*\*Poison (S & L): 600 \*\*4.\*\*Firearms: 310 \*\*5.\*\*Falls: 240 Again, **jab1,** we see _significant increases_ in 5 categories (Automobiles, Drownings, Poisonings, Firearms and Falls) at age 15. So I have two questions for you: **1.** Why the sudden jump from one age category to the next? **2.** Why is greater social weight imparted to firearms accidents than to other types of accidents? My guesses: **1.** Teens become more adventurous the older they get, leading to more accidents. **2a.** There is a gun counter-culture that abhors guns and gun-owners; **2b.** The media gives them disproportionately higher emphasis with sensationalistic reporting. **Kimstu:** you chided me earlier for accusing the Clinton Administration of having an anti-gun agenda, and ignoring or fabricating evidence to promote their cause (post dated 04/14/01, 1:32 PM) I made that assertion in response to **Tejota’s** post asking me how many NRA types [pro-gun] might fabricate DGUs to skew the statistics favorably to their purported cause. Well here we have it. In spite of overwhelming evidence of special risk groups, divided along identifiable age and racial boundaries, instead of trying to craft and implement a constructive social policy aimed at helping those specific groups, William Jefferson Clinton and his administration used every firearm death that made national-level news to agitiate for more gun control laws. With that kind of lopsided perspective on the issue, I feel more than justified in calling into question the motives of any government agency under his administration tasked with compiling numbers. **Jab1’s** cite that started this part of this debate shows it clearly: the report deals with a multitude of issues, yet is blaringly titled “Gun Deaths Among Children And Teens Drop Sharply”. It even has a quote from CDC Director Jeffrey P. Koplan, M.D., M.P.H., a well known supporter of various anti-gun causes: > [@](#): > > “Firearm deaths are preventable and we must continue to work tirelessly to avoid these deaths,” Where is his sympathy for victims of automobile deaths? Are they not preventable too? Of HIV? Or of Heart Disease, which kills _16 times_ more people than _all_ Homicides and Legal Interventions? Can’t we reduce or prevent more instances of Heart Disease? Donna Shala is quoted as saying: > [@](#): > > “Each day, 10 children and teens are killed by firearms, and that is 10 too many,” 10 X 365.25 = 3,652.5. Not according to the National Safety Council; not even according to the CDC’s NCHS report, unless you include suicides, which I think I made a pretty strong case against inclusion in this comparison, _and_ the specious category “ages 15-19” which is dubious as it includes ages that are not, by legal definition, “children”. Again I ask: Where is her concern for the **7.1** children (ages 0-14) killed _accidentally_ everyday in automobiles? The **4.1** children (ages 0-14) who drown _accidentally_ everyday? The **2.2** children (ages 0-14) who burn to death _accidentally_ everyday? Why the singular focus on the **1.7** children (ages 0-14) who die everday from firearms (or **1.3** , discounting suicides)? Accidents are preventable, by definition; assuming on her part that the entire spectrum of human nature can somehow be accounted for is disingenuous and arrogant. I would be remiss by not stating that I do not actually believe that frmr. Pres. Clinton, Donna Shalala or Dr. Kaplan aren’t concerned about the health and well-being of all of America’s children, if not the world’s. But it seems to me that inflated numbers, fatuous statements and inflamatory rhetoric are **not** going to do a _goddamned_ thing to solve any problems. **jab1,** the gist of my little exercise (provided you even read it all) is to illustrate a point I made earlier in the debate about complex problems and simplistic answers. You ask “why not wait 30 days?”. What would that accomplish? If 30 days accomplishes _anything_, why not wait 180 days? 365 days? ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2001, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/79 "2001-04-21T00:11:08Z")
Whew! > [@](#): > > ExTank > “Mostly Harmless :D” Yeah, unless provoked! 😃 Peace, mangeorge ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2001, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222/80 "2001-04-21T01:07:45Z")
> [@](#): > > What do we call this, class? > > “A priori reasoning, teacher!” And what do we call THIS, class? “Throwing around random terms as if they mean anything, without providing any evidence to back up that claim!” You haven’t provided any evidence that the research conclusions were reached in advance and the data skewed as a result. All you provide is a cutesy little play-by-play of nonsense. > [@](#): > > “They should have asked everyone if they had used a gun in the past year, and why. They they would sort the statistics according to the reasons given. Unfortunately, even a person who is guaranteed anonymity might lie if they had ever used their gun illegally, just to be safe.” In other words, YOU have already reached a conclusion about guns, so therefore any evidence that indicates otherwise is immediately suspect and should be discarded. And you’re one to talk about _a priori_ reasoning. ::snort:: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-individuals-yep-another-gun-debate/61222.md?page=5)