The police have no duty to protect individuals (yep, another gun debate)

Great Debates
21

Actually, SPOOFE, there is substantial evidence to suggest that even the “low-end” figure of 700,000 defensive gun uses per year cited by Kleck is a gross overestimate, more than ten times higher than the real rate. This article in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology discusses Gary Kleck’s and Marc Gertz’s original 1995 article, “Armed Resistance to Crime: the Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun”, where the 2.5 million estimate is put forward. The article I linked to contains a critique of the earlier article by David Hemenway, a reply by Kleck and Gertz, and a summary evaluation by Tom Smith; so it’s quite a nice survey overall of the different arguments on defensive gun use.

The main objection of Kleck and Gertz’s critics is that their analysis contains substantial overestimation biases that they don’t adequately correct for. First, the “social desirability response” bias—i.e., the tendency of someone who believes in gun use for self-defense (to the extent of purchasing a gun for self-defense) to assume in an uncertain situation that he/she has in fact succeeded in using a gun for self-defense, thus validating his/her own wisdom and good judgement. (This is sort of the same effect that causes the vast majority of people to believe that they’re good drivers, although accident statistics show that many in fact are not.)

The second problem is a statistical effect of the fact that the authors are attempting to estimate the occurrence of an extremely rare event—even if there were three million defensive gun uses per year, in a nation of some 300 million people, that’s still only 1% of individuals. That means that for every hundred individuals reporting their defensive gun use in the past year, 99 run the risk of giving a false positive (by lying, misremembering, being mistaken, whatever) while only one runs any risk of giving a false negative. That’s a huge bias in favor of accidental overestimation, which when extrapolated to the final numbers can give a serious inflation of the actual rate of occurrence. Simply taking the average of your “high-end” and “low-end” estimates as produced by such a flawed methodology doesn’t come close to guaranteeing that you’ll eliminate these biases.

Specific objections to the details of the Kleck/Gertz analysis can be found in the linked article (as well as other sources such as Tim Lambert’s discussions of DGU figures), or I can summarize more of them here if anybody’s interested. All of this, of course, does not mean that privately owned guns can’t be useful for self-defense. It does mean that estimates of actual defensive gun use in the millions or hundreds of thousands per year in the U.S. should be regarded very cautiously.

22

Nor do Kleck and Gertz, as far as I can tell, take into account the many times when the self-defense accomplished with the assistance of a gun would have been accomplished just as effectively without the gun, such as by calling the police, threatening to pummel the perceived criminal, or yelling “Hey, get away from my bike, asshole!”

Yes, there are times when only a gun would prevent a criminal from perpetrating his foul deed. Yet it is highly misleading to imply that 2.5 million crimes would have occurred except for the defensive use of a gun, when many (and I’m guessing the clear majority) would have been prevented even without the gun.

23

just want to check in and say i’m impressed with the focus of the op. i agree that cops can’t “protect” individuals or specific groups unless they’ve been privately hired to do so and that the second amendment does provide a means of self-protection. the op does not address peripheral gun issues like whether or not there are better and/or safer means of protection probably because it’s not relevant to his argument.

24

Of course it’s relevant. This is, after all, “another gun debate.” :slight_smile: If you’re going to use self-defense as a justification for private gun ownership, you have to know how effective guns are at deterring crime, whether there other consequence of gun ownership, and what the alternatives are, then weigh all these factors to see which policy makes the best sense.

Not that any of those factors make any difference to the Second Amendment, but I assume we’re arguing policy here, not the state of the law.

25

The OP is saying that since police are there to enforce the laws rather than protect citizens, that the intent of the 2nd amendment is to allow citizens lethal force to protect themselves.

But the 2nd amendment says something else entirely:

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The 2nd amenment is about the security of the state. NOT of individual citizens. I don’t see how you can argue any differently without, er… editing the parts of the 2nd amendment that don’t fit your hypothesis.

tj

26

Tejota:
I can correct that fallacy by just emphasizing the second part of the Amendment. Watch: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” And no, I don’t have to edit a monkey-loving thing. All I have to do is point out three things:
[ul]
[li]Rampant crime is a threat to a free state.[/li][li]The police cannot be seen as a perfect defense against crime.[/li][li]The Constitution forbids the government from forbidding the people from keeping and bearing arms.[/li][/ul]
So the Second Amendment in its entirety supports the pro-gun argument. I have yet to see a Constitutional Amendment that supports the gun-control argument.

Barbarian:
Ok, you can defend yourself with kevlar and expensive glass. Good luck. That choice does not invalidate my right to keep and bear arms.

27

Hey Derleth, do you want to debate the utility of guns as a means of self-defense, or do you just want a soapbox to declare that the Second Amendment (arguably) gives you the (personal) right to bear (certain kinds of) arms? 'Cause personally, I think the former is likely to be way more interesting than the latter, not to mention much more suited to GD than IMHO.

28

**

That’s kinda funny. Of course the rest of the world, including the United States, doesn’t view Canada as a big joke. On the other hand who ever thinks of Canada at all? Don’t get me wrong I’ve met a lot of Canadians here, in Texas oddly enough, and with the exception of one person I’ve liked every one of them.

**

A firearm is a very effective weapon. Those that deny they are effective shouldn’t complain about them being dangerous. They’re so effective that police officers use them to defend themselves and at times others. If someone attacks me and I shoot them then I am acting in a completely defensive role not an offensive one.

**

Well what you choose to rely on is your business. There are a lot of people who can’t afford bars on the windows, polylaminated windows, or steel door frames. There are people who may be renting apartments or houses who do not wish to spend that kind of cash on a rental. Furthermore all of those things won’t do anyone a bit of good if they are accosted outside of their home. Like at the mall. And I think if you look up the number of accidental shootings you’ll see that it is quite low even in the United States.

**

Gee, I don’t worry about my wife getting all “hormonal” and shooting me in the head. If you’ve got to worry about your family getting violent then I hope you seek some professional help.

**

Ha ha ha! How expensive are kevlar inserts, how heavy are they, are they uncomfortable? I’m sorry but that sounds like a really ridiculous solution. I don’t know what the odds are of outdrawing him but at least I might have a chance if I have a gun. Without one I’m pretty much at his mercy.

**

I live in Plano, Texas and the police have a pretty good response time. Every time I’ve called them they did not arrive until after the action had ended. I will never ever rely on the police for protection. Likewise I wouldn’t rely on my firearm as the first level of defense. Lights around the house with decent locks are a great way to go. But when push comes to shove a firearm is an effective weapon.

Marc

29

Bzzzt! wrong answer! thank you for playing!

You are completely ignoring the first clause of that sentence. Call it what you like, but the second ammendment is the WHOLE thing, not just the parts that say what you want.

True. But even without the right to own guns, crime would not be ‘rampant’. This is a strawman.

Also true, and just as irrelevant as your first bullet item. Gun ownership isn’t a perfect defense, nor would banning guns be a perfect defense.

Also true. Your third consecutive strawman. Perhaps if you would actually address the argument we could get somewhere. <sigh> Regulation isn’t forbidding, and even if it was, this is also irrelevant to the OP.

Nonsense. The Second amendment prohibits the banning of guns, it explicitly permits regulation if read in its entirety.

But all of this is beside the point.

30

Barbarian…

I don’t need to use that argument. I simply need to point out that A: there’s a good chance that a criminal will have a gun, and B: the best defense against a gun is another gun. It doesn’t even need to be fired… hell, it doesn’t even need to be pointed at the intruder.

Tejota…

Says the guy who was emphasizing parts of the Amendment for HIS own argument. You should ease back on the accusations of of “Ignorance”, pal.

The fact remains that the 2nd Amendment says that the Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It states plain as day that the right to bear arms is a right of the PEOPLE, not the states. The security of a free state is a side-effect of the PEOPLE having the right to bear arms.

Examples, please? Because one example I can think of, where gun ownership isn’t viewed as broadly as it is in America, crime rates are very similar to the States. (Note: the only reason I refer to another country for this argument is because there has never been a point in history when guns have been more regulated than they are now, thus making “other countries” the only possible example. I fully recognize that crime is far more a factor of economic and other social conditions).

No one ever said it’d be a “perfect defense”. We said that, given the presence of an armed intruder, and assuming that you are at least marginally trained with your firearm, a gun is the BEST defense.

Physician, heal thyself.

But regulations that unreasonably prohibit people from excercising their rights are just as unconstitutional. And of course this isn’t relevant to the OP… take a quick look back up the thread and see who started this hijack. Perhaps you should be shouting “irrelevant!” at - oh, who was the guy who turned a simple hijack into a frothing rant - oh, that’s right, it was you!

If I can’t buy a gun because of a 30-day background check, how have my rights not been “infringed”?

31

Do tell, how does having a gun in a holster prevent you from being shot? Any criminal with an ounce of sense would shoot you first, from behind (now as to criminals having sense, that’s a debate for a whole different thread).

I have to repeat, a gun is a weapon, which gives the wielder the opportunity to retaliate, provided he doesn’t get killed first.

It is NOT a defense.

I’m not worried about being shot. But last month the main highway from BC to Alberta was closed off for a couple days because one man shot his wife and kids, then held police at bay with his rifle for days before he killed himself.
All his friends were stunned, and didn’t know that anything was wrong with his life.
I have a feeling it would have been much tougher for him to do this if he didn’t have access to a firearm.

Around here cops wear bullet proof vests all the time, so they can’t be that uncomfortable. They are much lighter and flexible than they were 10 or 15 years ago.
And I think it’s pretty damn ridiculous to be wandering around with a firearm just because you might be attacked by a criminal.

And as for outdrawing someone, I propose a test. Head on down to your nearest paintball field, have someone point at you… and then shoot you when you try to bring your gun up from your hip.

It’s a nice, non-lethal way to see how useless your weapon can be.

32

**

Just to play it safe why don’t all criminals just sneak up behind their victim and knock them out? Because there are an awful lot of variables that can affect how things happen such as the disposition of the criminal, how well lit the area is, or the victim’s awareness of his surroundings. Maybe they’d see a gun in the holster and decide to find a better target? Maybe not. I bet most violent criminals pick targets they don’t think will fight back.

**

Yes a gun is a weapon, yes it gives one the opportunity to retaliate, and yes they can in fact be used in a defensive capacity. Maybe defense means something entirely different in Canada then it does in the rest of the english speaking world, I don’t know. A defense is a means or method of defending or protecting. So if a criminal tries to stab someone and they in turn shoot the criminal they were acting in a defensive manner.

**

You’ll excuse me if I don’t base national policy on the actions of a crack pot.

**

Sure they wear them on duty but how many wear them otherwise? Down here the weather gets to over 100 for three months at a time. Even the cops here don’t like wearing vest in this kind of heat and humidity, though most that I see do simply because it is worth the trouble. You might think it is ridiculous to wear a gun but it is far more comfortable then wearing kevlar armor all day in Texas.

I didn’t even bring up outdrawing someone so I’m not sure why you want to focus on that. Anyway, even if it came to that I’d rather have the firearm then not have it at all. There are all sorts of variables we’d probably never even consider. Maybe he’s not such a great shot, maybe it is dark and he can’t see well, maybe he’ll miss me before I get a shot off. On the other hand maybe he’ll kill me. But I’d rather have a slim chance then none.

I understand that a firearm doesn’t make me impervious to harm. You want to focus on how useless it can be that’s fine. Don’t forget to recognize how useful it could be when one is threatened with loss of life or limb.

Marc

33

Do tell, do you always grasp at straws in a debate?

I said nothing about a gun being in a holster. I’ll thank you to keep your ignorant words out of my mouth.

What I DID say is that a gun needn’t even be fired to be useful. Think of it this way… you, the oh-so-intelligence Canadian, break into my home. I hear you come in (since your entry is rather clumsy). I shout “I have a gun and I know how to use it!” Being the cowardly sort, you shriek and run off, looking for an easier target.

I have to repeat, people breath oxygen!

Nobody’s saying that a gun isn’t a weapon. In fact, it’s because a gun IS a weapon that it works so well in a defensive manner.

Try this… next time someone breaks into your house with a gun, find the most non-weapon-ish object you can find - say, a fern - and try to defend yourself from your attacker with it.

And I imagine that it would have been absolutely impossible for him to do that if he were completely stable.

Do you ALWAYS grasp at the minority of cases in order to prove your point? “The Titanic sunk, so all boats are bad!” indeed.

Why don’t you, y’know, ask them?

Are military soldiers comfortable running ten miles a day? No. But they HAVE to.

There’s a difference between “want to” and “have to”, my Canadian friend.

I propose an even better test… let’s try allowing the use of concealed-carry weapons in certain areas and see if crime rates drop.

Oh, wait, we’ve already done those tests, and you know what? The tests were accurate!

See, I don’t know if you’re deliberately being obtuse or if you just don’t get it… nobody’s talking about the actual instance of being mugged. We’re talking about making the criminals aware of increased personal carry of weapons. If you’re a criminal, and you know that a lot of people in a given area are likely to be carrying a gun, you’ll go somewhere else to find easier pickings.

Or are you suggesting that people take a life of crime for the challenge and sportsmanship of it all?

34

Wow, how ignorant of Barbarian to assume that you would be putting your concealed weapon in a holster. What, are we supposed to figure that you’re walking around with it in the palm of your hand? Do they issue permits for that kind of “concealed” carry? :rolleyes:

Umm, you do realize that this would approach have been equally effective even if you didn’t have a gun in the first place, right?

BTW, I loved the irony on “oh-so-intelligence.” I was going to say something about how Barbarian clearly did not deserve that kind of insult in the first place, but I’m sure he’s giggling at your error as much I am.

You state that as if it’s an undisputable fact. As I’m sure you know, the validity of those statistics is vigorously contested. It is, at best, still an open question whether concealed carry laws have any measurable impact on overall crime rates.

Dude, I live in Texas, where we have a long tradition of gun ownership and enthusiastic support for our concealed carry law. If there were any place in the country where “a lot” of people would be legally carrying a concealed weapon, this would be it. They are not, and I doubt that any street criminal in this state has been deterred one tiny bit by the infinitessimal possibility that a potential victim might be armed, much less able to do anything with the gun once they’re being mugged or whatever.

I personally know several people with permits. Not one of them carries a gun on a regular or even semi-regular basis. At most, they keep a handgun in the glove compartment of thir cars–where it stays (and, incidentally, is easily stolen).

35

SPOOFE: *If I can’t buy a gun because of a 30-day background check, how have my rights not been “infringed”? *

Whoa SPOOFE, did you really mean this seriously? A
restriction of a right is not the same thing as an infringement of it! All civil rights have restrictions of some sort or other on them: you have the right to peaceful assembly, but not in the middle of a busy intersection, for example. Since you can still purchase and own your gun after your background check has been successfully completed, I don’t think you’d get far in any court trying to argue that your Second Amendment rights were actually “infringed”. You may be able to make a case against
background checks as ineffective policy (though I think most law enforcement officials find them pretty helpful), but I don’t think there’s any way you’re going to make a convincing case against them on civil-liberties grounds.

36

Minty Green…

Ah, you so silly. You didn’t read my whole post. Especially the part that I put in bold to make sure people would see it.

Right. And what am I supposed to do if Mr. Crazy Criminal decides to call my bluff? Tell him that I just drank a bottle of nitro-glycerin and that if he shoots me I’ll explode?

Of course. The notion of someone breaking into your house, taking your possessions, raping your wife and daughters, is absolutely HILARIOUS, isn’t it?

Sure, but they’re not countered with tests of their own. If someone says “2+2=4”, you don’t counter back with “MAYBE it equals 5!”

Again, it has nothing to do with people ACTUALLY carrying a gun. It has EVERYTHING to do with them being able to if they wanted to.

Kimstu…

Don’t play the “semantics” game with me. The Constitution recognizes that I have the uninfringable (is that even a word?) right to bear arms. If I CAN’T bear arms, for any significant length of time, then my rights have been infringed.

There’s a difference between making sure psychotic murderers aren’t allowed to have guns and keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

37

That might have been relevant to your insult if you had posted your qualification before calling a perfectly polite debator ignorant because he apparently didn’t read your mind.

I don’t care what you do, as long as you don’t attempt to classify your hypothetical above as the defensive use of a gun. It ain’t. It’s nothing more than a defensive use of words.

Scaremongering from a gun enthusiast? Whoa, now I’ve seen everything. :rolleyes:

So those researchers who have been trying to disprove the validity of pro-gun statisticians have failed because they haven’t proven the opposite proposition. Just for a moment, think about how much sense that makes.

“Back off, criminal scumbag! Even though I left my gun in the glove compartment, I could carry one if I wanted to!”

38

Duty? maybe not. But what’s this?
http://www.co.riverside.ca.us/sheriff/general/law-code.htm
Peace,
mangeorge

39

I’m gonna start another thread.
Peace,
mangeorge

40

I move to strike this comment from the record on the grounds that it is nonsense. I most certainly do care about the well being of my cells. I employ millions of little policemen (and I can make more if need be) to patrol my body and protect my cells, many of which are simply unable to protect themselves. I don’t think I’d like the idea of every cell taking up arms to defend itself because of the very likely possibility that they will inadvertently harm innocent neighboring cells. I’d much rather have a specialized & highly skilled force that knows what it’s doing.

Which brings me to my question. What about those who are just unable to protect themselves. Maybe they are too old, or too blind, or too sick, or too young, or don’t have hands, or for whatever reason they just can’t operate a fire arm. Is it open season on these people?

I am hearing - very faintly - the implication being made that police can actually use the 2nd amendment as justification for not coming to a person’s aid: Policeman sees an old man being robbed several hundred feet away. Old man calls out to the officer, whereupon the officer yells back “sorry buddy, didn’t you read the constitution? I’m not here to protect you!”