The right to own Guns!

[SouthernStyle]

Ohhhhh, we have a live one…

Andros,

Are you suggesting that we pass gun control laws to restrict the “law abiding” citizen because they may at some point someone may be tempted to break the law with a gun?

I can see that played out to its logical conclusion: “Sorry sir, but you cannot own steak knives because you might use one as a weapon; We are no longer allowed to dispense Valium because you might be tempted to administer an overdose; Rat poison – we used to carry it until someone realized that it can be used to kill more than just rats.”

And what about non-overt means of destruction? “You cannot have a driver’s license because you might be tempted to drive above the speed limit. But that’s not a problem because we’ve already outlawed cars because there are a tremendous number of laws that you can violate; In the future, buckets must be no taller than 1 inch so that children cannot fall into them and drown.”

Pretty ludicrous stuff, huh? As is controlling the vast majority by removing their rights because the system “bought and paid for” by the law abiding can’t control or contain the renegades.
SouthernStyle

[Dinsdale]

Max T asks “what is the harm…?”

Don’t know if these qualify as “harms”, but they strike me as conceivable risks.
-gun is stolen from law abider’s home/car by bad guy
-gun is used by law abider’s kid on self or guest (or classmates or teachers)
-gun is used by law abider against unarmed intruder/trespasser, or mistakenly against family member/guest (Tho you may say “Tough luck!” for the burglar, many courts will disagree)
-a system that makes it relatively easy for a wide number of “law abiders” to obtain an essentially unlimited number of handguns, has the result of making it easier for guns to be obtained by or resold to bad guys.
-gun used in attempted self defnese injures innocent 3d party.
-and yes, could be used inappropriately in times of stress

Now you may argue the chance of any of these “risks” may be small - but the damage should they occur is pretty severe. From an economic standpoint (and I’m not talking about $), because I believe the potential damage resulting from misuse is so high and the necessity for legitimate gun (especially handgun) ownership so low, I believe ownership should be priced accordingly.

SS - Comparison to steak knives and autos reduces prop to absurdity. Compare steak knives and cars to guns, in terms of their utility for lawful/noninjurious purposes, compared to relative harm from misuse. And, of course, driving is very regulated. As well as the concealed carry of edged weapons.

Glitch - yeah, right on as usu. But when compared with the fact that the shotgun has a legitimate sporting use, and is harder to conceal, I consider long gun less in need of control/regulation than handguns.

[Scylla]

“Guns don’t kill people, bullets do.”

Since most handguns used in crimes are illegally obtained, I see little effect in registration, waiting periods, and background checks other than inconvenience to the legitimate citizen. In spite of this, I still strongly support these measures. Just because a criminal can get a gun through other sources doesn’t mean we should make it easier.

It’s very easy to become a wholesaler of firearms in this country, and I imagine that that is the source that provides the greatst number of handguns for criminal use.

I’m well-trained in the use of firearms, and I keep a .50 caliber Casull 4-shot revolver for home defense. I store it, safety on, with three shots loaded and the hammer down on the fourth. It’s locked in a safe with a 4 digit combination, but nevertheless I can put my hands on it within 30 seconds of getting out of bed if need be.

I chose this gun for a couple of reasons.

1. Really really loud noise. When I fire this gun everybody within a couple of miles is aware of it. If I did this at 3 a.m. indoors, I have no doubt the police would arrive in short order.

This feature is also useful in the fall around here. It seems people in nearby towns don’t like to take dogs to the pound if they don’t want them anymore. They take them out to the country and set them loose. They become very lean, feral, and travel in packs. Every late summer, early fall, it becomes a serious problem. Being confronted by these animals is a common experience where I live, and one does not walk into the fields or woods unarmed because of it. Usually I shoot one, and the noise drives the rest off. My .22 did not have this effect.

People who think handguns and firearms should be banned should be confronted by a pack of feral mutts first.

2. Penetrating power. I saw a demonstration with this gun of targets being hit that were behind cinder block walls. The gun will shoot through an engine block. This gives you the added responsibility of having to be very very certain of your backstop, but I like the idea that if I ever had to use this gun against an assailant, that he would be in for a surprise if he tried to use a wall or something for cover.

3. Range. I hesitate to mention this, but I’ve used this gun to shoot groundhogs at about 150 yards. It has a removable scope, and is very accurate. It pretty much vaporizes the groundhogs, and just leaves a pasty smear.

4. Ease of use. Unlike small and easily concealable semis which I have owned in the past, this handgun has a clear sense of “direction” to it. Because of the heavy draw one must make a very deliberate effort to fire the gun. THe nine millimeter automatic I owned, just didn’t have this quality, and I felt that an accident could easily occur.

5. 4 shots. I cannot imagine a legitimate situation where I would need more than that.

I have several rifles and shotguns that I keep for hunting groundhogs and such, but I keep the Casull for home defense or for when I’m out in the fields or woods.

We also have a problem with Tresspassers and poachers. If I carried a rifle with me as I went to confront these individuals, that would be sending a message that I don’t necessarily wish to send.

On the other hand, I think you would be insane to confront these people who are armed, and engaged in deliberately illegal activities without a weapon.

I take the Casull in a holster that hangs behind me off my belt. In that position it is easily accessible, but somewhat concealed. It is not the overt threat that a rifle in my hands would be.

THough handguns and rifles are ubiquitous around here, we have very little violent crime.

[andros]

SouthernStyle sed:

Ohhhhh, we have a live one…

Andros,

Are you suggesting that we pass gun control laws to restrict the “law abiding” citizen because they may at some point someone may be tempted to break the law with a gun?

I think if you re-read my post you’ll find that I suggested precisely dick. I asked Max a question, and then showed a possible argument dependent on his definition of the term “law-abiding.”

What in that makes me “a live one?”

[Max_Torque]

Could you define “law-abiding,” Max?

Sure. Here’s dictionary.com’s definition. Excerpt: “adhering to the law”, “obedient to the law”, and “adhering strictly to laws and rules and customs” (although I disagree with the use of ‘strictly’ in the definition; ‘reasonably’ would be a better word).

One possible harm: if I have never broken a law in my life, and find out my wife is having an affair with her bowling instructor, where is that harm in allowing me to go out and buying a gun to kill them both? After all, I’m law-abiding until I pull the trigger.

Good grief, imagine the taxes we’d all have to pay if the government were required to protect everyone from all potential future harms, including unforeseeable future harms such as your example. Leaving that aside, if you have not killed anyone in the past, why should you be punished in the present by having your rights restricted or rescinded?

Let’s analyze it using a similarly-available, similarly-restricted item: alcohol. Alcohol serves NO purpose other than intoxication (and don’t try to shirk by saying that you only use your Crown Royal to sterilize wounds). According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 110,640 people in the U.S. died in 1997 from use of alcohol and alcohol-related causes (which, I’d like to point out, distantly eclipses the number of annual firearm deaths). Of those, 12,870 were alcohol-related traffic fatalities. This figure is mighty close to the number of firearm fatalities each year (including accidents, murder AND justifiable homicide, which, I might add, unfairly handicaps the firearm side of the equation).

Should we, then, ban all alcoholic beverages on the grounds that people, perhaps without even meaning to (like your hypothetical surprised and jealous husband), may potentially drink, drive, and kill someone? Or should we trust that people aren’t as stupid and don’t require as much hand-holding as some may think, and allow alcoholic beverages to be sold to those over 21 (those assumedly worldly-wise enough to drink responsibly)?

Sharpen your hatchet, Molly.

Now, on to Dinsdale:

-gun is stolen from law abider’s home/car by bad guy

So, you’re trying to place the fault on the gun’s legal purchaser, not the ‘bad guy’, for its theft/sale/subsequent use in crimes? Misplacing the blame, don’tcha think? Or, in your mind, are gun owners automatically “bad guys”?

-gun is used by law abider’s kid on self or guest (or classmates or teachers)

And a waiting period (and similar often-advocated gun controls) would prevent this how? The only thing that will ABSOLUTELY prevent such occurences (which, by the way, are far rarer than the media would like the public to believe) is education on the safe use and storage of firearms, something that the NRA and gun-rights advocates already support. Of course, if your child is of a mind to shoot his/her teacher, there’s more than a lack of a trigger lock wrong in your family.

From the Los Angeles Times, May 31, 1998: “The school shootings by students over the last eight months killed 11 youths and six adults. That is fewer kids than are murdered by parents , and fewer adults than are killed by partners, in just two days of household violence in the United States.”

In other words, get your priorities straight and focus on the REAL social harms, not just the stuff NBC decides is most visually striking.

-gun is used by law abider against unarmed intruder/trespasser, or mistakenly against family member/guest (Tho you may say “Tough luck!” for the burglar, many courts will disagree)

Again, far rarer than the media would have you believe. So, what would you recommend against the unarmed intruder (against whom, unless menaced, deadly force is not authorized), harsh language? It is estimated that merely showing a gun, without firing, ends conflicts up to 2 million times per year (Gary Kleck, Florida State University criminologist). An intruder facing a firearm will typically flee (can’t find figures for such a thing, but can find plenty of individual accounts, if you like). The same cannot be said of the intruder facing someone armed with a broom handle. And a gun is the ONLY way to “even the playing field” for the elderly, the physically disabled, and (some) women against a healthy male intruder.

-a system that makes it relatively easy for a wide number of “law abiders” to obtain an essentially unlimited number of handguns, has the result of making it easier for guns to be obtained by or resold to bad guys.

Setting aside for a moment the question of whether one who is not predisposed to breaking the law somehow becomes so when he owns a gun, why is the person who owns 50 guns more dangerous than the person who owns only one? Think he’ll fire 'em all at once?

Yes, straw purchases are a problem. They’re also illegal. Not to repeat the gun advocate’s mantra of “enforce the laws we already have,” but…

-gun used in attempted self defnese injures innocent 3d party.

Okay, I’m really going to need to see some figures on this one. If you come up with more than three or four per year, I’ll be amazed. And that doesn’t begin to compare with the figure cited above, 2 million defensive uses per year. It’s quite apparent to me whether the good outweighs the harm.

-and yes, could be used inappropriately in times of stress

I snipped this from GunCite:

Excerpted from, Kates, Don B., et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994):

“Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred “[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release”–that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense.”

“The fact that only 75% of murderers have adult crime records should not be misunderstood as implying that the remaining 25% of murderers are non-criminals. The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don’t have adult records is that they are juveniles. Thus, by definition they cannot have an adult criminal record.”

---

In 90% of domestic homicide cases [in a Kansas City study], the police had been called to the same address at least once within the preceding two years; the median number of prior police calls to the same address was five during that period. (Murray A. Straus, Domestic Violence and Homicide Antecedents, 62 Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med. 446, 457 (1986). A leading analyst of domestic homicide has noted that “[t]he day-to-day reality is that most family murders are preceded by a long history of assaults.” (Id. at 454.)

In other words, impulse murder is a minute fraction of the whole. What say we take care of the larger problems first, rather than focusing on a minority, eh?

Does gun control really work? Well, Australia is a great counter-example; crime is up across the board since the Australian government banned just about all private gun ownership. From WorldNetDaily:

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation’s crime statistics tell a different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

There has been a reported “dramatic increase” in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

In light of this, go ahead and convince us all that “no guns” equals “safer society”.

[andros]

(although I disagree with the use of ‘strictly’ in the definition; ‘reasonably’ would be a better word).

Which is exactly why I wanted to hear your opinion. I wasn’t sure if you were using a strict dictionary definition or not. Thanks.

Yes, I know the flaws in my hypothetical. I was not, repeat not expecting it to hold water. Again (and I should have made this more explicit), though you asked for responses from “gun control advocates” I am strictly speaking not one.

But the “proactive usurpation of rights” argument always gets me wondering . . . why can’t I have a nuke in my garage? Just a little one, maybe some 77mm tacnuke shells. I’m law-abiding (assuming I weren’t breaking the law by having the nuke), I wouldn’t hurt anyone with them. That ok with everyone?

[SPOOFE]

Actually, having a nuke is against the law. Plutonium, I believe, is restricted as a chemical (it’s very toxic AND radioactive, t’boot), and a nuke is probably listed under the military’s “artillery” category, which civilians aren’t allowed to have.

I’d like to add to this, but I’m “gun-controlled” out (having already railed against it in the “Rosie’s a hypocrite” thread), so I’ll leave it up to people like MaxTorque who has more numbers than I do (I argue mostly by deductive logic, unless presented with other statistics to counter).

[SouthernStyle]

Sorry Andros,

I interpretted your reply “define law-abiding” to be cynical and ran with it.

Dinsdale,

You made my point.

As I stated, my comments on steak knives, cars, et al was intended to be ludicrous. Just as is restricting the actions of law abiding citizens because the system isn’t controlling the law breakers.

Reduce the crime, and you reduce the feeling of NEED of home defense weapons. A really nice benefit is that the issue of child safety locks isn’t an issue because the gun owner’s don’t feel the need for “quick access”.

Let’s take the problem back to its roots. What percent of crime involving guns is performed by a first time felon?

Methinks that the failure isn’t with gun control, but with the penal system – and attempting to restrict the rights of the law abiding is just a smoke screen.

I Am SouthernStyle

[Dinsdale]

Max - thanks for the thoughtful and lengthy reply.

I have to acknowledge that in terms of stats, at this point I have to concede to you because I have not had the time to analyze the ones you present, nor to muster up stats of my own. My perception, however, is that this is a topic on which either of us could identify seemingly authoritative statistics to support just about any viewpoint we wished.

Unfortunately, one’s position reflects an emotional basis. Many Americans feel strongly about a need/desire/benefit to owning guns. Moreover, many of this group feel there should be relatively few limits on the type and number of weapons they own. I cannot convince this group that their emotions are wrong. But mine differ. I do not personally see the need for a gun. I do not desire one (tho I appreciate that they are beautifully efficient machines). I also believe the potential costs I set out above (and I will address your responses below) far outweigh any benefits. And I do not believe that a society with private ownership of a great number of guns is necessarily “better” than one with far fewer guns.

---

In response to my
-gun is stolen from law abider’s home/car by bad guy

YOU SUGGESTED I was “Misplacing the blame.”

Well, a gun is an inherently potentially dangerous instrumentality. Society regularly imposes considerable duty upon possessors of such items. Are you liable if a kid climbs your fence and gets attacked by your dog, or drowns in your pool? Further, what attempts are being made to make guns safer or more traceable? Could they require an unlocking code, user fingerprint ID, GPS tracer? Not all of these would necessarily harm the lawful owner, but would make the instrument less dangerous if it fell in the wrong hands. Are these bad ideas?

---

In response to my
-gun is used by law abider’s kid …

YOU RESPONDED:
“a waiting period (and similar often-advocated gun controls) would prevent this how? The only thing that will ABSOLUTELY prevent such occurences (which, by the way, are far rarer than the media would like the public to believe) is education on the safe use and storage of firearms, something that the NRA and gun-rights advocates already support. Of course, if your child is of a mind to shoot his/her teacher, there’s more than a lack of a trigger lock wrong in your family.”

I agree with many of your points. However, I must observe that you are ready with stats on certain points but not on others. If I get around to it, I will see what I can dig up on my side. I agree education should be mandatory. Does NRA support legislation mandating regular and ongoing education and testing? Please link me to those proposals. If not, why not? I suggest that fewer guns, and better control (locks, etc.) on those out there will lessen the chances of this type of accident. Yeah, the violence we see (at least anecdotally) today signifies something other than availability of guns, and gun control does not address those root causes. But I feel ready availability of guns to disturbed persons does not help.

---

In response to my
-gun is used by law abider against unarmed intruder/trespasser, or mistakenly against family member/guest

YOU RESPONDED:
“Again, far rarer than the media would have you believe. … It is estimated that merely showing a gun, without firing, ends conflicts up to 2 million times per year. …
And a gun is the ONLY way to “even the playing field” …”

Again, you lack stats on one hand, and I have not had time to identify, review, and analyze those you present. Not a criticism of your response, merely an observation and acknowledgment.
Agree gun evens the playing field in some situations. Also believe, however, that I have heard at lkeast anecdotally of individuals having their guns used against them. Bladed weapons do as well in certain situations, but require more experience in how to use.

---

In response to my
-a system that makes it relatively easy for a wide number of “law abiders” to obtain an essentially unlimited number of handguns, has the result of making it easier for guns to be obtained by or resold to bad guys.

YOU RESPONDED:
“Setting aside for a moment the question of whether one who is not predisposed to breaking the law somehow becomes so when he owns a gun, why is the person who owns 50 guns more dangerous than the person who owns only one?
Straw purchases are … illegal. … [E]nforce the laws we already have …”

I wonder what the desire to own 50 guns says about an individual. Is he a true collector. Or is he paranoid or otherwise antisocial? Is that underlying factor being addressed?
I agree, enforce the laws we have. But that does not mean new or different laws would not be of benefit. It seems as tho the priorities of our criminal justice system are presently so focussed on drugs, and warehousing great numbers of certain portions of our society, and imposing mandatory sentences rather than, as you acknowledge, addressing the root causes. But of course, bright lines are easy to apply.

My feeling (no stats, sorry) is that while availability of firearms may not cause a person to commit violence, it may escalate the damage caused when and if a predisposed person acts. I guess this applies as well to your final point concerning repeat offenders.

---

In response to my:
-gun used in self defense injures 3d party

YOU RESPONDED:
“I’m really going to need to see some figures… doesn’t begin to compare with … 2 million defensive uses per year.”

As above, I acknowledge I lack figures. Agree total number is undoutedly low. Submit, however, that the degree of harm to each individual involved is undoubtedly very high. Also, risk of any harm to 3d party w/ firearms is definitely higher than with other, nonprojectile weapons.

---

With regard to your response to my final point:
-and yes, could be used inappropriately in times of stress

as I suggested above, the issue may be one of escalation. One possibility, does availability of a gun turn a beating situation into a killing?

Finally, concerning your example of Austrailia, I would have to see what was involved there, both the type of controls and the situation before and after. My understanding is that America is way in front of all other industrialized countries in terms of per capita gun ownership as well as violent crime. I certainly won’t argue this proves causation, but is there a relationship? I also realize that violent crime and crime in schools has been decreasing. None of this convinces me, however, that in today’s society guns are needed, or in fact a “good thing.”

Sorry this response is so long with so little substance. If I get around to it in the next couple of days, I’ll look into statistics and see if, as I suspect, I can pull up apparently reliable stats to support my views and refute your stats. Tho I feel strongly about gun control, it is not at the top of my list of priorities at the moment.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful response.

[Crafter_Man]

Do you think it would be O.K. to force religions to register with the government for “approval”? Do you think it would be O.K. to mandate a waiting period before being allowed to peacefully assemble? How about a background check before the government allows you to publish a book? Or how about a law that only allows you to write one newspaper column a month?

Of course not. “Those are rights,” you say.

And the right to protect yourself is not?

The right to keep and bear arms is exactly that: a right. It is not a privilege “granted” by the state. It is an inalienable right - you’re born with it. And it is a protected right of the people, not the government, according to our Constitution. And the Supreme Court, for that matter.

I will never “register” because I do not believe in registering my rights; it is a total insult to my sensibilities.

[tomndebb]

And just why did you feel a need to post here, then start a new thread with the identical post? My response is there. You seem to be a bit out of your element regarding logic and theory on this subject, however.

[JoeyBlades]

People who keep hand guns for self protection are the same people who play the lottery and expect to win… i.e. people with no grasp of statistics.

“People are 43 times more likely to be killed by their own weapon or have a family member killed by their own weapon than they are to use a gun for self-defense.”
Source: Kellermann, A.L. and Reay, D.T. New England Journal of Medicine

“Approximately 42% of murders in the U.S. take place during arguments; 14% of murders take place during robberies.”
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Report

“A handgun is 15 times more likely to be stolen than used for self defense.”
Source: FBI National Crime Information Center

“America has up to 1000 times as many handgun deaths per year as other developed countries such as the United Kingdom or Australia. (l992 handgun deaths reported by CDC, embassies: Australia - 13, United Kingdom - 3, Sweden - 36, Japan - 60, Switzerland - 97, Canada - 128, United States - 13,220).”

The statistics go on and on… but, of course, the gun advocates have their own statistics… In the end, you really have to apply common sense. Increased access to weapons increases the likelihood that they are going to be used for both intentional and accidental violence.

I have a particular bias against guns in the house. I was nearly killed as a child (about 12 years old) because my younger brother (about 10 years old) was playing with my father’s gun. My father had exercised fairly reasonable care, hiding the gun (with saftey engaged) and bullets in different (out of reach) places. These obstacles were still not enough to prevent the accidental discharge of this weapon in the general direction of my head…

I personally don’t see how the risk to the people I love from accidental injury is justified by the perceived threat of an armed intruder. Perhaps I would feel different if someone ever threatened my life with a handgun… actually, it would take at least two or three such occurances to offset the history I already have with accidental weapons discharge…

On the brighter side of things, maybe the problem will fix itself. In several of the schools around town, the student bodies are making pledges that they will exercise their right NOT to bear arms. The rash of school shootings and firearms detected on school premises have rightfully scared the crap out of them…

[JoeyBlades]

One point about self defense. Apparently it’s in the eye of the beholder. A man was recently acquitted of manslaughter in Austin Texas. A jury ruled that it was a case of self defense. A white man saw a black man acting suspicious around his girlfriend’s car. The white man went and got his handgun. He then proceeded to try and track down the black man. He caught up with him about four blocks later, not even sure at the time if it was even the same black man. The white man shot the unarmed black man in the back four times.

Only in Texas would this be called self defense!

[Max_Torque]

People who keep hand guns for self protection are the same people who play the lottery and expect to win… i.e. people with no grasp of statistics.

“People are 43 times more likely to be killed by their own weapon or have a family member killed by their own weapon than they are to use a gun for self-defense.”
Source: Kellermann, A.L. and Reay, D.T. New England Journal of Medicine

I doubt I can even count how many times I’ve recounted the flawed methodology of the Kellerman study. But, what the heck, here we go again:

Kellerman counted firearm deaths (note that ONLY fatal gun uses were counted) in homes that owned guns in King County, Washington, from 1978 to 1983. During that time, he counted 398 deaths, of which 9 were deemed “self-protection homicide”, giving the famous and oft-cited 43:1 ratio.

Now, here’s the real story: of the 389 non-“self-protection” deaths, 333 were suicides. If an individual is not prone to suicide to begin with, owning a gun will not make him more so. Removing those from the pool reduces the ratio drastically to 56:9, or about 6:1. And that’s just for starters.

In addition, Kellerman’s study included uses by beaten wives against their abusive husbands. Since the husband was typically the firearm purchaser, the numbers were considered as a use “against yourself.” Again, if you’re not a wife-beater, you have nothing to worry about on this score.

Most seriously, Kellerman chose to include only fatal gun uses in his study. No consideration was given to occasions on which a gun was shown but not fired, or fired but did not kill. Applying Kellerman’s methodology to homes that did NOT own firearms in King County during the same period, we find that there were 401 violent deaths in non-gun owning households (347 of those being suicides), including 4 self-defense killings. This gives us a nearly 100:1 “risk ratio” when living in a home without a firearm.

Heck, according to Kellerman and his methods, everyone should buy a gun and increase their odds!

“Approximately 42% of murders in the U.S. take place during arguments; 14% of murders take place during robberies.”
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Report

I just searched the 1998 UCR (1999 numbers are still preliminary); page 17 (page 5 of the Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter section) gives the actual numbers as 32% for arguments, and 18% for robberies. Might wanna check your secondhand source again.

In any case, arguments are not cited as the CAUSE of the murder; there is no analysis of whether the murder was but the final event in a long-standing abusive relationship. As such, the “impulse murder simply because a weapon was available” question remains unanswered.

“A handgun is 15 times more likely to be stolen than used for self defense.”
Source: FBI National Crime Information Center

The USDOJ, in Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft (April 1994) states that, during the period from 1987-1992, the average number of firearm thefts per year was 341,000. Comparing that to the 2 million defensive gun uses per year figure gives a ratio of nearly six defensive gun uses to each gun stolen.

“America has up to 1000 times as many handgun deaths per year as other developed countries such as the United Kingdom or Australia. (l992 handgun deaths reported by CDC, embassies: Australia - 13, United Kingdom - 3, Sweden - 36, Japan - 60, Switzerland - 97, Canada - 128, United States - 13,220).”

I refer you to the International Death Rate Table. Countries with violent death rates higher than the U.S. include France, Brazil, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland (hideously high suicide rate), Portugal, Belgium, and Mexico. A few tenths of a point below the U.S. are Japan, Germany, and Sweden. I realize I may be stretching the language to call France a “developed country,” but what the hey. I also note that the countries you list have much lower populations than that of the United States; you really ought to give meaningful numbers, like the death rate per 100,000 population figures given on the International Death Rate Table.

The statistics go on and on… but, of course, the gun advocates have their own statistics…

We not only have our own, we’ll tell you where yours are wrong. We’re helpfuls chaps, really.

In the end, you really have to apply common sense. Increased access to weapons increases the likelihood that they are going to be used for both intentional and accidental violence.

Sigh…heck the Australia stats again, and tell me what effect spending millions of tax dollars to confiscate and destroy 640,000 guns owned by private citizens did to their crime rate.

I have a particular bias against guns in the house. I was nearly killed as a child (about 12 years old) because my younger brother (about 10 years old) was playing with my father’s gun. My father had exercised fairly reasonable care, hiding the gun (with saftey engaged) and bullets in different (out of reach) places. These obstacles were still not enough to prevent the accidental discharge of this weapon in the general direction of my head…

A shocking and sobering tale indeed. Question, though: did Dad teach you kids about guns, show it to you, perhaps let you fire it under closely-controlled conditions, or was the gun just tucked away in the Forbidden Closet of Mystery? I swear, Dad’s closet should be declared an “attractive nuisance” and bear regs similar to a swimming pool, the way it attracts kids…

I personally don’t see how the risk to the people I love from accidental injury is justified by the perceived threat of an armed intruder. Perhaps I would feel different if someone ever threatened my life with a handgun… actually, it would take at least two or three such occurances to offset the history I already have with accidental weapons discharge…

Hey, no one said you MUST own a gun. It’s up to you. What say you leave the choice up to me, too, eh?

On the brighter side of things, maybe the problem will fix itself. In several of the schools around town, the student bodies are making pledges that they will exercise their right NOT to bear arms. The rash of school shootings and firearms detected on school premises have rightfully scared the crap out of them…

Well, it’s nice that the kids are getting press time for obeying the law, which is what they’re supposed to do in the first place.

From the Los Angeles Daily News (June 5, 1998): “In 1992, 55 killings occurred in America’s schools. In 1997 it was down to 25. By contrast, 88 people were killed by lightning in 1997.” In a population of 20 million school-age children, that’s much much better than in society at large.

School shootings are highly visible and over-reported. Resources should be allocated to the REAL safety threats, such as domestic violence, which claims the lives of thousands of children every year.

Wish I had more time to respond to everyone fully, but I’m having to pick and choose. Sorry to those I’m neglecting.

[SouthernStyle]

People who keep hand guns for self protection are the same people who play the lottery and expect to win… i.e. people with no grasp of statistics.

I’m one of those people that “keep hand guns for self protection”. I own several guns that qualify as this type. I also own several hunting weapons, as well as a couple of guns that are best suited simply for target shooting.

I also spent 10 years designing and building lottery systems. I understand the odds. The gaming industry has paid me many many times what I ever gave back as ticket purchases.

Another stereotypical myth destroyed.
SouthernStyle

[JoeyBlades]

MaxTorque wrote:

We not only have our own, we’ll tell you where yours are wrong. We’re helpfuls chaps, really.

Yeah, I’ve seen some of your statistics… and similar arguments against their validity. I’ve yet to see any statistic by either side that suggests that you are better off having a handgun for self defense than not. You can argue the exact numbers all you want, but death and injury to innocent victims due to improper or illegal use of handguns occurs more often than the use of handguns for legitimate self defense.

Also, on the Kellerman debunking. I agree that the numbers may be skewed, but some of the counter reasoning is skewed, as well. For instance, you said:

If an individual is not prone to suicide to begin with, owning a gun will not make him more so.

I disagree. A person prone to suicide is more likely to commit suicide if they have a gun. There are a couple of reasons for this (1) death from the gun is perceived to be more painless (2) suicide from most other forms takes time, preparation, and resources - this may give the person contemplating suicide time to reconsider. I agree the number may be artificially high, but I don’t think you can throw out all of the suicides.

Second you pointed out:

Most seriously, Kellerman chose to include only fatal gun uses in his study. No consideration was given to occasions on which a gun was shown but not fired, or fired but did not kill.

This ommision goes both ways. Kellerman did not include instances where innocent victims were shot but not killed or where a kid held a gun to another kid’s head and didn’t pull the trigger. When I’m considering the safety of my family, I consider non fatal wounds to be nearly as unacceptable as fatal ones and threatening, dangerous situations to be pretty darned bad too!

I also note that the countries you list have much lower populations than that of the United States; you really ought to give meaningful numbers, like the death rate per 100,000 population figures given on the International Death Rate Table.

OK, let’s compare just the U.S. and the U.K… In 1992 the estimated U.S. population was about 256 million, the U.K. population was about 73 million. Assuming the handgun numbers reported by the CDC and the U.K. embassy are correct, this means that the hand gun death rate in the US is 1256 times as great as in the U.K… This seems like a pretty fair apples-to-apples comparison to me.

Comparing that to the 2 million defensive gun uses per year figure gives a ratio of nearly six defensive gun uses to each gun stolen.

I searched the USDOJ web site and can’t find the document you mentioned. Where does that 2 million defensive uses per year statistic come from? I find this very hard to believe. I think a lot of cases of self-defense are really just vigilante justice or murder and deceit. Reference the story about the white guy who tracked down the black guy and shot him in the back. On the books, that goes down as self defense…

Now that I think of it, if everyone has a gun, then every time one’s fired you can argue it was in self defense… “Hey, I had to shoot him first. He had a gun.”

Hey, no one said you MUST own a gun. It’s up to you. What say you leave the choice up to me, too, eh?

Only problem is, if I say it’s OK for you to have a gun then that’s the same as saying it’s OK for your kid to shoot mine at school with your gun, or it’s OK for you to shoot me if you think I’m foolin’ around with your wife, or it’s OK for the guy who steals your gun to shoot me during a robbery or during a ‘postal’ bent at McDonalds. The way I look at it, the fewer guns that are out there, the less likely I am to get shot… do you see a fundamental flaw in that logic?

[Odesio]

**

I disagree. A person prone to suicide is more likely to commit suicide if they have a gun. There are a couple of reasons for this (1) death from the gun is perceived to be more painless (2) suicide from most other forms takes time, preparation, and resources - this may give the person contemplating suicide time to reconsider. I agree the number may be artificially high, but I don’t think you can throw out all of the suicides.

**

 Actually from everything I've heard they're simply more likely to be successful not more likely to attempt it. Girls have a higher rate of attempted suicide in this country but males have a higher rate of success. Why? Males use guns for suicide more then females do.

 Of course the fact that it is easier to kill yourself with a gun shouldn't make a difference as far as legislation goes.

Marc

[SouthernStyle]

Only problem is, if I say it’s OK for you to have a gun then that’s the same as saying it’s OK for your kid to shoot mine at school with your gun, or it’s OK for you to shoot me if you think I’m foolin’ around with your wife, or it’s OK for the guy who steals your gun to shoot me during a robbery or during a ‘postal’ bent at McDonalds. The way I look at it, the fewer guns that are out there, the less likely I am to get shot… do you see a fundamental flaw in that logic?

Absolutely. Substitute most any noun for gun in that sentence and what do you get?

• if I say it’s OK for you to have a pocket knife then that’s the same as saying it’s OK for your kid to stab mine at school with your knife.

• if I say it’s OK for you to have a baseball bat then that’s the same as saying it’s OK for your kid to hit mine at school with your bat

• if I say it’s OK for you to have bubble gum then that’s the same as saying it’s OK for your kid to stick my kid’s hair together at school with your gum.

The parent owning an item is not a license for the kid to misuse it. Nor is ANYONE owning an item a license for him to misuse it.
SouthernStyle

[Max_Torque]

Yeah, I’ve seen some of your statistics… and similar arguments against their validity.

Yet I note you haven’t produced any…hmmm…

I’ve yet to see any statistic by either side that suggests that you are better off having a handgun for self defense than not. You can argue the exact numbers all you want, but death and injury to innocent victims due to improper or illegal use of handguns occurs more often than the use of handguns for legitimate self defense.

Behold the statistics of the CDC: Nonfatal and Fatal Firearm-related Injuries. According to the table, there were 13,055 unintentional nonfatal firearm injuries in 1997. Sadly, the CDC doesn’t separate assault and legal intervention into separate categories. However, I stand by the “two million defensive gun uses per year” figure, source explained below. A ratio of 142 lives protected by firearms per accidental injury and accidental death (992 in 1997) sounds pretty good to me.

Also, on the Kellerman debunking. I agree that the numbers may be skewed, but some of the counter reasoning is skewed, as well. For instance, you said:

If an individual is not prone to suicide to begin with, owning a gun will not make him more so.

I disagree. A person prone to suicide is more likely to commit suicide if they have a gun. There are a couple of reasons for this (1) death from the gun is perceived to be more painless (2) suicide from most other forms takes time, preparation, and resources - this may give the person contemplating suicide time to reconsider. I agree the number may be artificially high, but I don’t think you can throw out all of the suicides.

Your argument is different from mine. I’m arguing that if not A (prone to suicide) then not B (kills self with gun). You’re arguing that if A (prone to suicide) then B (kills self with gun). “If A then B” is not logically equal to “if not A then not B.”

I can’t comment on your argument, since I’ve never seen any studies as to whether the suicidally-inclined are even MORE so inclined when they own guns. If you have such a study, bring it to the table.

Second you pointed out:

Most seriously, Kellerman chose to include only fatal gun uses in his study. No consideration was given to occasions on which a gun was shown but not fired, or fired but did not kill.

This ommision goes both ways. Kellerman did not include instances where innocent victims were shot but not killed or where a kid held a gun to another kid’s head and didn’t pull the trigger. When I’m considering the safety of my family, I consider non fatal wounds to be nearly as unacceptable as fatal ones and threatening, dangerous situations to be pretty darned bad too!

Since Kellerman’s study concerned the HOUSEHOLD gun being used against the family, an outside gun brought in by an intruder wouldn’t “count” in his statistics. While I’m only guessing, I doubt that family members often menace one another with firearms rather than swatting one another with frying pans or whatever else is handy. Still, it seems we agree that Kellerman’s study was flawed on many levels. Why then do you quote his numbers?

OK, let’s compare just the U.S. and the U.K… In 1992 the estimated U.S. population was about 256 million, the U.K. population was about 73 million. Assuming the handgun numbers reported by the CDC and the U.K. embassy are correct, this means that the hand gun death rate in the US is 1256 times as great as in the U.K… This seems like a pretty fair apples-to-apples comparison to me.

That comparison is flawed in several respects, one of which is that, prior to U.K. gun controls, the U.K. already had a homicide rate lower than that of the U.S. You’re attempting to associate an effect with an unrelated cause. More likely causes of a nation’s homicide rate, according to the FBI’s UCR, are:
Population density and degree of urbanization.
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
Stability of population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
Modes of transportation and highway system.
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
Climate.
Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
Citizens’ attitudes toward crime.
Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.
(snipped from GunCite)

And here’s another article asking Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates? specifically stating why comparing the U.S. with Britain is an apples-to-Hubbard-squash comparison.

Comparing that to the 2 million defensive gun uses per year figure gives a ratio of nearly six defensive gun uses to each gun stolen.

I searched the USDOJ web site and can’t find the document you mentioned. Where does that 2 million defensive uses per year statistic come from? I find this very hard to believe. I think a lot of cases of self-defense are really just vigilante justice or murder and deceit. Reference the story about the white guy who tracked down the black guy and shot him in the back. On the books, that goes down as self defense…

“Hard to believe” don’t mean it ain’t true, bubba.

The defensive uses per year measurements were performed by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University. He is the author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), and Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Aldine de Gruyter, 1997). A commentary on his work:

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns–ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.

…

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research.

Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies.

…

Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it.

…

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
— Marvin E. Wofgang, “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

I haven’t searched for your story of “tracking down and killing” a pseudo-suspicious character. Can you give me something more to go on? Or, preferably, a link to an article?

Hey, no one said you MUST own a gun. It’s up to you. What say you leave the choice up to me, too, eh?

Only problem is, if I say it’s OK for you to have a gun then that’s the same as saying it’s OK for your kid to shoot mine at school with your gun, or it’s OK for you to shoot me if you think I’m foolin’ around with your wife, or it’s OK for the guy who steals your gun to shoot me during a robbery or during a ‘postal’ bent at McDonalds. The way I look at it, the fewer guns that are out there, the less likely I am to get shot… do you see a fundamental flaw in that logic?

Yeah, actually, I do…and if you’d be so kind, roll me one of whatever you’re smokin’. If I own a car, it’s OK for me to run you down in the street? If I own a javelin, it’s OK for me to throw it at you? If I own a sword, it’s OK for me to behead you?

A gun, like anything else, is exactly as dangerous as the person holding it, no more and no less. And don’t start blaming the homeowner for the criminal’s acts after the theft of his gun again! You’re misplacing the blame. If my car is stolen from its parking space outside my apartment, and a terrorist steals it and uses it to bomb an embassy, am I liable for the bombing? After all, he couldn’t have bombed the embassy if he didn’t have a car!

Sheesh, some people’s logic.

[SPOOFE]

A person prone to suicide is more likely to commit suicide if they have a gun.

Really, now? What’s your source on this?

In 1993, guns were involved in 61% of the suicides in the US. Suicide accounted for the 7th leading cause of death.

In Canada, suicide was the 5th leading cause of death, with most men still using a gun to perform the act, even with their gun control.

In Australia, suicide is the leading cause of death, more so than any other cause, despite their strong gun control.

What does this info tell us? Guns don’t cause suicide, plain and simple. The fact that they happened to be used for suicide doesn’t say squat. Had there not been any guns, you’d have seen hanging as the leading cause for suicide in the U.S. (hanging being the second leading method of suicide), but the total numbers of suicides would be the same.

This was my source.