Toss up your reasons NOT to allow concealed carry, and I`ll (heh) shoot them down.

Great Debates
281

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of low. Lets assume for the moment that my rough calculation of 1/20 in your lifetime is right. Is that low? Who gets to decide what the comfort threshold for each person is? This is exactly what I get into in my short armed class in trying to discourage people to get a firearm. Chances are that in an average class maybe 1 person will have cause to use a firearm in their lives. In exchange for that, they carry an enourmous responsibility with enourmous repercussions whether they end up using their firearm or not. However, in the end, it is their choice to decide if that is something they want to carry or not, not mine. At least, in my opinion, it is their choice. I’m not going to tell them that the world if perfectly safe, nor will I tell them that they need a firearm to protect themselves. Both would be lies. Violent crime is real, but not so pervasive that you cannot go your entire life without ever needing a firearm. It is ultimately, at the end of the day, a roll of the dice (even that is not true since, of course, you can influence how you may or may not be targetted as a victim, but that’s a whole other story too).

And it is the very fact that violent attack exists that makes the firearm a potential necessity in the case where violent lethal force attack is used against you. Yes, I couldn’t agree more. They are both tied together, although there are more means of lethal force attack then just a firearms, which is why removing all firearms does not, unfortunately, remove the need for a response to lethal force attack. When no means of escape is available, the best choice in response from a surivival perspective is lethal force, and the firearm is the best lethal force projector.

Personally, like yourself, I’d be very happy if somebody would invent a non-lethal weapon that would feel the role of response to lethal force, then I could merrily recommend it to all my students without hesitation, and could train them in its use. At this time, there just is not such a thing.

I agree that there is an argument to be made that even if the firearm is the best lethal force projector that the cost to society is too great. My interest, as I mentioned a few posts up, is making sure that the right information is being used. I.e. the proper understanding of self defense realities is being used. As I’ve also mentioned, I happen to think that with the proper training people can be responsible, effective gun owners. I think alot of what you see being done by gun owners on the negative side you’re seeing because they’ve have either no training or extreme little & ineffective training. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has done a study to demonstrate though, which is too bad. Fix that problem and I think you’d see a whole different picture.

282

Well, “a chance to escape” is not synonymous with capitulation, so your indignation is a little misplaced, IMO. But I will accept that that was what you meant. Seems a rather contrived situation, though. Sure, if you are randomly attacked for no reason, and if no police or other people who can get help are around, and if the person who attacks you intends to kill you, and it there is no avenue for escape, then lethal force would be your best chance of survival. How often does such a situation come up? I would say virtually never.

Besides which, do you honestly believe that such is the ONLY way people use their guns? You’re presenting some idealized notion of people only using guns in this one particular situation, which we all know is nowhere close to the truth.

Cite, please.

In 2002, there were 9,369 murders by firearms, and only 1,767 by knives.

Neither are more guns going to make it disappear.

283

Right. So I guess we should agree to disagree. I think the harm to society by allowing unrestricted access to handguns far outweighs any potential good (and I believe there is very little potential good to be had anyway).

Unfortunately, I don’t think every gun enthusiast sees it that way. As I mentioned before, the NRA continues to push for fewer and fewer restrictions on guns, and many advocates feel that their right to firearms should be absolute. Besides which, all the training in the world can’t prevent a person from using his gun offensively in a fit of anger, if he is bent on doing so.

284

See:

“Strong on Defense” by Sanford Strong (the 2% comes from here, I’d need to find the book but iirc he’s referring to a particular police study)
“Collected Police Reports” 1992,1993,1994 edition (might be very very hard to find, I’m not even sure it is was generally available to the public)
“The Ayoob Files” by Massad Ayoob
“Inside the Criminal Mind”

From a National Crime Victimization Survey (1997)

I tried to get the actual raw data, but I just cannot find a link to the NCVS that freaking works! I have hard copies here somewhere and I’ll see if I can find them (I get them mailed to me every year). I do recall that for the most part every year the stats indicate pretty much the same thing, which meshes with criminal psychology. The criminal act is previsualized and if the criminal intends to injure you he will, and if he doesn’t he won’t.

Well, were getting back into me having to teach a course on self defense, that usually takes a minimum of two weeks in a class with me, on a bulletin board. I can post ad nauseum all the little nuances that make up a self defense situation. In this case, an immediate viable means of escape is typically available, but not overwhelmingly available. I don’t know of any specific studies on the subject though. I basing that on my experience and my studies of specific case files (e.g. “Collected Police Reports” and such). Quite often, a means of escape needs to be manufactured which typically involves a brief struggle with the assailant. Often it isn’t immediately obvious either which is what SBT (scenario based training if I haven’t used it before in this thread) classes attempt to teach.

FYI, you may be interested to know, that by and large people are not randomly attacked for no reason.

Great Self Defense and Criminal Psychology Primers:

“Inside the Criminal Mind” by ??? Stranton
“The Truth About Self Protection” by Massad Ayoob
“The Gift of Fear” by Dr Gavin deBecker
“Real Fighting” by Peyton Quinn

Of course, because firearms are the most efficient projector of lethal force. They are also the best projector of intimidation. If you were a criminal and you had a choice between a knife or a gun which would you choose?

Here in Canada knives beat guns, as the weapon of choice, 182 to 149. But a murder is still a murder regardless of what was used to commit it. Lets suppose that criminals were choosing knives at the same ratio as they do here in Canada, the US numbers would be 5012 by firearm and 6124 by knife. It is still 11136 people did.

Yes, I know the next thing you’ll say is that if there were less guns then there’d be less overall murders but my point isn’t that, but rather that the ratio is not relevent because it only represents the logical best choice of a weapon.

this was in reply to my comment, see bolded section

Couldn’t agree more in other words.

285

Just wanted to explain this btw. On further thought, I realized it probably sounds nastier then I intend it. What I mean is just to prepare you for what you letting yourself in for. I really can post more than you’d likely ever like to know about the topics of self defense, personal security, etc. So, you might be opening up a Pandora’s box. :slight_smile: Alot of what I can post is the culmination of books, courses, personal & professional experience, so I can guarentee I will not be able to answer any and all requests for a cite with a handy, dandy web link. Of course, you’re not required to accept what I say at face value, but again fair warning, if you want to confirm/deny what I’m saying its going to take quite some effort on your part because of the amount of material you’d need to research. I’ve listed some good primer material, and if you’re really interested in learning about this stuff I can list several more good books too. As you said, to some degree we’ll just to agree to disagree, which is ok too. :slight_smile:

About the “Strong on Defense” book btw. Currently, a student of mine has it. When I see him tonight, assuming he shows up for class, I’ll ask him to look up the particular section of interest and send it to me.

286

Can I ask you a question? How much training would either of you suggest is sufficient before you believe a person is ok with you to carry a weapon?

287

No, go away. :slight_smile:

My short course is 40 hours, with an optional add’l 16 hours. My long course, which I usually recommend (well, it does have a higher fee afterall :)… just kidding), is 96 hours. My advanced course is the long course, with some add’l material, is 120 hours. Then I have my ongoing course, which is really the advanced course plus refreshers spread out over a longer period of time.

So, to answer the question, I really prefer people take the long course which is 96 hours.

288

I know - that was my point. One would rarely encounter a situation where ones life is threatened, AND escape is impossible, AND capitulation is impossible. If a thief pointed a gun at me and demanded my wallet, I wouldn’t need a gun; I would give him my wallet. I can always get another one, and I don’t have to kill anyone.

Are you saying that if guns were not available, that all criminals who currently use guns would switch to knives? I’m afraid you’ll have to prove that one.

That’s illogical. Canada has a lower murder rate than the U.S.; if you are going to apply Canada’s ratio to U.S. statistics, you ought to lower the number of gun crimes, not raise the number of knife crimes.

That’s a bare assertion only, not supported by any evidence.

Glad you agree with me.

289

Again, capitulation is, by and large, a non-factor due to the previsualization factors involved (see *1 below). Escape is, as above, a trickier issue. Many times escape needs to be fabricated by the victim.

FYI, you would have commited a self defense error. You should never stick around to find out what the intent of the thief is. Maybe he’s just interested in your wallet, maybe not. Best course of action, assuming an avenue escape is available, is to drop the wallet and run. Hopefully, advice you’ll never have to use, but you never know.

Every single last one of them, probably not, there would be I’m sure some very small number who would be unable to commit a crime without a gun to give them courage; however, criminals are criminals not because they have a gun available but for a myriad of reasons. Those who decide to pursue a life of crime make that choice, and then pick a weapon not the other way around. (see below *1 and *2 below)

Unfortunately, you missed the point. What I’m trying to say is that the ratio of gun murders to knife murders is in direct relation to the fact that the gun is the more effective lethal force and intimidation projector and nothing more than that.

The only other conclusion you can draw from the ratio is the availablity of the weapon in question, which obviously guns are more available in the USA then Canada.

In any event, this whole tangent may be unnecessary perhaps you could explain what conclusion I was supposed to draw from the quote below and then I could respond to that instead.

=========================================================

It is an easy issue to agree on. Obviously violent crime isn’t going anywhere soon.

=========================================================

*1 - The concept of the previsualization or preconception of the crime is important for both of the issues, although more so for the first then second. I searched online for the past hour and couldn’t find anything to link to. Sorry. Bucketloads of books that would have what you’d need but no link.

To summarize the concept, when a criminal decides to commit a criminal act they have a very solid idea of what they’re going to do. The classic example is the “rape of convenience”, a common myth. A burglar does not enter into a home, find a woman and decides to rape her. Rather he enters the home, intended to rob it and if he happens to find a woman will rape her or intends to rob the home and knows there is a female occupant and plans to rape her.

So, in the classic assault, the thief will ask for the wallet, but prior to that act he already knows whether he plans to physically assault the victim and/or kill them. It is of no consequence whether the victim capitulates of not.

*2 - Why people become criminals?

Found this link, it contains the important information that could find in any good basic criminal psychology book. I didn’t look over any other information on the link, so I’m not saying this link is valid for anything more than the paraphrasing below.

www.pc.cc.ca.us/ public_safety/Chapter%2002%20Measuring%20and%20Explaining%20Crime.ppt

Paraphrased by me for your convienence (and because the page is butt-ugly!):

  1. Principles of Choice. People choose crime because it is seeminly more attractive then living by the law.

  2. Born Criminal. Biological throwbacks who are unable to cope with modern society.

  3. Biochemical/Biological. Drugs or biological imbalances in the brain.

  4. Rational Choice. Commit crime because it makes ethical/logical sense to the person.

  5. Cultural Deviance. Enviromental reasons. I.e. poor upbringing.

  6. Social Process. Complex to paraphrase. Essentially, people learn to either be good or bad. Crimes are a social definition. Crimes are used to control the people.

The key thing here being that weapon availability plays no role, except possibly in the cultural deviance theory, although I cannot think of anybody ever listing weapon availablity in any articles I’ve ever read.

290

So, after this 96 hour course, do you think an average person is trained sufficiently to carry a gun?

bloweroI intended the question for you as well. If I recall correctly, you did say that you have little problem with police carrying guns. How long should an average citizen train before you think he is qualified to carry a loaded weapon?

291

Now you’re all over the map. First, you said that knives inflict similar injuries to guns. Did you have a point, or did you just say that for no reason? Now you say guns are more effective. Well which is it - are guns more effective at injuring and killing people, or are they similar to knives? You can’t have it both ways. Then you made a comparison of the U.S. and Canada, seemingly implying that if the U.S. had fewer guns, that total attacks would remain constant, and knife attacks would rise to preserve the ratio. I asked you for evidence of this assertion, and now you claim you never implied that at all.

Yes, and violent crime is lower in Canada.

Oh, for Pete’s sake. So now I’ve gotta scroll back up the page and start all over. sigh - Here we go again:

Here, I’m making the point that restricting guns is going to cut down on violent crime, and while you assert that it wouldn’t end violent crime, I point out that it would certainly reduce it.

Here you confuse the issue. I don’t see a lot of room for interpretation. You clearly said knives are nearly as effective a lethal weapon as firearms. It would seem you were trying to make the point that if we got rid of guns, that criminals would attack with knives instead. Was that your point? Did you have a point?

Here’s why I posted this: Clearly, knives, as a threat to our safety, pale in comparison to guns.

Perhaps you could explain your point about the knives in a very clear, concise way. Are you suggesting that if the U.S. were to severely restrict handgun ownership, that we would suddenly have to worry about knife attacks to the same degree that we now worry about gun attacks? What point are you trying to make. Let’s get that cleared up, and then we can talk about whether you can prove it or not.

292

Huh? Where does my post say anything about “sticking around”? :confused:

If you don’t mind, could you save the preaching for people who are actually interested in your self-defense class?

293

The relevent section from “Strong on Defense”:

It comes from a 1985 US Dept. of Justice survey of female victims

294

Knives and guns to inflict similiar injuries (in fact, last night I read a fascinating pair of links on gun shot & knife wounds modes of injury, I discovered that although similar medically speaking the modes of injury are really different) with similar fatality rates (if you exclude suicides by either weapon). Inside of 15’, statistically speaking, a knife is nearly, but not quite, as effective as a firearm. Overall, the firearm is the most effective means of projecting lethal force. It is also the most intimidating weapon. What this means is that if there was a list it would look like this:

  1. Firearm
  2. Knife
  3. <whatever>
    etc.

Why is the firearm #1? A few reasons.

First, reputation. People believe that firearms are very deadly. This is largely due in part to the media. In the movies, for example, a person with a single pistol can fire and kill several people in a matter of seconds. It isn’t true of course, the overall fatality rate for gun shot wounds is about 49% iirc, and mortality rates are much much improved if medical attention is recieved in the first 15 minutes, and if there is less than 3 gun shot wounds.

Second, range. I hope I don’t need to explain this.

Third, perceived simplicity. Point and click. I’ll save you the extra details but what I mean by perceived.

Fourth, availability. Should be obvious.

Fifth, psychological ease of use. It is psychologically easier to shoot somebody then it is to knife them. This is why I said in my previous post that there would be some number that would be unable to commit their crimes with knives.

Sixth, “coolness”. In the US, in particular, firearms have a “coolness” factor. The US has a gun culture.

Seventh, power. Related to the other six factors, somebody owning a firearm feels more powerful.

The fact that perception overcomes reality should not be surprising I’d hope.

Fine. I agree, simply because guns are more available. And yes, if guns were not as available then there would be more knife attacks, as demonstrated in the previous post. But save your reply, I’m done.

I will save my information for those who are interested. This brings me back to my original point, your knowledge of self defense realities is lacking. Not that this is unusual, even amongst those who supposedly know this stuff (martial arts instructors & self defense instructors) the level of myth or lack of understanding is overwhelming. If you want to base you decision on gun control on the 2nd amendment, no problem, you clearly know what you’re talking about there, although I’m not knowledgeable enough to say which side is correct or not on that (I’m not a student of US history). If you want to base it on self defense, then IMO, you should have a good understanding of it. Personally, it makes little difference to me ultimately whether you choose to do so or not. Besides the point that we live in different countries, even were I currently living in the US, nothing save our own enlightenment will come out of this thread. In the course of finding cites for you I’ve found some interesting information, so I’m happy. I sincerely hope that you got something out of it is as well, blowero.

pervert: After 96 hours of armed self defense instruction, yes, I think somebody is capable of using a firearm properly in a self defense situation. So, 96 hours at the range plinking rounds at a stationary target is not equivalent. This does not address the responsibility factor only the training factor.

295

Right, right, right. I did not mean to suggest that anything less than training in self defence by a qualified trainer was acceptable. I was just wondering. Thanks.

296

No problem, pervert. I suspected you knew what I meant, but it never hurts to be clear right. :slight_smile: Althought, you’ve got my curious, why do you ask?

297

Should be “me curious” of course. Must learn to proofread.

298

Well, to be honest, I’ve been thinking of going through the classes to get my CCW for a while. You seemed to know a lot about self defence, and seemed like a good person to ask about the level of training needed. I’ve always felt that most people could handle a weapon if properly trained. A “well regulated militia” and all that. :wink:

More specifically to this debate, however, I was interested in blowero’s answer. He seemed to indicate that it was ok for police to carry weapons. They are made up of ordinary citizens who go through a particular training regimen. It seems logical that some amount of training, therefore, would make an ordinary citizen qualified to carry a gun.

299

Glitch, you have in no way demonstrated that reducing the number of handguns on the streets would result in a corresponding increase in knife attacks, and that no net reduction in violent crime would occur. I already showed that murder rates have statistically fallen faster in states that strictly regulate CCR.

Your link regarding criminal theory is broken, and on the face of it, it sounds like poor reasoning anyway. For your position to hold, ALL crimes would have to be premeditated; crimes of opportunity supposedly would not exist at all. That is obviously not true. Despite your attempted sophistry regarding how knife and gun wounds are similar, it’s glaringly obvious to anyone that guns do a great deal of damage. In an altercation, a gun will be the difference between a fistfight and a murder; in fact, a motorist can simply point his gun out the window of his vehicle and kill another driver. Of course the gun didn’t shoot itself, but guns are giving people the instant opportunity to kill, without having to give it a second thought. People getting up in the morning and saying “I’m going to be a criminal - I plan to rob six people today” does not apply 100% of the time. No, crime in the U.S. does not consist entirely of career criminals bent on completing their mission no matter what weapon they have to obtain. That’s just absurd.

You’ve made some excellent points here, and I thank you for a good discussion, but now you just seem to be getting on your soapbox about your self-defense class, which I’m not really interested in discussing right now.

300

I thought you left, pervert - twice, in fact.:wink:

I don’t think you thought this one through. Should I be able to do anything a policeman can do (high speed pursuits, search and seizure, hold prisoners in custody, etc.), as long as I claim to have given myself “equivalent training”? Sorry, I don’t want to live on your planet; sounds awfully scary.