I doubt anyone is unaware of what happened at Virginia Tech yesterday. A young man, a student, took firearms and killed over 32 other students and professors. At the end, he walked into one of the schools buildings, chained the doors shut and began killing people. Not one of his victims, or potential victims, was armed, of course, the school being a gun-free zone. His victims had no chance.
How would things gave gone differently if the school permitted students with concealed carry permits to carry on campus? We'll never know. How would things have been differently if even one of the students or professors in the building was armed? How could it have gone differently. At least there would have been a chance to reduce the loss of life.
Neal Boortz asked this question on his radio show, today: If you could, would you have armed at least one of the students or professors? Let's suppose, he asks, you could sneak a gun through an A/C grate to a student in the building. Would you? Now ask yourself why you would not want to permit qualified law abiding people to possess firearms on that campus.
Concealed carry holders statistically a) are not involved in accidental shootings (any mis-use of their firearms) and b) are not involved in illegal use of their firearms. As these people do not present a threat at other times, why would you not want them to be on-hand and capable of acting under these rare but tragic circumstances?
By ensuring that the college is a gun free zone, sadly, a ready pool of defenseless victims stands by at all times for events just like this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Predictable...
Every time a tradegy like this happens all the pro gun guys crawl out of the woodwork saying, "See! That's why more people should carry guns!"
I'm sure you can find statistics somewhere to back up your claims. I'm equally sure I can find statistics that show that your statistics are bunk.
The bottom line is this: People go crazy. Crazy people with guns are dangerous. More crazy people with more guns are more dangerous.
You might be right. It's just possible that if some other people in that school would have had guns, maybe fewer people would have lost their lives in this incident. Just maybe... Of course, there's also a chance that it might have made no difference at all... and then there's the chance that the crazy guy would have ended up with more guns and killed more people...
However, let's assume that we're living in an alternate universe - one in which 1 person out of 50 carries a gun. This is about the statistical requirement to insure that one person at Virginia Tech would have been able to defend themselves and possibly end the shooting spree sooner. So, in this alternate universe, what would it mean, statistically, if 1 in every 50 Americans were armed? With just about 200 million adults in the US, this would mean about 4 million people armed to the teeth.
So the question you have to ask yourself is, with that many people with guns, how many of them might be truely crazy ones? How many of them might be reasonably normal most of the time, but are easily provoked into irrational violent behavior occasionally? How many of them might be completely normal (by any standard), but find themselves in an unusually stressful situation and lose control? How many of those people might not be as responsible as we would hope and accidentally shoot someone? If the number of people who it might not be a good idea to let them have guns is merely 1 in 100,000, then your plan would be ineffective because we would be talking about the same number of casulaties... (actually about twice that many if they all commit suicide after their crime).
I don't know about you but I think I see people lose control and act irresponsibly with a much higher frequency than that.
More guns won't keep us safe from the crazies, they just make it easier for more crazies to have more guns.
Very predictable. Every time a tragedy like this happens the pro gun control guys start saying "See, guns kill people. If only we had stricter gun control laws." Well, guess what. The campus had guns control laws as strict as you can get. They we not permitted, period. Fat lot of good that did the victims.
Show me your statistics. I think you can not.
People with concealed carry permits are, for practical purposes, not involved in accidental or illegal misuse of firearms.
The fallacious part of your argument is that it assumes that the truly crazy people can not get guns. This nutjob in Virginia just proved they can. It was the responsible, law-abiding people who effectively could not and therefore had no defense.
We are not talking about more guns at all, not that a quantity of guns means anything. Just making it possible for responsible people being able to make appropriate use of the ones they already have or can legally acquire.
Crazy people can get guns and use them illegally. Criminals can get guns and use them illegally. There is very little that can be done to prevent this. Preventing law-abiding, qualified (concealed carry permit holders have training as a mandatory part of getting the permit) individuals from carrying when the risk to society has been proven to be all but non-existent over the past ten years is just plain irrational.
The campus had guns control laws as strict as you can get. They we not permitted, period.
First, gun control laws, if they work, don't work by preventing people from carrying guns. They work by preventing (or at least restricting) people from purchasing guns and ammunition and making it a serious crime with serious consequences to be in possession of a gun. It is completely silly to talk about gun control on a college campus when that campus is surrounded by an uncontrolled area.
Second, I don't think gun control laws can work in this country. Most people believe that they are protected by the Constitution, so are not likely to comply with any law to the contrary. Furthermore, the laws in this country have so many loopholes that many clearly illicit examples of gun usage go unpunished. What chance would we have to enforce the not-so-clear examples?
My point is that it's just silly to think that more guns will solve the problem. If that's your line of thinking, then why not encourage and enable all countries to have nuclear arms. A balance of power through increased power.
Show me your statistics.
You show me yours first.
I know it's cliche, but there are examples where gun control has been shown to be effective. Great Britian is a pretty clear case. Even the police rarely carry guns there now. Other examples are the Netherlands, Australia, Norway, Canada, and many others.
(... mention Switzerland... please mention Switzerland...)
People with concealed carry permits are, for practical purposes, not involved in accidental or illegal misuse of firearms.
Oh, so somehow, we are able to determine in advance who's a nutjob and who's not? Can we also determine who is likely to be put in a situation of great stress and crack under pressure? Can we determine who will always conduct themselves responsibly and only give permits to those people?
Good luck with that.
I'm sure you can find statistics somewhere to back up your claims.
I don't have to find statistics, you already conceded that I can find them. I would like to see you provide statistics that counter my claim. Other countries are not effective sources for these, because the conditions in this country differs in many critical ways. You would have to trample many rights beyond the second in order to dis-arm this country so banning fire-arms is not practical. We have very long, difficult to guard borders which again make it difficult to prevent firearms from coming into the country.
So, please, show me some applicable statistics that counter my claims.
I didn't say I would show you statistics that counter your claims, though I'm reasonably sure I could... but then you would, I'm sure be able to point out flaws in these statistics.
What I said is I think I could find statistics to counter your statistics. In other words, I think I could show the flaws in your statistics.
We could have a battle of statistics, but those battles are never won. Everyone uses statistics to make their point, but no one is ever swayed by them.
You would have to trample many rights beyond the second in order to dis-arm this country so banning fire-arms is not practical.
You're still trying to put ideas in my head. While I would rejoice in the disarming of America, I don't feel that it is plausible so I am not advocating it.
I don't buy the argument that things are different in those countries that ban handguns. Of course things are different. You don't think that some people in the UK didn't feel that they were giving up certain inalienable rights when they handed over their handguns? The most important thing that was different is that they had a culture that cared more about the safety of the individual than about vigilantism. Our culture is littered with paranoid, cowboys that think the answer to violence is even greater violence.
But... I'm drifting off topic slightly since, as I said, I don't think there is any way to practically disarm the cowboys.
What I want to know (tell me from a logical argument - don't quote me statistics), why do you think people with concealed carry permits:
a) are not involved in accidental shootings (any mis-use of their firearms) and b) are not involved in illegal use of their firearms.
and
do not present a threat at other times...
What makes these people so special?
Likewise, what is your logical argument for why law abiding citizens are safer when they are armed? It's not enough to quote statistics because we both know that statistics can be used to defend any position...
Persuade me.
Because, if the last nine or so years in Texas, since the concealed carry permit law was passed, a and b have proven to be the case. This is true in other states where such laws have been passed, as well. It is certainly possible that one such person could break a law or be irresponsible with their handgun, but, compared to other risks, that is insignificant.
I just don't see all these crazy cowboys you do. We allow anybody with a pulse to have a car. I don't see these enraged kooks plowing into crowds of people on a regular basis, do you? I just don't believe the argument that arming the populace makes one less safe. I lived in Arizona for ten years where it was perfectly lawful to go around armed and I often did. I don't feel that Phoenix was any more dangerous than NY,NY or Washington, D.C. during that time and have no information to disprove that position. Furthermore, I felt more secure knowing that I could defend myself against disproportional force.
I am a desk jockey, not a construction worker. I am not fit enough to defend myself against someone who means me physical harm. With minimal training, a firearm quickly equalizes the playing field making everyone pretty much equally capable of defending themselves against attack.
I can understand why you are hesitant to expose statistics. They are not so wishy-washy as you suggest. I still say you could not find statistics with an interpretation that supports your position. You may be able to explain away why the statistics seem to support mine, but you will find that they rarely if ever support yours.
Because, if the last nine or so years in Texas, since the concealed carry permit law was passed, a and b have proven to be the case. This is true in other states where such laws have been passed, as well.
Pardon me if I don't just take your word for this. What studies have been conducted that demonstrate that permit holders are less prone to be involved in accidental shootings or gun-related crimes? What studies show that permit holders are less prone than the average person to behave irrationally?
I just don't see all these crazy cowboys you do.
I think you misunderstand. I'm not equating the cowboys with the crazies. They are two different groups. You see the cowboys every day. The cowboys are people who think and act impulsively. They have their own brand of justice which is usually more self-centered than altruistic. They think might makes right and the ends justify the means. Carrying a gun makes them feel superior to the people around them that don't carry guns - the weaklings. Carrying a gun is not about self defense, it's about self indulgence.
We allow anybody with a pulse to have a car. I don't see these enraged kooks plowing into crowds of people on a regular basis, do you?
Three points:
(1) Cars are not designed to be weapons.
(2) Nevertheless, cars are a very popular choice of murder weapons.
(3) Guns are a lot more effective at killing a lot of people than cars because bullets are difficult to dodge. Guns are also cheaper and more portable than cars.
Furthermore, I felt more secure knowing that I could defend myself against disproportional force.
That's an interesting emotional response. Feeling in control and feeling like you have power - those are important feelings. Nothing you have said is particularly compelling to indicate that any of this was necessary. I can purchase insurance to protect against getting hit by lightning. The insurance might make me feel protected, but it really is unnecessary.
I can understand why you are hesitant to expose statistics. They are not so wishy-washy as you suggest.
I'm not saying they are wishy-washy - I'm saying that they tend to be biased.
I still say you could not find statistics with an interpretation that supports your position.
I'm still not going to get baited into a war of statistics, but really? You've never seen any of the statistics that shows that the number of murders per capita tracks the number of handguns per capita? You've never seen statistics that show that there are more incidences of accidental deaths due to handguns than there are incidences of legitimate uses of handguns for self-defense by citizens? We already know that you've seen statistics showing what can happen in other countries that have established strict gun control.
But really, what I'm suggesting is common sense. It goes beyond statistics. It can only be fought with contrary common sense, but none has been offered. Guns in our culture are already a fire raging out of control. My position is simply, let's not throw more fuel on the fire.
Don't take my word for it. Check it out. Show me one person who is a concealed carry holder who has been convicted of a criminal act involving the use of their handgun in Texas. Show me one news story in the past 9 years showing one who let their handgun be involved in an accidental shooting. This should be easy to uncover if the risk is such as you say. If you find even one, then we can begin discussing how biased and poor my statistics are.
Given how many people die accidentally from them, it is evident that a car would make an excellent weapon. But, despite what you said, it is not actually a popular one. It is very rare that an auto is used to intentionally injure someone, falling far behind guns, knives and blunt objects. This despite all the crazies and all the enraged cowboys you see out there who all have cars and driver's licenses.
Feeling secure is quite important. I note that you didn't bother to debate why I felt more secure. Maybe because it was a feeling based in rational consideration. Common sense says that I have a right to defend myself. In fact this is a right pretty much guaranteed by the 9th amendment to the constitution and has been upheld by the supreme court. What other method than a firearm has the ability to eliminate potential inequality in a violent conflict at such a low investment of money and time? Further, since we've already established that criminals will be able to get guns in this country for the foreseeable future, that same right extends to permitting me to meet force with equal force for the purposes of defending myself.
First, despite the massive amount of gun ownership, crime has been falling and continues to fall every year in this country. Second, In every state that has instituted concealed carry permits, violent crime has fallen at a more rapid pace than in other states. Third, I am aware of what happens in other countries that have established strict gun control. Despite the stringent gun control in the U.K., incidence of gun violence has actually risen there over the last twenty years. Fourth, it is impossible to track legitimate use of handguns for self defense because, in most case, guns are used to defuse situations and the event goes un-reported. I was well aware through second hand accounts of these sorts of occurrences several times when I lived in AZ. There is fifth, sixth, seventh and so on, but moving on...
Your common sense is not common, nor sense, to me. Exactly how is a 115lb woman supposed to defend herself against a 220lb man who intends her harm? Common sense, to me, says that if she is armed and competent she has a chance. If she is not she has virtually none. Likewise, if even one of those Virginia Tech victims had a firearm, they would have had a better chance of survival. Look to Appalachian Law School in 2002 for such an example.
Guns are not a fire raging out of control. The number of deaths due to guns is so much smaller than so many other sources of accidental death that your statement is flat ridiculous. Despite the extremely high gun ownership in the U.S., it does not even make it into the top ten western countries for violent deaths (homicides and suicides) falling below such countries as France, Switzerland and Denmark. Denmark does not permit gun ownership, BTW. Japan also has stringent gun control and is approximately the same as the U.S.' violent death rate. It seems to me that while "common sense" might say otherwise, there is a low correlation between violent death rate and gun ownership.
I trust Americans as a whole to own, carry and use guns responsibly. I feel more secure living in this country knowing that much of the populace is armed. It was, in fact, one of many reasons I came to this country. As I said, I was quite comfortable living in Arizona with prevalent gun ownership. I was a single issue proponent of G.W. Bush when he ran for Governor of Texas with regard to the concealed carry issue. I am happier knowing that there are people who carry firearms concealed in Texas. I know some of these people and have no misgivings about them. The why is simple. These people are taking some responsibility for their own safety and security. They have not turned all of that responsibility over to a mothering entity that does a poor job of providing that security. They represent some possibility that I might obtain timely assistance in a tight spot. Their existence makes violent crime less likely due to the potential of reprisal.
Show me one person who is a concealed carry holder who has been convicted of a criminal act involving the use of their handgun in Texas.
Here's the first link I hit on Google:
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/ccbrady.htm
I don't know "who" the VPC is or how reliable their data is, but they claim that "the weapon-related arrest rate among Texas concealed carry license holders was more than twice as high as that of the general population...". I also don't have data to tell me how many of these arrests resulted in a conviction. I learned that Texas is one of the states that chooses NOT to publish statistics on license revocations, so we're not likely to find much reliable or comprehensive data.
Show me one news story in the past 9 years showing one who let their handgun be involved in an accidental shooting.
Once again, the data is not available to indicate whether these accidents involve handguns who's owner is permitted. In the same way that I cannot provide evidence that they do, you cannot provide evidence that they do not. I don't find anything to suggest that people with these permits are any less likely to have their guns involved in an accident or any less likely to get pissed off and lose control. People are people and a piece of paper doesn't change that.
However, all of this strikes me as moot since Texas has a very low rate of concealed carry permits. One estimate said less than 1% of handgun owners in Texas have concealed carry permits and that this number is decreasing each year. What is the point of your argument? If you want, I'll concede that this 1% is somehow different, somehow smarter, but this hardly makes your point. Assuming that Virginia is not much better with concealed carry permits, then the chance that one of those people at Virginia Tech would have had a concealed carry permit and a weapon was slim-to-none.
I suspect that your argument is actually that more guns = less violence, but you're not coming right out and saying that... perhaps it's because it sounds silly when you say it like that.
Feeling secure is quite important. I note that you didn't bother to debate why I felt more secure. Maybe because it was a feeling based in rational consideration.
Actually, quite the opposite. I was just being polite. I actually think your feelings are based on irrational fears. However, I am not a psychologist and don't know how to convince you that they are irrational. I don't know the statistical averages for the number of people that are exposed to violent crime in their lifetime. Furthermore, I don't know the statistical averages for the number of people that are exposed to violent crimes AND would be in a situation where they COULD be armed. In other words, unless you propose to walk around with a holstered weapon, then you are likely only to have access to your gun while you are in your car or while you are in your home. Of course, you don't need a concealed carry permit for your home, so really the question boils down (for you) how likely are you to be attacked in your car in such a manner that you will have the opportunity to grab your gun and defend yourself? I think this is very, very unlikely, so I think your reaction to your fear is irrational. I do agree that if you are a woman (1) your risk of being attacked is higher and (2) you could carry a gun in your purse, but (3) since significantly fewer women do (or want to) carry guns, the statistical probability is still incredibly low.
Feeling safer is not being safer.
First, despite the massive amount of gun ownership, crime has been falling and continues to fall every year in this country.
You're skitting around the point; again, I assume you are trying to correlate increased gun ownership and concealed carry laws with a decrease in crime, but there are two problems with this... OK, many, many problems, but I'll just mention two. First, the point I've already mentioned, the number of concealed carry permits is a tiny, tiny fraction of all gun owners and therefore not a significant contributor to crime reduction. Second, there are a lot of other programs that better explain any drops in violent crime (things like background checks, cooling off periods, education in schools, stiffer penalties for gun-related crimes, etc.).
Fourth, it is impossible to track legitimate use of handguns for self defense because, in most case, guns are used to defuse situations and the event goes un-reported.
And because many, many defensive uses are actually offensive abuses.
Personal anecdote 1
Once, me and a friend were shot at by a neighbor lady because we accidentally ended up in her back yard. One night we were cutting across a field and thought we were headed for his house, but someone had turned off the porch light, so we came out of the field two houses down. The lady felt threatened by this and started shooting her shotgun. Fortunately, it was winter and we were well bundled and she shot from a distance, so the incident was not deadly. She thought it was self-defense, but we were the victims. Incidentally, in this case, the police agreed with us and she was given a stern warning...
Personal anecdote 2
A friend of mine had a gun pulled on him in a parking lot a few years ago by a woman who was convinced that he was stalking her. In fact, he was just returning to his car which just happened to be near her car. He called the police, but they said that there was nothing that they could do because the woman had a concealed carry permit and no crime had been committed. When he asked them what would have happened if the woman had shot and killed him, the police told him that most likely nothing would have happened. The woman would have claimed it was self-defense and lacking any witnesses to the contrary, that would be the end of the story.
Personal anecdote 3
I know this guy. Cowboy through and through. He kept a gun in his car, for which he had some sort of permit, I don't know if it was a concealed carry permit. One night about 5 years ago he was in a bar and was quite drunk. As was another guy in the bar. They had an incident in which the first guy got his ass kicked. So he went out to his car and waited for the second guy to come out, at which point the first guy shot the second guy. Convicted? No, it was deemed self-defense. I don't think either you or I would consider that a legitimate act of self-defense.
Personal anecdote 4
In a discussion with a friend several years ago, he made the claim that he had used his gun defensively to avert disaster. However, when I questioned him I learned that what he meant was he heard a noise outside, grabbed his gun, went to the door and yelled, "I have a gun!", and the evil doer apparently went away. He was convinced that he had chased off some criminal even though he had no evidence that anyone was actually there.
My point? There's defensive and then there's defensive. Many, many more people feel threatened than actually are.
Your common sense is not common, nor sense, to me. Exactly how is a 115lb woman supposed to defend herself against a 220lb man who intends her harm? Common sense, to me, says that if she is armed and competent she has a chance. If she is not she has virtually none.
You miss the point. I don't disagree that if an armed person is threatened, they might have a better chance. What I disagree with is that the probability of such an event happening to an individual is lower than the risks associated with them being armed.
I said "might" because I have another personal anecdote for you. A very close friend of mine gave his wife a pistol to carry in her purse. While they were out shopping, a guy grabbed her purse. My friend gave chase, but was turned back when the thief turned the wife's gun on him. The police told them that the thief had probably caught a glimpse of the gun and snatched the purse to get the gun. Unfortunately, this is not the end of the story. About a year later my friends were contacted by the police to inform them that the gun had been involved in the shooting of a 14 year old boy. They never heard the details of how the boy was shot, but thankfully he survived.
OK, another personal anecdote. Another friend of mine told me the story of how a poker buddy of his knew about a gun he kept in his nightstand. One night the poker buddy sneaks into my friend's house to steal his gun. Unfortunately, my friend wakes up and the poker buddy shoots him point blank in the chest. Somehow, a neighbor heard the shot, saw a guy running away and called the cops. My friend survived. His buddy was caught. I believe the story because (1) I saw the scars from the entry and exit wounds and (2) his dad told me it was true.
Final personal anecdote, I promise. A friend of mine lost his younger brother in a gun accident. What happened is a ten year old neighbor friend had found his dad's gun hidden on a very high shelf, had found his dad's bullets in a dresser in another room, and managed to load the gun. Then played with it for several hours without incident. Apparently the safety was on, but eventually the safety got tripped and the gun went off killing my friend's brother. I don't think trigger locks were available at the time, but the neighbor had made reasonable efforts to secure the weapon and the amunition. Nevertheless, reasonable is not the same thing as effective.
I'm going to leave out anecdotes of the other two times I was shot at by accident and the time a guy waved a loaded pistol in my face because he thought it was funny.
My point is, in my life I can't count on both hands the number of personal experiences and experiences of close personal friends showing me that guns are incredibly dangerous and people with guns are even more incredibly dangerous.
I am not aware of a single anecdote from me or anyone I know where having a gun would have saved the day.
Their [guns] existence makes violent crime less likely due to the potential of reprisal.
This ignores the fact that most gun violence is not premeditated. It is not perpetuated by people in a rational state of mind. These people are not likely to think, "Oh, that guy might have a gun." Bad guys without guns tend to avoid confrontational situations where they might get shot - let's call them the "smart ones". Bad guys with guns are not going to think twice about shooting you first and they are certainly not worried about reprisals...
So, you are saying that your personal experiences may impair your ability to be objective, then?
Not at all. My personal experiences are not particularly unique. They are the sort of experiences that drive firearm awareness programs and, in some cases, gun control laws. In other words, my personal experiences reinforce my perception of reality and give me confidence in my objectivity.
Otherwise I have to put all my faith in internet statistics, which can be spun to support any position, and in reactions to unspecific anxieties.
Maybe you should ask yourself where your objectivity is seated. If it's in the statistics that support a position that more guns = more safety, then you're more gullible than I thought. If it's a deep seated desire to have more control if confronted with violence, then you need to ask yourself what are the real "opportunities" to defend yourself and what are the real risks of you carrying a handgun and what are the real risks of a lot of strangers carrying handguns?
I am not sure what you mean by "internet statistics". There is biased data from the anti-gun lobbies such as HCI and VPC (the one you cited) and others. There is biased data from the pro gun lobby such as the NRA and others. And then there are raw crime statistics and national and and international demographics. I generally try to look at the raw data and form my own opinion. If an argument comes from a biased source, I try to derive or refute the conclusion based on data from unbiased sources, typically government agencies. Over time, I have developed a bias towards firearm ownership, mainly because I've found the data mostly does not suport the anti gun position and also because I wish for myself and others the ability to exert some control over defend ourselves rather than depending on a far too small police force. In that I find further justification because I prefer small government over large government. I would not want to see the police force get large enough to provide adequate defense because the financial and social costs would be too great.
A concealed carry permit is issued explicitly so that you may walk around with a holstered weapon. I have walked around with a holstered weapon in a locale where it was legal to do so. I see no problem in this. BTW, where do you think concealed carry permit holders carry their weapons? There are concealment holsters explicitly made so that people can carry their firearms safely and securely without casual detection.
I don't think my fears fall into the level of irrationality. Muggings occur. At this point in my life, someone who mugs me is likely to be more fit and capable of doing me physical harm. I see a firearm as a means to level the field somewhat. More to the point, I want this leveling available to anyone who wants it. I believe that this presents a deterrence to violent crimes. I do understand that there is risk associated with carrying a handgun. My assessment of the risk is that I would receive a net benefit. You may assess the risk differently for yourself. That does not make either of us irrational.
I don't think that more guns produce less violence or vice versa. Certainly in this country, though not in others, there is some correlation between the number of firearms and the amount of violence (though not in the U.K. where the correlation is inverse.) As the saying goes, though, correlation does not equal causation. Crime of all sorts has fallen steadily over many years in the U.S. Firearms crime has, as well. Correlating to this, firearm ownership has fallen. However, as you can, I can attribute the reduction in crime to education, awareness and other factors. What is interesting, though, is that violent crime seems to fall faster in states with concealed carry laws. There is a "knee" in the crime rate curve when such laws are introduced. Perhaps there are other factors at work, there, but there is a rate and temporal correlation which I find somewhat convincing.
All that said, though, there just is not all that much gun violence for me to worry about it. I think your fear of it, in light of other sources of violence and death, is irrational. There is much more violent crime, though. My possessing a firearm improves my odds of preventing such a crime happening to me and mine.
As far as rationality goes, you thinking, 1) having been shot at (at least?) three times and 2) shot twice, 3) personally knowing people who have been shot and killed criminally, 4) personally knowing people who have had guns drawn on them and 5) knowing people who have shot and killed someone, probably illegally, with none of this happening in a war zone, that you are not unusual... that is irrational. Any one of those is moderately unusual. Taking those experiences in sum, you likely find yourself in less than 1% of the population as a whole and less than 0.1% for your demographic. Dismissing the possibility that those experiences bias you and affect your objectivity... that is irrational.
Finally, if you are looking for an anecdote from someone you know where having a gun and using a gun saved the day, just ask me sometime, I have a couple.
I am not sure what you mean by "internet statistics". There is biased data from the anti-gun lobbies such as HCI and VPC (the one you cited) and others. There is biased data from the pro gun lobby such as the NRA and others.
It's all biased - on this, I think we agree.
And then there are raw crime statistics and national and and international demographics.
Please refer me to some of this unbiased, raw data. I rarely see raw data, and when I do it's collected and reported by a clearly biased source. I think it's possible that there are unbiased sources of raw data, but I don't know where to look.
A concealed carry permit is issued explicitly so that you may walk around with a holstered weapon. I have walked around with a holstered weapon in a locale where it was legal to do so.
Hmmm... [biting tongue, saying nothing...]
BTW, where do you think concealed carry permit holders carry their weapons?
Many of them carry them in holsters in plain sight. Wannabe Texas Rangers. Police academy dropouts. Cowboys. Postal workers. [sarcasm]
Muggings occur.
Not very frequently in the circles you and I traverse...
My assessment of the risk is that I would receive a net benefit.
One of the things that we have not yet discussed are the social implications of carrying a concealed weapon. I know you say that you could keep it concealed... perhaps so, but if not, I think it would seriously impact your credibility with your peers, might negatively impact your career, and would send a very worrisome message to your children and the friends of your children...
I do not believe you would receive a net benefit.
That does not make either of us irrational.
Subtle point, perhaps, but I did not mean to say that you are irrational. What I was trying to say is, because it is statistically improbable that you would find yourself in a situation where you would both (1) need a gun and (2) have a gun, any fear of this is irrational. Of similar scope to fear of flying, for instance. You would do more to protect yourself and your family by wearing motorcycle helmets when driving in your car. You probably think this is a pretty silly idea, but you are at much greater risk of severe head trauma in an auto accident than being injured during a mugging or other violent crime.
I think your fear of it, in light of other sources of violence and death, is irrational.
I can see where you might assume that my concern is regarding increased violence due to more guns. While, in general, I think increased violence is a probable outcome, this is not something that I worry too much about. I have a very pragmatic philosophy about the most likely cause of my demise. I'm pretty sure it will come due to some idiot talking on a cell phone and running me down in her SUV. Pretty ironic when you think about it, considering that I add fuel to that particular fire. My concern for my safety with regards to cell phones may be my irrational fear. Nothing to do with guns.
No, my real concern about guns is and always has been for the innocents. Young children that gain access to weapons because adults, in general, are not careful enough to insure their weapons are secure. You may not agree that reducing the number of available weapons to the public will also reduce the number of accessible weapons to children, but I hope you agree that anything that eliminates the senseless death of even one child is not irrational.
As far as rationality goes, you thinking, 1) having been shot at (at least?) three times and 2) shot twice, 3) personally knowing people who have been shot and killed criminally, 4) personally knowing people who have had guns drawn on them and 5) knowing people who have shot and killed someone, probably illegally, with none of this happening in a war zone, that you are not unusual... that is irrational. Any one of those is moderately unusual Taking those experiences in sum, you likely find yourself in less than 1% of the population as a whole and less than 0.1% for your demographic..
Try this experiment. Ask some of your friends what their experiences, and the experiences of people they know well, have been. I think you will quickly revise your guestimate. I think the number is greater than 50% of the people you ask will tell you that they know someone personally that has been affected by gun violence. I think more than 20% will cite you two or more such instances and I think around 5% will tell you that at some point in their life they personally felt threatened by a firearm.
Dismissing the possibility that those experiences bias you and affect your objectivity... that is irrational.
When faced with two opposing theories, it seems to me that the rational thing to believe is the one that correlates from direct experience. Does that bias me? I suppose so - just as observing an interference pattern from light shining through two slits in a piece of cardboard biases me toward believing in the wave-particle duality of photons.
There's plenty of evidence that guns are responsible for the deaths and injuries of a lot of children each year (I saw one statistic that suggested that it's over 3000 deaths per year). There is not so much evidence that the average person would be safer if they were carrying a handgun (with or without a concealed carry permit).
It's about time to terminate this thread. However, something that you said here will be the topic for my next article.
"...I hope you agree that anything that eliminates the senseless death of even one child is not irrational."
What an interesting thing to say...
I am posting this for YetAnotherJohn who is having trouble posting for some unknown reason. I am posting it verbatim, unedited except for formatting.
Here is an interesting article comparing two cities that tried to reduce crime.
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw - responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. - unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender.
The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available - for the year 2005 - show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.
By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.
This was not what some predicted.
LINK
Note that the facts given are not comparative. The fact that not a single fire arm fatality is not compared against the equivalent time period before the required to own a gun law. Likewise, it doesn't compare the firearm fatalities in the two towns.
The gun ban city initially saw an increase of 15.7%, but since its current crime rate is well below the national level, it is likely that it is also been falling. What would really be needed is the crime rate reports for both.
Finally, depending on how you look at the data, you could make the required gun town look worse. In rough numbers, the population has increased by ~5x, the crime rate only reduced by a bit more than 50%. So 227 crimes before the law requiring guns compared to 571 crimes after the law. The gun free city had 504 crimes. Which of course is why you compare crime rates, not number of crimes.
Another point on Joey's comments about "saving even one child's life".
In the United States during 2005, 1,451 children ages 14 years and younger died as occupants in motor vehicle crashes, and approximately 203,000 were injured. That's an average of 4 deaths and 556 injuries each day (NHTSA 2006b). LINK
So should we ban cars or just children in cars.
In the US, for ages 1 to 44, the leading cause of death is unintentional injury (what we laymen would call an accident). Under 1 year of age the leading cause is congenital anomalies.
Preventable deaths (aka not health related) is 9 out of 10 of the top ten reasons for death for under 1 (unintentional injury at #6 is the exception).
For 1 to 9 year olds, Unintentional injury and homicide (#4) are the preventable causes. To put it in perspective, the unintentional injuries cause about as many deaths as all the health causes combined. Homicides run at about 1/5 the rate of unintentional injuries for 1-4 and about 1/8 for 5 to 9 year olds.
For 10 - 14 year olds, all of the health caused death run at about 2/3 the unintentional injury deaths. Suicide is #3 and homicide drops to #5. Suicide, homicide and all the health causes of death are about equal to unintentional injury.
For 15-34, the top three causes of death are non health. Unintentional injury is # 1. For 15-24, #2 is homicide and #3 is suicide. All of the health causes don't add up to homicide or unintentional injury. In fact all of the health causes of death are about 1/5 the preventable top three causes. For 25-34, suicide is #2 and homicide drops to #3. The health causes of death are about 1/3 of the total deaths for this age group.
All of the above is for 2003. LINK
Now if we look at the unintentional injury (remember that is the top cause of death for 1 to 44 years of age, we see that fire arms is not a major component. For 1-4, Fire arms is #10 of the top 10 running at a rate less than 1/9 compared to the #2 cause of unintentional drowning (Should we declare towns swimming pool and bath tub free to save even just one kid?)
For 5-9, homicide by firearm goes up to #5, but still below unintentional MV traffic, fire, drowning and other land transportation. To put this in perspective, for this age group, homicide by fire arm runs at a rate of about 2/3 those cause by the flu and 120% those cause by septicemia.
For 10-14, Fire arms moves to #4 behind unintentional MV traffic, suicide by suffocation, and unintentional drowning (and just ahead of unintentional other land traffic). Suicide by fire arms is #7 (at less than half the rate of suicide by suffocation). Unintentional fire arm shows up as #10 (slightly behind unintentional poisoning). If you combine all the fire arm related deaths (suicide #7, homicide #4 and unintentional #10), you are about 75% of the deaths from #2 suicide suffocation and #3 unintentional drowning combined. All three combined are a bit more than 25% of the #1 unintentional MV traffic. So if you are looking for a lever, saying kids can't ride in cars would give you about a 4-1 advantage over firearms.
For 15-24, fire arms do play a significant role. Homicide firearm comes in at #2 and suicide fire arm at #3. Unintentional firearm falls off the chart, never to return. The two firearm causes of death are still a bit less than 2/3 the deaths by unintentional MV traffic (should we ban anyone under 21 from driving or riding in cars since that would seem to save more lives than all the firearms).
Now given that suicides are the #3 cause of death for 10-24 year olds we should think how we deal with that. Suicide by suffocation and suicide by poisoning run closely behind suicide by fire arms. In fact, if you add in undetermined poisoning, suffocation and poisoning other than unintentional is greater than the suicide by firearms. The point to draw from this is that if someone wants to kill themselves, there are other means that fire arms. In fact, for 10-14, suicide by suffocation runs at better than twice the rate of suicide by fire arm.
But the bottom line for all of these is that declaring a town "car free" would have a much greater impact on saving lives of all ages than firearms and would be much easier to enforce. So if "saving one child" is the key idea, where does Joey stand on the unionized death camps spewing forth their unintentional MV traffic murder from Detroit? Why do we spend billions of dollars to create killing zones in out towns and cities (aka roads)? You will note that the US constitution is silent on the question of automobiles, but does preserve the right to firearms.
Another little bon mot for Joey,
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud.
Also this article of an elderly person defending herself with a fire arm. LINK
LINK
England, which has very strict gun control laws, has assault rates twice that of the US and is seeing increases in gun used in crimes since the ban.
LINK
And finally, this which discounts much of the Brady campaign disinformation on gun control. LINK
YetAnotherJohn also submits this link for our reading pleasure.
I do not dispute that increased gun ownership reduces crime. Most criminals would prefer to avoid risks and are therefore concerned about private gun ownership. The question is whether the escalation of gun ownership is in the best interest of society.
There was a study conducted by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. In this study they asked people if owning a gun made them feel safer. 89% responded that they felt safer owning a gun. Then the study asked if they feel more or less safe if their neighbors owned guns. 85% responded that they feel less safe if their neighbors own guns; only 8% felt safer.
So, apparently, society would be a much safer place if only "I" owned guns and everyone else was unarmed. After all, this works with nuclear armaments, why not handguns?
Thanks for all the statistics regarding cars, swimming pools, et. al..
I shouldn't have to make this point... again... but here we go. It really is disingenuous to compare guns to cars and swimming pools. The primary purpose of a car or a swimming pool is not to cause death. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill or maim an individual. Did you really think that would be a convincing argument? Perhaps you overestimate my naiveté...
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud.
In case you are concerned for my sexual or emotional maturity (not that I put any faith in anything Freud said), I used to own several guns. I earned a marksman merit badge in Boy Scouts, used to hunt regularly and have killed multitudinous defenseless creatures in the name of sport. I have a long history with guns. I have even used guns to shoot people... fortunately for them, the guns shot paintballs... I have since gained a new level of sexual and emotional maturity where I no longer need to have a gun to feel like a man.
Also this article of an elderly person defending herself with a fire arm.
I find it surprising and ironic that you would highlight this example. First, this was not a case of self-defense, this was a case of defense-of-property. Second, Ms. Ramey is a cowboy by any definition of the word! She was incredibly lucky, in spite of being incredibly stupid. Turning a non life threatening situation into a life threatening one is not my idea of responsible gun ownership. If those thieves had been remotely competent or remotely dangerous, she would probably be dead and her gun would be out there being used to commit violent crimes.
Everyone loves a good cowboy story... until things go horribly wrong.
England, which has very strict gun control laws, has assault rates twice that of the US and is seeing increases in gun used in crimes since the ban.
Please refer to this link for more details:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/3550725.stm
The increase is largely due to the way the statistics are calculated. For instance, now the statistics include crimes using toy guns. Nevertheless, consider this. They reported 601 gun related crimes for all of eastern England in 2003. On the other hand, from January to May of 2003 (the only months reported by APD that year) the city of Austin experienced 605 aggravated assaults with firearms, 477 armed robberies and 13 murders... Austin has less than a tenth the population of that part of England. Do you really want to make the argument that gun control is NOT effective in England?
Post a Comment