on guns

[Rogue Drone]

I won't comment on the morality and/or the politics of this issue, I will say that the average american gun owner who equates a gun to a fire extinguisher that sits unused in their closet is stupidly fooling themselves if they think they are prepared.

If one has not been regularly practicing draw, grip, sight alignment, sight picture, movement, etc. you'll probably die at the hands of the guy who breaks in your house, the guy who has been.

The Second Amendment does not protect you from a Tyranical Goverment, it only allows you to have tools to drill with, without practicing the tactics they will kill you at 4am in your bed.

Learn the basics like the difference between cover and camouflage, learn to pie a corridor,etc; Go dig yourself a spiderhole as an observation post in a bush away from your house, with an obstacle in front of it and away from the lines of drift, cache some gear , determine some fallback positions, etc, etc.

Most civilians work it backwards - the proper order of study is mindset and fitness, then tactics, then skills, lastly gear, not the usual reverse order. It's the software, not the hardware that matters. Study the books of people like Gabe Suarez and John Poole and practice with some buddies, do it while you still can, do it for yourself and your family.

 

[CDB]

There is no number juggling.

I see, so now you didn't claim that you are much more likely to be killed by your own weapon than to use it in self defense, a claim based on a study with major problems in method, namely that it only studied criminals and has never been reproduced in a population of normal citizens.

There was and is you using a piss-poor reference, and having no other objective data to back your poorly made argument.

And your argument that the reference was 'piss poor' comes down to a misinterpretation of how many defensive gun uses involved brandishing as opposed to shooting. The Invalid Link Removed used a smaller sample than Kleck and got a 1.5 million figure. Before Kleck there were a shitload of other surveys in which the total number of DGUs ranges from ~800,000 to over 3 million, depending on the study. Also Invalid Link Removed, 400,000 fewer crimes and 800,000 instances of DGU. So there is plenty of evidence outside of Lott, he just does a good summary.

I am all for people having guns; the debate was the very minute possibility one has to use it to defend themselves. As I clearly showed above, you were more than wrong in that respect.

Actually you have a lot of work to do there. And even granting the need is minute, it is still a need that is not legitimately denied by a government to its citizens. Nor is the minute need so minute when it comes around and you're in need.

I also said several times how the Canadian Registry is a pathetic bureaucratic mess, but as per your style, you selectively debate your points.

I wasn't debating the Canadian registry as I don't care about Canada.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Again, not so pretentious as to quote your verbatim, as I don't feel you necessarily brought anything in this reply which deserves it.

Would you mind showing me the 'shitload' of studies you speak of? From my perspective, ambiguous Gallup and L.A. Times public opinion polls produced the only figures >1,000,000, and they were not DGUs only.

Also, do you not understand the terms 'falsify' or 'deliberately fabricate'? In case you don't, they are both synonymous with 'lying'. This is what your reference did - no interpretation there. Do you want me to point out more fallacies in Lott's work? I'm more than happy.

At this point, I'll reiterate for the fifth time, I never proposed once in this thread for registries; is your position so poor you need to accredit that to me for some strange justification?

I see, so now you didn't claim that you are much more likely to be killed by your own weapon than to use it in self defense, a claim based on a study with major problems in method, namely that it only studied criminals and has never been reproduced in a population of normal citizens.



And your argument that the reference was 'piss poor' comes down to a misinterpretation of how many defensive gun uses involved brandishing as opposed to shooting. The Invalid Link Removed used a smaller sample than Kleck and got a 1.5 million figure. Before Kleck there were a shitload of other surveys in which the total number of DGUs ranges from ~800,000 to over 3 million, depending on the study. Also Invalid Link Removed, 400,000 fewer crimes and 800,000 instances of DGU. So there is plenty of evidence outside of Lott, he just does a good summary.



Actually you have a lot of work to do there. And even granting the need is minute, it is still a need that is not legitimately denied by a government to its citizens. Nor is the minute need so minute when it comes around and you're in need.



I wasn't debating the Canadian registry as I don't care about Canada.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

39% of Households own at least one gun. Being generous to you, I'm going to assume that there is only one gun in each of those homes, and that there is only one person in each home trained to use it. 39% of 365,000,000 is roughly 142,000,000, or 142,000,000 guns with gun owners trained in their use (you and I both know there are far more of each).

800,000 is far, far less than 1% of those individuals with a brandish-to-defend instance; even being further generous to you and taking the LA Times 3,000,000 figure arrives at .02% chance, statistically, you will use your gun in a defensive manner.

Now, you take those statistics and realize that a large number of households own more than one gun, and many households have more than one gun owner, and the statistic is even more pathetic.

So, as I have said all along, the chance you will use your gun to defend yourself is minute.

I'm not sure what libertarian bullshit you can concoct to get around that.

"But, liberals suck, and the constitution and blah blah blah"

And why do keep bringing up your constitutional rights? Maybe I was not transparent enough in my other comments: I don't give a **** about the American constitution, or your rights derived from it - that was never what this debate was about. My concerns about that rank right up there with my thoughts on Britney Spears' next hair color, and which shoes Al Roker wears next.

The debate isn't constitutional, but practical. While your rights to use the gun should the necessity arise are constitutional, the minute probability it will is practical.

And your argument that the reference was 'piss poor' comes down to a misinterpretation of how many defensive gun uses involved brandishing as opposed to shooting. The Invalid Link Removed used a smaller sample than Kleck and got a 1.5 million figure. Before Kleck there were a shitload of other surveys in which the total number of DGUs ranges from ~800,000 to over 3 million, depending on the study. Also Invalid Link Removed, 400,000 fewer crimes and 800,000 instances of DGU. So there is plenty of evidence outside of Lott, he just does a good summary.

 

[CDB]

I won't comment on the morality and/or the politics of this issue, I will say that the average american gun owner who equates a gun to a fire extinguisher that sits unused in their closet is stupidly fooling themselves if they think they are prepared.

If one has not been regularly practicing draw, grip, sight alignment, sight picture, movement, etc. you'll probably die at the hands of the guy who breaks in your house, the guy who has been.

If you're talking hand guns, yeah. A scatter gun will do nicely, aim isn't as critical when you can blow a wall out.

The Second Amendment does not protect you from a Tyranical Goverment, it only allows you to have tools to drill with, without practicing the tactics they will kill you at 4am in your bed.

If a few thousand rag tag arabs in the middle east can damn near paralyze our military, a few million armed Americans on our own soil could do just as well if not better in my eyes. History is full of instances where armed, unprofessional civilians stood up to and often won against the so called pros. I don't disagree that some education can make you a much better weilder of a gun, but there's a reason they call it the equalizer. And there's a reason why tyranical regimes throughout history have always made it a priority to disarm the populace, and it's not because they thought an armed populace wasn't a threat.

 

[CDB]

Again, not so pretentious as to quote your verbatim, as I don't feel you necessarily brought anything in this reply which deserves it.

Two more studies that substantiate my view which you either can't argue or can't find a quick internet response to in other words.

Would you mind showing me the 'shitload' of studies you speak of? From my perspective, ambiguous Gallup and L.A. Times public opinion polls produced the only figures >1,000,000, and they were not DGUs only.

Invalid Link Removed

Thirteen summarized including Gallup and LA Times in context with differentiation shown in how the studies were done, time period covered, nature of the DGU, etc.

I'm more than happy.

I'm sure there's someone who has already tabulated a whole list of complaints against him from which you are more than willing to quote. His point and numbers stand though, and are substantiated elsewhere by independent studies.

At this point, I'll reiterate for the fifth time, I never proposed once in this thread for registries; is your position so poor you need to accredit that to me for some strange justification?

And to my knowledge I never said you did. If fact I don't think I've typed the word "registry" once in any of my replies. My point is the facts are not as you said, specifically that guns are used for self defense quite often, and that the claim you are more likely to be killed by your own gun than to use it in self defense is pure bull. So what's your point in constantly bring up Canada, a country that I couldn't give damn about and which is completely irrelevant to the discussion?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

You didn't substantiate anything - you regurgitated studies and figures which I addressed a few posts above, try again.

You then have shown me a table I have already seen, which further substantiates the ambiguous nature of the LA Times study: a study which is NOT DGU specific, and not even human specific. Further, all the largest response studies WERE NOT human specific, and if you actually cared to do further investigation (beyond that of a gun lobbyist group, lol) you would see the actual questions were incredibly vague, and non-specific.

However, you didn't, you quickly scrambled on a website of your ilk to back the fledgling ship that is your poorly made argument.

So, unless your paranoia stems from marauding packs of rodents, dogs, and otherwise small mammalian fiends, I'm not sure your point was well bolstered with that graph, champ.

Two more studies that substantiate my view which you either can't argue or can't find a quick internet response to in other words.



Invalid Link Removed

Thirteen summarized including Gallup and LA Times in context with differentiation shown in how the studies were done, time period covered, nature of the DGU, etc.



I'm sure there's someone who has already tabulated a whole list of complaints against him from which you are more than willing to quote. His point and numbers stand though, and are substantiated elsewhere by independent studies.



And to my knowledge I never said you did. If fact I don't think I've typed the word "registry" once in any of my replies. My point is the facts are not as you said, specifically that guns are used for self defense quite often, and that the claim you are more likely to be killed by your own gun than to use it in self defense is pure bull. So what's your point in constantly bring up Canada, a country that I couldn't give damn about and which is completely irrelevant to the discussion?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

No matter how you cut it there is no reason to disarm a populace nor is their an effective means of legally disarming criminals. Self defense is a right, not a privilege. Defense from criminals and the government. And if there's some number juggling going on here your side is the one with tired arms.

it is still a need that is not legitimately denied by a government to its citizens

The whole premise behind gun control is that someone who is willing to take a gun, point it at another human being, and say, "Give me your money, or I'll kill you," or, "Spread your legs, or I'll kill you," or, "I'm just going to kill you for the fun of it!", is going to put their hand to their forehead and say, "Alas!, I can rob and murder no more, the government says I can't have a gun!
"Maybe I'll become a CPA...

And to my knowledge I never said you did. If fact I don't think I've typed the word "registry" once in any of my replies. My point is the facts are not as you said, specifically that guns are used for self defense quite often, and that the claim you are more likely to be killed by your own gun than to use it in self defense is pure bull. So what's your point in constantly bring up Canada, a country that I couldn't give damn about and which is completely irrelevant to the discussion?

With me champ? Never once did I insinuate that your government should seek to disarm you - despite your repeated attempts to make it appear as if I did.

Not a single time did I mention anything about gun control.

 

[CDB]

39% of Households own at least one gun. Being generous to you, I'm going to assume that there is only one gun in each of those homes, and that there is only one person in each home trained to use it. 39% of 365,000,000 is roughly 142,000,000, or 142,000,000 guns with gun owners trained in their use (you and I both know there are far more of each).

800,000 is far, far less than 1% of those individuals with a brandish-to-defend instance; even being further generous to you and taking the LA Times 3,000,000 figure arrives at .02% chance, statistically, you will use your gun in a defensive manner.

Now, you take those statistics and realize that a large number of households own more than one gun, and many households have more than one gun owner, and the statistic is even more pathetic.

So, as I have said all along, the chance you will use your gun to defend yourself is minute.

Very well then, tell that to the people who have used their guns to save their lives. What's more, if you are inclined, use the statistic to tell them that as a 'practical' matter they are better off dead so that someone who was killed or wounded accidentally with a gun should be unhurt and/or alive still.

Then factor in the crimes that aren't committed because of an armed populace discourages them by comparing our crime rates with nations that have strict gun control but which, magically enough, can't seem to control crime, even gun crime.

I'm not sure what libertarian bullshit you can concoct to get around that.

I don't need to. Statistics are fine and dandy, rights are rights, period.

And why do keep bringing up your constitutional rights? Maybe I was not transparent enough in my other comments: I don't give a **** about the American constitution, or your rights derived from it - that was never what this debate was about. My concerns about that rank right up there with my thoughts on Britney Spears' next hair color, and which shoes Al Roker wears next.

I don't think I've mentioned the constitution, though I have mentioned rights. Human rights, like the right to self defense, are things I find relevant to life. Perhaps you don't, that's your trip which I'm obviously not a part of.

The debate isn't constitutional, but practical. While your rights to use the gun should the necessity arise are constitutional, the minute probability it will is practical.

Actually given the fact that the majority of the people murdered last century were killed by their own governments in various genocides and what not, after universal disarmament, you might want to reconsider that thought.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Or in other words: you have no legitimate response when faced with facts, so you compose whiney moral arguments. Got it.

Facts are, you are and were wrong; it is not likely you'll use a gun to protect yourself. Period.

You know, I am sure people who have won the lottery say it was the best decision of their life - that still doesn't make it practical, or make buying a lottery ticket a retirement investment fund.

And what comparisons are you making? Surely nothing in the developed world. The violent crime rate, gun crime rate, and other aggravated assault rates are far less in most other developed nations - per capita - than the United States.

Genocides are a far more complex issue than gun-rights, try again. Very poor comparison.

Very well then, tell that to the people who have used their guns to save their lives. What's more, if you are inclined, use the statistic to tell them that as a 'practical' matter they are better off dead so that someone who was killed or wounded accidentally with a gun should be unhurt and/or alive still.

Then factor in the crimes that aren't committed because of an armed populace discourages them by comparing our crime rates with nations that have strict gun control but which, magically enough, can't seem to control crime, even gun crime.



I don't need to. Statistics are fine and dandy, rights are rights, period.



I don't think I've mentioned the constitution, though I have mentioned rights. Human rights, like the right to self defense, are things I find relevant to life. Perhaps you don't, that's your trip which I'm obviously not a part of.



Actually given the fact that the majority of the people murdered last century were killed by their own governments in various genocides and what not, after universal disarmament, you might want to reconsider that thought.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Anyway, you literally have produced nothing to support your argument in earnest; any small desire I had to participate in this discussion is gone as well.

Maybe next time you'll check your references before opening your mouth and having your ass handed to you?

Unsubscribed.

 

[CDB]

Or in other words: you have no legitimate response when faced with facts, so you compose whiney moral arguments. Got it.

Oh, those whiney moral arguments.

Fact: the majority of people killed last century were killed by their own government after being disarmed. The exact figure and source I'll have shortly if you're that anal about it.

Fact: you are not more likely to be hurt by your own gun that to use it in self defense. the numbers of DGU vary, hard data is almost impossible to come by. but you can bet your ass everyone who has defended themselves with a gun considered it significant.

Fact: moral and ethical argument is as much a part of this debate as any statistic. My guess is you don't like that because the strength of argument on the pro liberty side is much stronger than on the side of the controllers.

Facts are, you are and were wrong; it is not likely you'll use a gun to protect yourself. Period.

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall saying it was likely, but a hell of a lot more prevalent than people who 'accidentally' exert an 8lb pull on a trigger while pointing the gun at someone else's heart. In other words, you're much more likely to use your gun in self defense than to be hurt by it. I do notice of course you completely gloss over your quoting of the bullshit study which concluded you're more likely to be killed by your own gun than to use it for defense. If you want to talk about being loose with the figures, pot - kettle - black.

You know, I am sure people who have won the lottery say it was the best decision of their life - that still doesn't make it practical, or make buying a lottery ticket a retirement investment fund.

Not the same situation. If you're wrong on the lottery, you're no worse off now than before. If you're wrong on your need for a gun you're a victim to some degree, if not dead.

And what comparisons are you making? Surely nothing in the developed world. The violent crime rate, gun crime rate, and other aggravated assault rates are far less in most other developed nations - per capita - than the United States.

Are you frigging kidding me? The violent crime rate in the UK is ridiculously high compared to the US, and internal US comparrisons among states and cities routinely show the highest violent crime and murder rates in the cities and states with the most restrictive gun laws. Look at Vermont vs DC for example. In fact last I recall the only stat the UK was doing better on than the US was murder, and that's largely because the method of countin homocides in the UK differs from the US; the count homocides only after conviction, and multiple homocides as one murder if the assailant was the same. Similar book cooking is done with burglary stats there where a string of burglaries on one street will be reported as one incident when it would be reported as 12 here in the US.

Still, different cultures and methods of tabulation. The stats in the US are pretty clear. Gun control does not lower crime in general or gun crime in particular.

Genocides are a far more complex issue than gun-rights, try again. Very poor comparison.

Try committing a genocide upon an armed population, then get back to me.

 

[bpmartyr]

You guys are mean.

 

[Rogue Drone]

If you're talking hand guns, yeah. A scatter gun will do nicely, aim isn't as critical when you can blow a wall out. .

When's the last time you patterend a shotgun and a selected load? Rule of thumb, with any choke other a vang comp, is a 1" spread diameter for each yard of distance with 00, across a room that's just a few inches, shotguns with shot are only somewhat more forgiving than a handgun for poor aim. I recommend a tritium post on a ghost ring sight and slugs for near and far heavy hits myself, turns a 18" barreled tactical shotgun into an ultra heavy hitting though slow and crude aiming carbine.

If a few thousand rag tag arabs in the middle east can damn near paralyze our military, a few million armed Americans on our own soil could do just as well if not better in my eyes. History is full of instances where armed, unprofessional civilians stood up to and often won against the so called pros. I don't disagree that some education can make you a much better weilder of a gun, but there's a reason they call it the equalizer. And there's a reason why tyranical regimes throughout history have always made it a priority to disarm the populace, and it's not because they thought an armed populace wasn't a threat.

It's more than just a few thousand combatants, we, the US military, have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who's family and friends have taken up arms against an occupying force they want gone. They are far more proficent and dedicated/fanatical with better gear than all but a tiny percentage of americans civilians are at this time, but yes, assuming one survives the intial military onslaught here, after the populace as a whole gets enraged and the troops turn on each other, we would grind them down and out.

Assuming you haven't making too much noise on the net and they snatch you up weeks before the mass move, that is.

A note on gun ownership stats - I've seen estimates that 60% or more of guns are in the hands of about 10% of owners,da gun nuts, distribution is not as widespread as commonly believed.

 

[Mo250]

When's the last time you patterend a shotgun and a selected load? Rule of thumb, with any choke other a vang comp, is a 1" spread diameter for each yard of distance with 00, across a room that's just a few inches, shotguns with shot are only somewhat more forgiving than a handgun for poor aim. I recommend a tritium post on a ghost ring sight and slugs for near and far heavy hits myself, turns a 18" barreled tactical shotgun into an ultra heavy hitting though slow and crude aiming carbine.




It's more than just a few thousand combatants, we, the US military, have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who's family and friends have taken up arms against an occupying force they want gone. They are far more proficent and dedicated/fanatical with better gear than all but a tiny percentage of americans civilians are at this time, but yes, assuming one survives the intial military onslaught here, after the populace as a whole gets enraged and the troops turn on each other, we would grind them down and out.

Assuming you haven't making too much noise on the net and they snatch you up weeks before the mass move, that is.

A note on gun ownership stats - I've seen estimates that 60% or more of guns are in the hands of about 10% of owners,da gun nuts, distribution is not as widespread as commonly believed.

do you have any link to those estimates?

 

[jrkarp]

Our Four Fathers gave us this write. It shall remain protected. It's our right as American citizens and not even the government should be able to take that right away from us. The government seems to be getting worse and worse as time goes on, and we may eventually need to revolt. The NRA is the only thing standing between our right to bear arms and the government taking that right away.

It's a right, not a write, and our forefathers did not give it to us.

It is an inherent, natural right.

Does the 2nd say "The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms?"

No. It says "THE right of the people..." The right was preexisting.

The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Governments PROTECT rights. They do not GIVE them.

 

[Will Brink]

Considering that a gun you own is far more likely to injure or kill you, or someone you love, rather than defend against a would-be intruder,

That is false as is all your other comments. The data shows that to be untrue. A primer of the general myths debunked:

The Cold, Hard Facts About Guns
by
John R. Lott, Jr.

America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.

Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety. Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.

Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers.

The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.

With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.

Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.

Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.

There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.

Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.

Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).

Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.

The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.

How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.

These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.

This article fist appeared in the Chicago Tribune on May 8, 1998 and is reprenited here with the author's permission.

Dr. John Lott, Jr. is the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law, and is the author of More Guns, Less Crime

 

[Mulletsoldier]

That is false as is all your other comments. The data shows that to be untrue. A primer of the general myths debunked:

The Cold, Hard Facts About Guns
by
John R. Lott, Jr.

America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.

Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety. Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.

Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers.

The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.

With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.

Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.

Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.

There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.

Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.

Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).

Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.

The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.

How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.

These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.

This article fist appeared in the Chicago Tribune on May 8, 1998 and is reprenited here with the author's permission.

Dr. John Lott, Jr. is the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law, and is the author of More Guns, Less Crime

I'm going to go on a wild leap of faith and assume you did not read the entire thread; considering I spent two pages showing almost everything you said here was complete bullshit, as is everything Jon Lott says. Period.

 

[Will Brink]

I'm going to go on a wild leap of faith and assume you did not read the entire thread; considering I spent two pages showing almost everything you said here was complete bullshit, as is everything Jon Lott says. Period.

You did nothing of the sort, and were wrong all through it. Plenty of other data and researchers beside Lott exist, and no one had debunked his data. Carry on.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

You did nothing of the sort, and were wrong all through it. Plenty of other data and researchers beside Lott exist, and no one had debunked his data. Carry on.

True; Lott most definitely did misrepresent the plenty of other ambiguous data out there. Fact is: Lott's data is bullshit, as was shown here and through other more official avenues (see: almost the entire academic community).

I'm very excited to see if you can do anything besides unsubstantially open your mouth though; please, show me the error of my ways.

 

[Will Brink]

For anybody interested, John Lott has been unanimously discredited by legitimate researchers,

Wrong, and you have yet to show any such work. Plenty of researchers disagree with him, none of have "discredited" his research in the true sense of the word, regardless how many times you make the statement. Some disagree with his conclusions from the research, some don't.

Again, people that don’t like what Lott has to say, attempt to discredit him any way possible and pretend every other researcher in the field considers him a a “quack” or some such BS. What do various Nobel Prize Winners think of Lott’s work? Let’s see:


"John Lott's thoughtful study should be read by everyone interested in the control of violent crime, and protection against terrorism." --Vernon L. Smith, 2002 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"John Lott's 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, created quite a stir among the gun-control romantics, whose expressive advocacy involves neither sound analytics nor empirical evidence. In this follow-on book, The Bias Against Guns, Lott continues the struggle, and responds to his critics, motivated by his strong conviction that analysis and evidence must, finally, win the day." --James Buchanan, 1986 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"Another major contribution by John Lott to the evidence on the effects--good and bad--of gun-control legislation. An important supplement to his More Guns, Less Crime."--Milton Friedman, 1976 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"John Lott is a scholar's scholar and a writer's writer--and his book shows why. That gun ownership might bring social benefits as well as costs is a story we do not often see in the press, and Lott here explores why. With a blend of new data, evidence, and examples, he unpacks the bias against such stories in the media."--J. Mark Ramseyer, Harvard Law School professor

Yah, really discredited....

 

[Will Brink]

I'm very excited to see if you can do anything besides unsubstantially open your mouth though; please, show me the error of my ways.

CDP did more than sufficient job crushing your lame attempts at debate and showing you to be unable to deal with reality and ignoring what you don't like, and repeating yourself minus support for your statements. He supported his well, and best you could do was simply do the 'net equivalent of sticking you fingers in your ears and going "la la la la."

The bottom line here is, I don’t actually care what Lott says. We can remove him from the debate altogether, and the results are the same. The only thing that matters here is, what are the net benefits to society of gun control? The data and history tell shows us gun control does not benefit society, and at the end of the day, that’s what matters.

Now, is there intellectual dishonesty on both sides of the issue? Absolutely, but even a minimal look at the issue by an objective person will find the anti gun side FAR and away the more intellectually dishonest of the two sides, with the Brady Bunch et al making Lott look like the most honest human being who ever lived. Some interesting reading for example from authors and researchers Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen as posted to the “Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws” web site on the issue:

“…we have extensively studied the firearm debate and the consequences of restrictive firearm laws - not just here in the U.S., but abroad, as well. We've written articles on how such laws have turned places like South Africa, Jamaica, the Solomon Islands, and Zimbabwe (to name just a few of the less well-known examples) into a paradise for criminals, and a hell-hole for (disarmed) law-abiding citizens. There are many other examples we've researched and have yet to write about.

But the consequences of restrictive firearm laws are universal and without exception - it's just that some countries are in different stages along the same road to civilian disarmament. And we have yet to find a single "sensible" restrictive firearm law that:

1. Has reduced violent crime
2. Has prevented the acquisition of firearms by criminals
3. Has aided police in apprehending violent criminals
4. Has reduced overall suicide rates, or firearm-related accidental deaths (As we're sure you are aware, the Lott/Whitley paper on "safe-storage" laws documents the fact that these laws are lethal laws for those who obey them.)

What we HAVE seen result from "sensible", restrictive gun laws is:

1. Their subversion to facilitate the creation of government lists of lawful gun-owners, followed by - again and again, ad nauseum - confiscation using these lists
2. The creation of a burgeoning black market in firearms
3. A reduced access to (especially self-defensive) firearms by law-abiding citizens

We've said some of this before in earlier conversations, and while we don't wish to sound like a broken record, each new article we research and write only serves to further validate every one of these observations.

Instead of finding unbiased scientists among the firearm-prohibitionists searching for truth, what we've found, instead, is intentional distortion, outright lying, and bait-and-switch tactics, the extent of which boggles the mind - a whole cadre of anti-gun "junk-scientists" resorting to lies and propaganda, because that's the only means of keeping their agenda alive.

And every one of them - Kellermann, Hemenway, Wintemute, Cook, Ludwig, and all the rest of their ilk - are full of "reasonable", "sensible" firearm proposals for America's politicians to enact.

We would venture to say that your own increasingly prolific writing on the firearm debate has provided you with similar validation of these observations.

Perhaps the most disturbing "accomplishment" of these laws (at least to us) is the transformation of the way children are introduced to firearms in America today. Instead of knowledge passing from parent to child, in a safe and responsible manner - as used to happen in the past - "sensible" gun laws now force many children to learn about guns from their peers, and on the street.

Yet, according to the U.S. DOJ's ongoing Rochester Study on Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse - totally ignored by the mainstream media and most of this country's politicians - children who were introduced to firearms by their parents are the least violent of all groups studied.

Lastly, there's a great book (now out of print) written by former Chief Inspector of British Police, Colin Greenwood, entitled "Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales". While Greenwood's book was published in 1972, his observations and conclusions are still right on the money (and perfectly borne out by current events in Great Britain on firearm-related crime). Here are some excerpted comments:

"[If the question is] 'How can we stop criminals from obtaining firearms?' From the evidence so far supplied, the answer appears to be that we cannot...Criminals have proved to us that firearms controls will not deny their small class of people access to firearms whenever they want them...Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before...one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction."

Greenwood concluded: "Indeed, it is possible to build up a sound case for abolishing or substantially reducing controls."

It's clear that Greenwood is one who doesn't believe in the concept of "sensible" gun laws. (BTW, Greenwood is still alive and well, and recently authored an article on "Britain's Handgun Ban" which appeared in the Australian Shooters Journal.)

If DSGL ever changes its name and abandons the premise of "sensible gun laws", we'd probably have a change of mind about becoming part of the group.

But at this point, we think that the ONLY kind of "sensible" gun law is one which repeals existing restrictive gun laws, and that's not what we think DSGL has in mind.

- Paul & Joanne

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Will Brink]

Anyway, you literally have produced nothing to support your argument in earnest; any small desire I had to participate in this discussion is gone as well.

Maybe next time you'll check your references before opening your mouth and having your ass handed to you?

Unsubscribed.

It appears you are the Mary Rosh of these forums. You claimed to have Unsubscribed, then responded to my posts. Drama queen or lier? Both expose a level of intellectual dishonesty so very similar to what we see with anti gun types, which you claim not to be....what ever.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

CDP did more than sufficient job crushing your lame attempts at debate and showing you to be unable to deal with reality and ignoring what you don't like, and repeating yourself minus support for your statements. He supported his well, and best you could do was simply do the 'net equivalent of sticking you fingers in your ears and going "la la la la."

The bottom line here is, I don’t actually care what Lott says. We can remove him from the debate altogether, and the results are the same. The only thing that matters here is, what are the net benefits to society of gun control? The data and history tell shows us gun control does not benefit society, and at the end of the day, that’s what matters.

Now, is there intellectual dishonesty on both sides of the issue? Absolutely, but even a minimal look at the issue by an objective person will find the anti gun side FAR and away the more intellectually dishonest of the two sides, with the Brady Bunch et al making Lott look like the most honest human being who ever lived. Some interesting reading for example from authors and researchers Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen as posted to the “Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws” web site on the issue:

“…we have extensively studied the firearm debate and the consequences of restrictive firearm laws - not just here in the U.S., but abroad, as well. We've written articles on how such laws have turned places like South Africa, Jamaica, the Solomon Islands, and Zimbabwe (to name just a few of the less well-known examples) into a paradise for criminals, and a hell-hole for (disarmed) law-abiding citizens. There are many other examples we've researched and have yet to write about.

But the consequences of restrictive firearm laws are universal and without exception - it's just that some countries are in different stages along the same road to civilian disarmament. And we have yet to find a single "sensible" restrictive firearm law that:

1. Has reduced violent crime
2. Has prevented the acquisition of firearms by criminals
3. Has aided police in apprehending violent criminals
4. Has reduced overall suicide rates, or firearm-related accidental deaths (As we're sure you are aware, the Lott/Whitley paper on "safe-storage" laws documents the fact that these laws are lethal laws for those who obey them.)

What we HAVE seen result from "sensible", restrictive gun laws is:

1. Their subversion to facilitate the creation of government lists of lawful gun-owners, followed by - again and again, ad nauseum - confiscation using these lists
2. The creation of a burgeoning black market in firearms
3. A reduced access to (especially self-defensive) firearms by law-abiding citizens

We've said some of this before in earlier conversations, and while we don't wish to sound like a broken record, each new article we research and write only serves to further validate every one of these observations.

Instead of finding unbiased scientists among the firearm-prohibitionists searching for truth, what we've found, instead, is intentional distortion, outright lying, and bait-and-switch tactics, the extent of which boggles the mind - a whole cadre of anti-gun "junk-scientists" resorting to lies and propaganda, because that's the only means of keeping their agenda alive.

And every one of them - Kellermann, Hemenway, Wintemute, Cook, Ludwig, and all the rest of their ilk - are full of "reasonable", "sensible" firearm proposals for America's politicians to enact.

We would venture to say that your own increasingly prolific writing on the firearm debate has provided you with similar validation of these observations.

Perhaps the most disturbing "accomplishment" of these laws (at least to us) is the transformation of the way children are introduced to firearms in America today. Instead of knowledge passing from parent to child, in a safe and responsible manner - as used to happen in the past - "sensible" gun laws now force many children to learn about guns from their peers, and on the street.

Yet, according to the U.S. DOJ's ongoing Rochester Study on Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse - totally ignored by the mainstream media and most of this country's politicians - children who were introduced to firearms by their parents are the least violent of all groups studied.

Lastly, there's a great book (now out of print) written by former Chief Inspector of British Police, Colin Greenwood, entitled "Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales". While Greenwood's book was published in 1972, his observations and conclusions are still right on the money (and perfectly borne out by current events in Great Britain on firearm-related crime). Here are some excerpted comments:

"[If the question is] 'How can we stop criminals from obtaining firearms?' From the evidence so far supplied, the answer appears to be that we cannot...Criminals have proved to us that firearms controls will not deny their small class of people access to firearms whenever they want them...Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before...one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction."

Greenwood concluded: "Indeed, it is possible to build up a sound case for abolishing or substantially reducing controls."

It's clear that Greenwood is one who doesn't believe in the concept of "sensible" gun laws. (BTW, Greenwood is still alive and well, and recently authored an article on "Britain's Handgun Ban" which appeared in the Australian Shooters Journal.)

If DSGL ever changes its name and abandons the premise of "sensible gun laws", we'd probably have a change of mind about becoming part of the group.

But at this point, we think that the ONLY kind of "sensible" gun law is one which repeals existing restrictive gun laws, and that's not what we think DSGL has in mind.

- Paul & Joanne

Invalid Link Removed

Amazing, you managed to waste that entire space without providing a single shred of objective data, but rather regurgitating the points of others seemingly unable to form a point of your own. What data and cases do they use to make their points? References? Please, that kind of pathetic attempt is what makes you look dishonest and vulnerable.

You have not disputed anything I've said in this debate earlier, aside from rekindling drama with nothing but rhetoric, skimpy on actual numbers (are you and CDB related?). Please, if you cannot reconcile with the reality that pro-gun statistics are fabricated, and real data (on either side) is hard to come by, remove yourself from the debate. I would be more than happy to copy and paste ridiculously unsubstantial rhetoric to further my point, but I would rather stick to the numbers. You've had four responses in this thread, none of them have contained any data to be considered objective (but rather pro-gun supportive, and opinion work) and somehow label me subjective and dishonest; you are a piece of work buddy.

Honestly, spare us the rhetoric. I'm happy to continue this when you have actual data to support your position; for example, posts 43-60. I'm quite confident you have none, and will reply back with nothing more than 'anti-gun' this and 'pro-gun' that, as is the style of your ilk. I honestly do not have a moral position on the argument, and more or less concern myself with people such as yourself and CDB: People who claim the mass amounts of objective pro-gun data, but fail to produce more than a few authors - always including Lott - and very shallow data.

 

[Will Brink]

Amazing, you managed to waste that entire space without providing a single shred of objective data,

And you managed to ignore it through an entire thread.Any more pretend unsubscribing going to happen again?

Idiotic babble snipped. Carry on.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

And you managed to ignore it through an entire thread.Any more pretend unsubscribing going to happen again?

Idiotic babble snipped. Carry on.

No, I'm patiently awaiting the objective numbers you are going to provide. It's sort of like waiting for Santa Clause as a kid: I know it's not real, but I'm excited to see what bullshit will be concocted.

Please, though, continue with your opinion work! Very intriguing.

:lol:

 

[Will Brink]

No, I'm patiently awaiting the objective numbers you are going to provide.

And I am no so patiently waiting for you to get a clue. As stated, a fine job was already done tearing down your goofy attempts at debate.

It's sort of like waiting for Santa Clause as a kid: I know it's not real, but I'm excited to see what bullshit will be concocted.

Actually, it like waiting for an intellectually dishonest person like yourself get a clue, which is a stupid expectation on my part.

Please, though, continue with your opinion work! Very intriguing.

Intellectually honest people actually do what they say, like unsubscribing from a thread as they claim, vs being a lying drama queen like yourself in an attempt to make a point, very much like people from the Brady Bunch and the ilk... Here's what it looks like.

Have a good one.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

And I am no so patiently waiting for you to get a clue. As stated, a fine job was already done tearing down your goofy attempts at debate.



Actually, it like waiting for an intellectually dishonest person like yourself get a clue, which is a stupid expectation on my part.



Intellectually honest people actually do what they say, like unsubscribing from a thread as they claim, vs being a lying drama queen like yourself in an attempt to make a point, very much like people from the Brady Bunch and the ilk... Here's what it looks like.

Have a good one.

You too. Nice speaking with you (and he exits without providing a single shred of evidence). Happy trails!