Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
para

While we are waiting

Recommended Posts

poesel71,

I may be repeating myself, but years ago a Scotland Yard detective ran a hypothetical analysis in American Rifleman of what would likely happen if criminals actually were denied guns and had to use other weapons. Surprisingly, he determined the per assault with the weapon used lethality to be higher. Twice as high, in fact. Here's why.

He reasoned the new go-to weapons for assailants would be the knife and a lead-filled pipe. Turns out that both, because of the nature of the injuries they inflict, are actually 2 x more lethal, on average, than being shot. Being shot has a kill probability of 0.25, whereas the knife and the pipe run 0.50.

This is true for the knife because of not only the penetrating injuries which strike critical organs, veins and arteries but because it carries foreign, contaminated material deep into the body, creating sepsis. The lead-filled pipe, though, derives its lethality from its customary use against the victim's head. The pipe causes depressed skull fractures and massive brain trauma, a combination frequently fatal.

Understand the detective's analysis was for a mugging scenario and in no way addresses the sort of one/a few on many scenario found in the mass shooting which was the basis of this thread in the first place.

Since the criminal element disproportionately occurs among the young and strongest, it follows that those less hale and hearty are at a great and and ever growing disadvantage against these people as time wears on. Someone 70, generally speaking, hasn't much of a hope against an invading thug who's 18, even sans a gun in the thug's hand, whereas an outraged gun-armed homeowner who catches such a person in the owner's home can inflict a world of hurt. And it is precisely the fear of being shot that survey after survey of prisoners shows to be the biggest check on criminal behavior, not the death penalty.

As far as I'm concerned, the armed citizen is a great leveler in the human predator/prey equation. That little old lady who's meat on the table for the thug if she's unarmed becomes something else altogether if she's armed or perceived to be. And isn't it interesting that even things like tasers and stun guns are usually denied the hapless citizenry, invariably with the excuse the bad guys will use them?

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Places with higher gun ownership rates also have higher firearms-related deaths, a new study finds.

That a particular weapon type is more prevalent in areas where that particular weapon type is more often used should not be controversial. How much that really says about the larger issue of crime is far less clear.

Past studies have shown that gun owners are much likelier to be shot with their own weapons than they are to use it to thwart a crime.

The results of these studies always come down to how you define "use". The ones I have seen that come to the above conclusion almost invariably define "use" of a gun to thwart a crime to mean shooting the criminal. Other studies that have a more broad definition unsurprisingly come to other conclusions, as pointed out by this Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report:

Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a) in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook at al., 1997).

A different issue is whether defensive use of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive gun uses... have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared to victims who use other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and Delone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004)

Causation difficult

Very. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sburke - look up what integrating a school in Little Rock actually involved sometime. Hint - it wasn't a sit in. There is justice only where just men rule. With guns in their hands. Men who both know they are free and see such freedom as the highest end. And see such freedom for others as no intrusion on their own.

As for my comments about "us" and "we" not applying between you and me, if you are too dense to follow them I will spell it out. You and I do not belong to the same political grouping in any way. I am not your ally, you are not my equal, we have nothing in common. My freedom exists in complete contempt of anything you have ever or ever will, say think or do. There is no "we" between or above us. You do not speak for me or anything related to me in any way.

The civil rights movement forced the government to act. That they required guns in Little Rock was simply because a bunch of white red necked crackers were armed to the teeth. Same ones who keep crying about their supposed second amendment rights which they can't even seem to read. Again for you gun advocates who keep flouting how an armed populace is required to defend freedom- it took government force of arms to force that same bunch of armed morons to back off and defend the rights of a minority- the supposed whole point of being a republic. Geez do you even have any idea how flawed your logic is? Wasn't the point of the populace being armed to protect freedom? Christ do I really need to point that out to you?

But no, the government desegregating one school does not suddenly change the fact that it was unarmed men and women mostly young (and black- amazing eh) braving the established authority and an armed hostile white population that forced the government to stop segregation. Remember Rosa Parks?- no gun.

No I am not too dense and I entirely agree. I would never ever want to be equated to you. Jeez dude do you really think I would want any association to someone who adheres to such fruitcake bigoted ridiculously poorly informed ideals as you have espoused on this thread alone? Don't flatter yourself.

Here you go, it seems you have forgotten most of the major events of the civil rights movement and focused on one government intervention to stop the armed populace from undermining our freedoms.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The African-American Civil Rights Movement encompasses social movements in the United States whose goal was to end racial segregation and discrimination against black Americans and enforce constitutional voting rights to them. This article covers the phase of the movement between 1955 and 1968, particularly in the South.

The movement was characterized by major campaigns of civil resistance. Between 1955 and 1968, acts of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience produced crisis situations between activists and government authorities. Federal, state, and local governments, businesses, and communities often had to respond immediately to these situations that highlighted the inequities faced by African Americans. Forms of protest and/or civil disobedience included boycotts such as the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–56) in Alabama; "sit-ins" such as the influential Greensboro sit-ins (1960) in North Carolina; marches, such as the Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; and a wide range of other nonviolent activities.

Noted legislative achievements during this phase of the Civil Rights Movement were passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[1] that banned discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" in employment practices and public accommodations; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights; the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, that dramatically opened entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional European groups; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. African Americans re-entered politics in the South, and across the country young people were inspired to take action.

You are welcome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your dumb ingraditude is simply irrelevant; we are not asking for your permission for any of it. Never have, never will.

Hehe. Lighten up, JC.

On the other hand, this is the War Room. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, sticking your finger in one part of a collapsing dam has never worked.

Feasibility depends on the size of the dam and number of fingers. The continued availability of cocaine and heroin is suggestive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feasibility depends on the size of the dam and number of fingers. The continued availability of cocaine and heroin is suggestive.

You had me up to cocaine. Heroin though would lead to the umm... plugger? not following through on their job. They would likely instead stand next to the leak and see if they could match the stream while they urinate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to touch on the reasons why, but Jason's point that homicide in the US is demographically very clumpy is correct. This is something that I think a lot of people outside the US don't understand. One of the biggest reasons most Americans are a bit meh on gun control is because for most of them gun violence is something they only see on TV.

For example, I happen to live in the US state with the highest per-capita gun ownership rate in the US at nearly 60%. Yes, there are more people around me who own guns than do not. Yet our homicide rate is 1.4 per 100,000, less than a third the national average and about on-par with most European nations. By way of comparison, Maryland has a homicide rate of 7.3 per 100g with a gun ownership rate of 21%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite confident that if you look at the breakdown of gun violence most is concentrated in specific urban areas. The vast majority is committed by 2 ethnic groups and black males are far more likely to be shot by another black male. These urban areas have very tight gun control and are very hostile to all gun owners-law abiding or not. I know. Me and fellow gun owners were constantly targeted by the local government in the form of laws, restrictions and general disdain. Gun store were constantly harassed and out out of business by the local governments.

The big problem with the anti gun folks is they lie not only to the general public, but also to themselves. After Newtown, Obama, the media and politicians touted the 90% of Americans favored more gun laws statistic. The problem was that poll was taken right after Newtown and sampled only 1500 people in one of the most liberal and anti-gun regions in the Northeast.

Had that poll been a much larger sample that covered all of America you would have seen a much different picture, because the South. Southwest, Midwest and Mountain States have a very strong gun tradition and a strong sense of independence. Even in "liberal states" like California there is a HUGE contrast between the urban areas and rural areas.

Obama the media and anti gun folks believed their own lies that "90% of Americans wanted more gun control based on a seriously flawed poll and got pole-axed when they tried to pass more gun regulations and ran into a hornets nest of opposition. Politicians from Obama's own party who represented the rural states said straight up "they don't want a bunch of liberals in Washington dictating how they should live". In Colorado during and after the recalls the message to the anti gun folks was it didn't have to be this way had you listened to us and not Washington.

The implications of all this is huge. The next off year elections is heavily focused in rural pro gun areas and in-spite of the liberal medias contention that guns won't be an issue, you can bet dollars to doughnuts it will. The balance of power in Washington hangs in the balance and Obama who is already having problems could face even more if the off year elections go against him and his party.

After the AWB in the 90's the media pundits said it wouldn't matter. Well it did because for the first time in decades the conservatives took power and the gun issue was big. Many believed Gore lost in 2000 because he was anti-gun and couldn't even carry his home state which is located in the pro gun South.

I'm pretty apolitical and independent, but I'm very fired up and will vote for any pro gun candidate regardless of party. I want to send a message to Washington. I want the next President, Congress and Senate to pass a nationwide shall issue bill that is valid and reciprocal across all 50 states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But no, the government desegregating one school does not suddenly change the fact that it was unarmed men and women mostly young (and black- amazing eh) braving the established authority and an armed hostile white population that forced the government to stop segregation. Remember Rosa Parks?- no gun.

That's not entirely true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

The armed presence of the Deacons was instrumental in many of the non-violent protests. MLK even hired them. These guys embody the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Yet you would take away the very rights they exercised to keep themselves from being terrorized.

Also, us "red-necked crackers" are fully capable of understanding the wording of the 2nd. In fact, the Supreme Court agrees with our interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not entirely true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

The armed presence of the Deacons was instrumental in many of the non-violent protests. MLK even hired them. These guys embody the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Yet you would take away the very rights they exercised to keep themselves from being terrorized.

Also, us "red-necked crackers" are fully capable of understanding the wording of the 2nd. In fact, the Supreme Court agrees with our interpretation.

Thanks Rambler, very interesting article. While I don't think it fundamentally alters the character of the civil rights movement, it certainly points out the complexity of the issue.

Before anyone gets too ruffled, the red neck crackers comment was about those opposing the civil rights movement. My buddy here votes democratic and has 16k rounds of ammo. Go figure.

However all these citations point to one glaring fact. Having an armed populace, far from being this bastion for protecting democracy is very much a two edged sword. To restate my view though, I don't think gun control is an answer to the level of violence in our society. I don't understand this love of firearms many of my fellow Americans have, but I think it is a distraction not an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After Newtown, Obama, the media and politicians touted the 90% of Americans favored more gun laws statistic. The problem was that poll was taken right after Newtown and sampled only 1500 people in one of the most liberal and anti-gun regions in the Northeast.

I'm a gun owner and I have no problem with some gun control. I am not an absolutist who thinks buying a gun should be as easy as buying a loaf of bread. I also seriously question the utility of high-capacity magazines for any purpose other than shooting a lot of people in as short a time as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand this love of firearms many of my fellow Americans have, but I think it is a distraction not an answer.

I understand where you're coming from. I know many who simply can't understand my passion for guns. I have friends who are horrified by guns and want all guns banned.

All I can say is this:

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/04/15/coexist-in-firearm-manufacturer-logos/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a gun owner and I have no problem with some gun control. I am not an absolutist who thinks buying a gun should be as easy as buying a loaf of bread. I also seriously question the utility of high-capacity magazines for any purpose other than shooting a lot of people in as short a time as possible.

I beg to differ. For one thing banning hi-cap mags will not stop anyone who really wants one from getting one.

If someone is hell bent on killing they will simply buy lots of 10 or 5 round mags. Then what do we ban those? The shooter in Washington used a 870 shotgun which is tube fed. Do we ban or limit those to 2 rounds?

Where does it stop? Feinstein said we're not going to take away your guns. What she didn't mention was she represents a state that already has some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books and the liberals have enacted even more restrictions. Steinberg the California said after Newtown-we have the power we better use it while we can and enact more gun laws.

There is even talk that California has to enact more gun laws so "we can take back the most restrictive gun state from New York" who recently passed more gun regulations.

Believe me if your home got invaded by 4-5 thugs you'd want a high cap mag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you one of those guys who carries around a backup gun on his ankle? ;)

Unfortunately I'm not allowed to carry and being the law abiding citizen I follow the laws-even if I don't like or agree with them.

Of course many of anti-gun politicians in my state have been granted CCW's. Some are actually in districts where local LE never issue CCW's, but without question have issued CCW's to politicians who pass anti-gun laws every chance they get, lecture their subjects on the evil of guns and heaven forbid will never allow ordinary citizens to obtain a CCW.

Sounds like many European nations back in the day when only royalty were allowed to carry swords or possess firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California is not a "shall issue" state. CCW's are handled on a county by county basis. I reside in a county where unless you are politically connected they will not issue a CCW.

Many of our anti-gun politicians have been issued CCW's. I also believe Bloomberg who throws around his money to the anti-gun crusade has also been issued a CCW. Perhaps someone from the area can verify that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Rambler, very interesting article. While I don't think it fundamentally alters the character of the civil rights movement, it certainly points out the complexity of the issue.

Before anyone gets too ruffled, the red neck crackers comment was about those opposing the civil rights movement. My buddy here votes democratic and has 16k rounds of ammo. Go figure.

However all these citations point to one glaring fact. Having an armed populace, far from being this bastion for protecting democracy is very much a two edged sword. To restate my view though, I don't think gun control is an answer to the level of violence in our society. I don't understand this love of firearms many of my fellow Americans have, but I think it is a distraction not an answer.

You're very welcome. Not too many people know about the Deacons and their role in the civil rights movement, which I think is an important one. I would agree that their presence didn't alter the character of the movement. In fact, I would say that it complimented it. While they were armed, they were not violent. They did not participate in vigilantism, go on revenge killings or seek fights. However, their presence did give their oppressors pause and very visibly reminded them that, under the Constitution, they were just as equal and were endowed the exact same rights. To me, that's just as powerful as the sit-ins.

Gotcha on the rednecks :).

You're right, it is very much a double edged sword, but true liberty always is. It is fraught with risks and no guarantees. It can be tumultuous. Our freedom of unrestricted movement was used against us on 9/11 (I still lament the fact we gave that up so easily in the aftermath). Likewise, those with evil intentions have abused the right for all free men to keep and bear arms. Since evil lurks in the hearts of all men, there will always be those who take advantage of our rights. However, as the Deacons showed, when the time is necessary to exercise those rights, they are truly invaluable.

Yep, the whole gun issue is a distraction from the real reasons for the violence perpetrated in our urban centers, but that's for another topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a largely civil conversation. However, I think it's probably about time it got locked down. It's only a matter of time for it to go south and, glancing at the last few pages, I think the well trodden positions have been (once again) firmly established.

As someone who owns many firearms, lives in a state with near lowest number of regulations, has one of the highest per capita ownerships, one of the highest (I have heard THE highest) number of guns per capita, and one of the lowest gun violence rates... anybody that thinks than guns are at the cause of problems and not a symptom will never improve violence rates. Similarly, anybody who thinks guns are what keeps people in line and not government and long standing cultural practices has obviously not lived anywhere else but the US. Not London, where I lived and felt safer than in any US city I've visited/lived in. And certainly not Syria, where guns are given away for free to anybody who wants one but the conditions there are not by any stretch of the imagination "safe".

Also, let's not forget that the most dangerous place to live is Midsomer, England. And firearms are rarely a part of their problems. In fact, tonight, I saw three people beheaded by a 11th century sword. Going to a festival or any sort of public gathering will either result in your death or someone else who attends. Usually by poison, arrows, fire, a trident, or causes other than firearms. And you might as well just pack it in and move if you're landed gentry with a bad attitude, because you're going to get horribly murdered by someone wearing black gloves.

(Google this if you don't know what I'm talking about :)).

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...