Trayvon in Tulsa?

[DanTex]

I came across this Slate article about Stand Your Ground laws and the vigilanteism they encourage.

...
I asked Richard Thompson Ford, a Stanford law professor and Slate contributor, what he makes of the Tulsa shootings in combination with Trayvon Martin’s death. He pointed out that these killings give the lie to Justice Clarence Thomas’ claim that, in Ford’s words, “the Second Amendment is good for blacks because it allowed former slaves to defend themselves against racist vigilantes after emancipation.”

Ford is talking about Thomas’ opinion in last year’s Chicago gun control case, which applied to the states the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to bear arms. Thomas invoked the era after Reconstruction, when “the use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves against mob violence." But Ford points out that today most of us, of all races, rely on the police for protection. “And despite their flaws,” Ford says, “I’d much prefer police with training and some psychological screening to be in control of the guns than vigilantes.”

You can think, then, of legislation like Florida’s Stand Your Ground law—which makes it all too easy to escape a murder conviction, or even charge, with a claim of self-defense—as imposing what Ford calls a “racial tax.” He says, “We can predict that the vigilantes these laws encourage are more likely to be reckless, incompetent, and frankly, racist, than the police.”

Oklahoma has a Stand Your Ground law as well, passed in 2006. Mediaite speculates that it’s because of that law that Pernell Jefferson wasn’t charged with shooting Carl England. I’m not sure that’s right, but it seems plausible—and it suggests that what we’re seeing in Tulsa is how Stand Your Ground laws not only get vigilantes off the hook but fuel the anger that drives them to begin with.
...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/04/tulsa_shootings_jacob_england_alvin_watts_and_george_zimmerman_examining_the_roots_of_vigilantism_.html

[Common Sense Party]

1. Most of us rely on the police for "protection"?

How so? I have good friends who are cops. They do a pretty good job of catching criminals AFTER the commission of a crime, but the police are often not going to be in the right place at the right time to PREVENT certain assaults and PROTECT the unarmed and the innocent.

[DanTex]

4. Yes, most people rely on the police for protection.

Even people who carry guns get most of their protection from the police. And this is true even if we leave aside the fact that, statistically speaking, people who own and/or carry guns are actually at higher risk than demographically similar people who do not. Even people who are skilled and prudent enough that the gun provides a net safety benefit, in most cases don't ever find themselves in a situation where the gun becomes necessary. And this is because of the protection provided by the police.

The police are who keeps the peace. They are the reason it's possible in this country to run a store without getting robbed daily or weekly. It's not because of the gun under the counter -- that doesn't really make much difference. What really matters is that every potential criminal knows that if they try to rob the store, the police will show up and chase them down. Yes, they might get away a few times, but in the end, a life of crime leads to prison.

Without this police deterrent, the gun would be useless. Criminal gangs would rule the day. Because a gun-carrying law abiding citizen is no match for a determined criminal. The criminal knows the time and place where the crime is going to occur in advance. The criminal can bring friends along. The criminal is more likely to have experience in violent situations, and more important, is more likely to be willing to shoot first and take a life at the slightest hint of provocation.

[gejohnston]

7. I think both are wrong

The police are who keeps the peace. They are the reason it's possible in this country to run a store without getting robbed daily or weekly. It's not because of the gun under the counter -- that doesn't really make much difference. What really matters is that every potential criminal knows that if they try to rob the store, the police will show up and chase them down. Yes, they might get away a few times, but in the end, a life of crime leads to prison.

Has more to do with a stronger sense of community. That is one reason why the "wild west" wasn't. Some people mistakenly think the west was safer because everyone wore pistols. Actually, they did not carry that often. Not carrying did not make them safe either. They did not carry because they felt safe. Dodge at its worst (after the drovers drank themselves stupid and went back to Texas) was more like Mayberry than Good Bad and the Ugly.
If you look at the ads for small pistols in the 19th century, they were aimed at upper middle class urbanites on the coasts and in Europe. In places like Wyoming, Montana, their sales were very small to non existent.

[Callisto32]

14. Imagine a criminal gang DID rule the day...

Imagine, they would own everything (the land, the water, the fish in the water, the deer on the land), and if you didn't pay your tibute, they would take "your" land/house/business. If you do pay, they will "protect" you, but in reality, this mostly just means they'll leave you alone (until its time to pay or get your shit stolen/yourself put in a cage, that is) and send someone out to make a record of what happened AFTER the trouble is already over.

Imagine that the gang would put into place a lot of useless, onerous, vague, nigh indecipherable rules, so many rules that no human being could ever even READ them, let alone comprehend them. They would claim that these rules are NECESSARY, after all, without them it would be CHAOS or ANARCHY or...something, (don't forget, not so long ago "Oh my, we can't have people of different religions in the same geographic location, it would be CHAOS!" was a considered a legitimate viewpoint.

Imagine that these rules would be not only accepted, but often clamored for by the ruled, because the vast majority of the subjects living in the territory of this gang would have to spend a set number of years in an institution where parents and the vital role they play in the growth and development of their children are replaced by agents of the gang, and every day all the kids get up and they swear fealty to the gang's colors, and they learn crazy things. Crazy things like the idea that taking the money that people worked to earn is not theft, but not allowing someone to take the things they did not work for is theft.

Imagine there is a huge list of things that the gang says you can't have/use, for myriad reasons. Sure, some of those reasons have been empirically proven to be bullshit (that chemical has no medical use, right, I guess none of the gang members have glaucoma), but that doesn't stop them, because being in the gang means never having to admit you were wrong, since truth and right are decided by what a certain contingent of the gang have decided to decree such. Imagine that these rules are often written and decreed by people that have absolutely no idea about the reality of the topic, but that won't stop them.

Imagine......oh wait....nevermind.

[DanTex]

19. So you think the US government is like a criminal gang?

You don't see a difference between a stable, democratic society like the US, and say Somalia?

[LAGC]

15. Well, we could just opt for a POLICE STATE where only the police can legally possess guns...

I imagine that would make the streets quite a bit safer, but at what cost?

What was that little bit our Founding Fathers warned about trading liberty for security?

I think I'd rather suffer a little bit of violent crime than live in an authoritarian state where the police have all the power, thank you very much. We have enough abuse of police power as it is.

[DanTex]

18. The state already has a monopoly on violence.

Whether civilians are allowed to own guns doesn't change the fact that the police has overwhelming power. Gun laws have nothing to do with whether the police abuses their power.

The way to check abuse by the police is through the democratic process, without violence. And that is the only way. The idea of resisting the police with guns is idiotic. First, it doesn't work. You might be able to defend yourself from a petty criminal, but as David Koresh and Randy Weaver found out, you can't actually resist the police with force in this country, no matter how many guns you have.

And that's a good thing. Because if it was possible to resist the police with guns, that would mean that people with enough guns wouldn't have to obey the law. We would have a failed state, and power would go to warlords and criminal gangs.

[LAGC]

36. Do they now?

Last time I checked, plenty of non-police civilians used violence (or the threat of violence) to lawfully prevent many crimes-in-progress. Doesn't sound like the state has a monopoly on violence to me, and I kind of prefer it that way, when the police can be over 20 minutes away... lots can happen in that time if you don't have the means to defend yourself.

I also kind of like how police don't know if any given civilian has a gun or not. I think it causes police to be much more polite and circumspect than they might otherwise be if they knew most every subject they came across was unarmed and they could say or do whatever they wanted without fear of reprisal.

Granted, I'd feel even better if cops didn't need to possess guns and go off half-cocked like happens too often in this country, shooting suspects to death over simple refusals to follow orders in a timely fashion, but its kind of too late to put the "genie back in the bottle" so to speak. So I guess guns are here to stay.

[Starboard Tack]

24. "I imagine that would make the streets quite a bit safer, but at what cost?"

Do you really want the answer to that? Ask anyone in the UK, where the police "can legally possess guns", but rarely do. Works very well, but you would "rather suffer a little bit of violent crime than live in an authoritarian state where the police have all the power". I have news for you. The UK is not a police state.
Enjoy your "little bit" of violence. 100,000 gun deaths and injuries a year, that "little bit".

[gejohnston]

28. the UK also

has more violent crime other than murder.

[Starboard Tack]

29. Exactly! Proves my point

More violent crime without guns equals less people killed, fewer cops injured, cops still unarmed, much better solution.
Nobody likes a violent society, but the answer is not to put guns on the street. Very, very few criminals in the UK use firearms for several reasons. First, there is no need because the good guys don't use them. That's called playing the game by the same rules. Secondly, the consequences for using or carrying a firearm aren't worth the potential payoff. Thirdly, access is difficult because there are very few to steal.
Question! Would you rather be punched, kicked, stabbed or shot?
BTW only 3% of the murders in the UK are committed during a theft/robbery.

• Of the 636 murders in 2010/11, the biggest single number used a sharp instrument, such as a knife, for the murder weapon
• The vast majority of child murder victims are killed by a parent - 36 out of 56. In total, 43 of those victims knew their murderer
• The same goes with total murders - 64% were known to their victim, 33% were friends
• 60% of murders are caused by a quarrel and loss of temper. Only 3% are as a result of theft or robbery
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales

• Police figures show a 19% fall in gun crime offences, down from 7,749 to 6,285 offences
• Total of 5,112 crimes were officially recorded as directly relating to the riots between 6 and 11 August last year compared with a total of 344,937 offences recorded across England and Wales during that month
• This compares with a total of 4,062,866 crimes recorded by the police in the 12 months to September 2011
• The latest BCS figures showed a significant rise in the number of people who say police and councils are doing a good job dealing with crime and anti-social behaviour – up to 57% of all those questioned, from just over half a year ago

[gejohnston]

32. rules my ass

sociopaths only care about one rule. It is not about rules, it is about culture. Why did UK have even less crime, including violent crime, before any gun laws? You prove nothing other than being a text book example of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

[Starboard Tack]

34. Why did UK have even less crime, including violent crime, before any gun laws?

Because the same rules were in place. You may scoff at the idea and yes it is a cultural thing. The Brits have this strange notion of fair play and use cricket as a metaphor, but it is real. Very few criminals are sociopaths, as I'm sure many here who carry guns are not sociopaths.
Violent crime stats are extremely difficult to compare between countries. The classifications are very different, as are the reporting criteria.
Using anything that looks like a gun is considered a gun crime in the UK. The real evidence is in the count of dead and wounded at the end of the day.

[gejohnston]

38. gangsters are sociopaths

that is 80 percent of the problems with pistols in the US, and about 99 if not 100 percent of the problems with pistols and sub machine guns in the UK. In the US there is a greater penalty for using a machine gun, in the UK an illegal pistol or SMG costs the same and will get you the same amount of time if caught.

[Starboard Tack]

39. Big difference being access and rules of the game.

So here we have a huge problem costing tens of billions annually and there they have a small problem. Again, you make my point.
Of course those who use sub machine guns and pistols to commit crimes are sociopaths, but most criminals don't use either and virtually none do in the UK compared to here.

[gejohnston]

40. partly correct

Pistols are used more here, sub machine guns are used more there.
We have more gangsters and gangs per capita than the UK does.

[iverglas]

43. yeah, except that just isn't true

Unless you want nobody to notice that you're ignoring things like how England/Wales (and Canada, e.g.) include more offences in "violent crime" stats than the US does.

But hey, keep on saying it. Repeat it enough times, and you just never know, somebody might believe it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime#United_Kingdom

... For the 2010/2011 report, the statistics show that violent crime continues a general downward trend observed over the last few decades (see graph below): "The 2010/11 BCS showed overall violence was down 47 per cent on the level seen at its peak in 1995; representing nearly two million fewer violent offences per year." ...

By contrast, there is a widespread belief that violent crime is on the rise, due largely to a mass media which disproportionately reports violent crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent-crime-rates-UK-1981-to-2007.png

[gejohnston]

44. if you want to go there then

Japan's suicide rate is actually lower than reported, and their murder rate is actually higher. In Japan, murder suicides are counted as all suicides. We count however number of murders and one suicide.

http://www.japanpsychiatrist.com/Abstracts/Shinju.html

I did not say the two countries defined them as the same. I said the rates were higher.

[iverglas]

45. I didn't go there

I did not say the two countries defined them as the same. I said the rates were higher.

But thanks for one of the funniest things I've read this week.

[DanTex]

46. I've also noticed that people in Europe are a lot shorter than Americans...

I mean, I'm about 6, but most people over there seem to be less than 2...

[Atypical Liberal]

25. So you are saying it is the deterrant of getting caught?

So you are saying that criminals stop committing crimes out of fear of prison, but not out of fear of dying?

I agree with you that the police (and in fact the infrastructure of the entire justice system) is largely responsible for keeping the peace in that it is what gives the foundation for a society based on law and order.

In a society without law and order you end up with anarchy such as you see in Somalia.

[Glaug-Eldare]

37. You really think so little of your neighbors?

Even if there was no such thing as the MSP, PGPD, PGSO, Park Police, &c. tomorrow, I don't believe that my neighbors and I would descend into barbarism. That type of argument is used almost exclusively in this state (by the anti-gun crowd) against the majority-black counties, and I think it's garbage. We are not beasts, we are not a nation of criminals cowed by badges, we are not an inch away from violence every day. If the people are so naturally wicked that we can't be trusted with arms, then why should we be trusted with a vote? Why should we be trusted with anything?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. While I am certain...

...SYG laws can be phrased and/or misinterpreted by prosecutors and courts in ways that are counter to the public good, it is only appropriate that each law be reviewed and challenged in court appropriately.

Having said that, I must also agree with Common Sense Party in that the police do not, can not and are not generally charged with protecting individuals.

[PavePusher]

3. I doubt anyone envisions that a sidearm will protect one....

from a surprise drive-by shooting.

And anyone who relies on the police for protection is merely waiting to become a statistic in a large group.... the group labeled "Victim".

[Hoyt]

5. Not so, 96% of population walk around in public everyday without need for a gun. They do fine.

Must be hell walking out into sunshine feeling like prey.

[Atypical Liberal]

26. 96% of the population drive in cars without having car accidents, too.

Most of us still wear seatbelts, though.

[DanTex]

6. Speaking of statistics...

...people who rely on the police for protection are statistically safer than people who carry guns for protection. At least, according to the studies I've seen.

Do you have an evidence-based argument that carrying a gun makes you safer?

[PavePusher]

8. Cite for your "evidence-based argument", please. Thanks. n/t

[DanTex]

9. Again: do you have an evidence-based argument that carrying a gun makes you safer?

You made this claim:

And anyone who relies on the police for protection is merely waiting to become a statistic in a large group.... the group labeled "Victim".

I'm asking if you have any evidence to back this up.

Well, do you? Or are you just making things up?

Like I said, the studies I've seen point towards the opposite conclusion, that the gun provides greater risk than benefit, for example:
Guns in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit
Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

[beevul]

10. Hemenway? Please.

Thouroughly discredited and debunked in this very forum a hundred times or more.


As to your second link...

"Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot."


Let me guess, they didn't bother asking those who simply drew down, and didn't fire a weapon, and in doing so PREVENTED an incident to report in the first place, right?

Incidents like those wouldn't dilute their findings whatsoever, right?

As usual, these anti-gun studies always get the wrong ansers, and really its inevitable, because theyre always asking the wrong questions.

[DanTex]

11. You're missing the point.

Like all other pro-gunners, it's no surprise that you share the same denialist avoidance of peer-reviewed scientific research. I've debated the merits of the scientific case here many times, and suffice it to say that the idea that the extensive body of research on gun violence has been "debunked" by a few scientifically illiterate gun nuts blogging at gunz.com is laughable.

But that's not the issue here. The question I'm asking is, what evidence is there on your side? Because even if we were to accept your denialism and dismiss all of the scientific studies, that still doesn't show that a gun actually provides a safety benefit.

So I'll repeat, for the third time now: do you have an evidence-based argument that carrying a gun makes you safer?

[sarisataka]

12. Question...

Why is it that studies that show gun control is positive, such as the ones you listed are valid, though I easily found several medical persons, who seem to have equal credentials, questioning the validity of the research. One statement was to the effect that it is like they found a link between pacemakers and heart attacks, therefore pacemakers cause heart attacks.

OTH studies which find many positive defensive uses, yes I am thinking Kleck in particular, which have had both positive and negative peer review are dismissed out of hand?


Ok two questions...
Also 'news' from Fox, NRA-ILA etc. is propaganda.
But 'news' from CNN, Brady etc. is fact without question...

[DanTex]

16. This discussion started with me asking a very specific question.

Last edited Fri Apr 13, 2012, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you have an evidence-based argument that carrying a gun makes you safer?

I still haven't gotten an answer. Of course, I already know the answer. The answer is No.

Kleck's study about the number of DGUs does not and cannot answer the question of whether a gun makes a person safer. Safety is not measured by how many times people claim to have used guns for self-defense, but by how often people are hurt or killed. And all the outcome-based studies that I know of have found either no effect or a negative effect.

Your pacemaker comment is fair, but it's not quite as simple as that. The case-control studies are controlled in several ways for these kinds of causality issues. Also, with a pacemaker, there is plenty of other evidence that a pacemaker is helpful. Not so with guns, at least none that anyone has been able to come up with so far.

Re: the studies in general, I've discussed this a lot before, don't want to get into details here. Briefly, first is the issue of consensus: Kleck's DGU study has been refuted several times over in the peer-reviewed literature, while the studies that pro-gunners love to hate have been reproduced, and come from a broader group of researchers.

And then there are specific technical flaws. For example, Kleck's numbers are hugely sensitive to even small numbers of false positives, and combined with the fact that his estimates fail several "sanity checks", makes them very difficult to believe. Read more about this here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=428987&mesg_id=436540
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=459674&mesg_id=461816

Ok two questions...
Also 'news' from Fox, NRA-ILA etc. is propaganda.
But 'news' from CNN, Brady etc. is fact without question...

As for the CNN vs FOX, do I really need to answer? I hope not...

Brady vs NRA-ILA is a fair comment, because both are advocacy groups. But that doesn't automatically mean that both are equally biased or dishonest. The American Cancer Society and Tobacco Institute are not equally credible. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Petroleum Institute are not equally credible. In any case, the links I provided are to academic studies that appeared in peer-reviewed journals, so whether you find NRA or Brady more credible isn't an issue.

[gejohnston]

21. on the other hand

Brady vs NRA-ILA is a fair comment, because both are advocacy groups. But that doesn't automatically mean that both are equally biased or dishonest. The American Cancer Society and Tobacco Institute are not equally credible. The National Resources Defense Council and the American Petroleum Institute are not equally credible. In any case, the links I provided are to academic studies that appeared in peer-reviewed journals, so whether you find NRA or Brady more credible isn't an issue.

Brady and VPC have more in common with the alcohol prohibition movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the anti-pot movement in the 1930s than with ACS or NRDC.

[sarisataka]

23. A well stated reply

Something of a rarity in this group

To reply to the last question- no you don't have to argue CNN/FOX I was more pointing out that the MSM has there own bias . There are interesting reasons why,but not pertinent here.
There are those, however who will only listen to "their" side.

Now the studies. I doubt there has ever been a universally accepted study on GC. I too do not buy Kleck's high end; I would have a DGU every three to four years. The low end is conceivable.

To your question, no I am not aware of any study that directly answers that. I will look to see what I can find- you know what they say about a blind squirrel

[DanTex]

30. Thanks! Hey, look everyone! Civil discourse in the gungeon!

[sarisataka]

31. By people with opposing views

Crap, this makes three... do I really belong here?

I will try to be meaner if the future

[beevul]

13. No, i'm really not.

"Like all other pro-gunners, it's no surprise that you share the same denialist avoidance of peer-reviewed scientific research. I've debated the merits of the scientific case here many times, and suffice it to say that the idea that the extensive body of research on gun violence has been "debunked" by a few scientifically illiterate gun nuts blogging at gunz.com is laughable."

Peer reviewed. Lol. Hemenway is UNIVERSALLY known to be discredited, EXCEPT to the anti-gun crowd.

Let me say it again, in terms you'll understand:

Nobody gives any weight to hemenways studies where guns are concerned, except the tiny and shrinking minority that is anti-gunners.


"But that's not the issue here. The question I'm asking is, what evidence is there on your side? Because even if we were to accept your denialism and dismiss all of the scientific studies, that still doesn't show that a gun actually provides a safety benefit."

So, with the above statement, and the so called "studies" you linked, which center on "gun possession (regardless of in the home or not) and "guns in the home"...you've set the goalposts in place. Yes indeed, make no mistake, you have.

What evidence is there on MY side? Start with the DOJ and their numbers on DGUs anually.

"So I'll repeat, for the third time now: do you have an evidence-based argument that carrying a gun makes you safer?"

Oh look, the goalposts have been moved.

You quote studies about gun possession, and guns in the home, one highly questionable, and the other nearly universally discredited and refuted, then you ask for OUR evidence to refute...something which those studies don't even conclude?

Did you really think nobody would notice that?


I'm sure you really dont care to, but if you'd bother to google the name "hemenway", its been discussed ad nauseum.

Contrary to wht you appear to believe, you aren't coming up with anything new, interesting, groundbreaking...or valid.



Good grief.

[DanTex]

17. OK, I'll put you down for "no evidence".

If you come up with some evidence in your next reply, I'll be happy to reconsider.

Peer reviewed. Lol. Hemenway is UNIVERSALLY known to be discredited, EXCEPT to the anti-gun crowd.

I'm not sure you understand what peer review means. It's one of the main features that distinguishes science from mysticism, evolution from creationism, medicine from voodoo, etc. I'm sure that the voodoo community thinks that all the scientific literature is UNIVERSALLY known to be discredited EXCEPT for the anti-voodoo crowd...

What evidence is there on MY side? Start with the DOJ and their numbers on DGUs anually.

See my response to sarisataka. DGU counts don't imply anything about whether a gun makes you safer or less safe. In particular, NCVS does not show that people who defended themselves with a gun fared any better than those who used other self-protective measures. And it definitely doesn't show that people who carry or own guns are improving their safety by doing so.

Oh look, the goalposts have been moved.

LOL. Have you been paying attention?

Post 6: Do you have an evidence-based argument that carrying a gun makes you safer?
Post 9: Again: do you have an evidence-based argument that carrying a gun makes you safer?
Post 11: So I'll repeat, for the third time now: do you have an evidence-based argument that carrying a gun makes you safer?

Do I really need to repeat it again? OK. For the fourth time, do you have an evidence-based argument that carrying a gun makes you safer?

[beevul]

20. You just don't know when to quit.

"If you come up with some evidence in your next reply, I'll be happy to reconsider."

Reconsider what?

" I'm not sure you understand what peer review means. It's one of the main features that distinguishes science from mysticism, evolution from creationism, medicine from voodoo, etc. I'm sure that the voodoo community thinks that all the scientific literature is UNIVERSALLY known to be discredited EXCEPT for the anti-voodoo crowd..."

Play the "peer reviewed" card all you like. Bellisiles was peer reviewed too. How'd that work out, eh?

"See my response to sarisataka. DGU counts don't imply anything about whether a gun makes you safer or less safe. In particular, NCVS does not show that people who defended themselves with a gun fared any better than those who used other self-protective measures. And it definitely doesn't show that people who carry or own guns are improving their safety by doing so."

Yeah, I read it. Of course it doesn't show that people that carry are improving their safety by doing so. It was not designed to show such things. You yourself said that "Safety is not measured by how many times people claim to have used guns for self-defense, but by how often people are hurt or killed." Well, if safety ISN'T measured by times when people AVOID being hurt or killed due to the presence and or use of a gun - DGU - then obviously your going to get the wrong answer. Because you're asking the wrong question.



Beyond that, as I said, hemenway has been debunked so many times in this forum, everyone is TIRED of doing it.

Which brings us back to the DGUs which you'd so much like to ignore.

I'll say it again:

You quote studies about gun possession, and guns in the home, one highly questionable, and the other nearly universally discredited and refuted, then you ask for OUR evidence to refute...something which those studies don't even conclude, or support.

CARRYING a gun, thats what your asking for evidence about, right?

The "studies" you cited are about gun possession, and guns in the home, not carrying a gun, so they (besides being a discredited refuted pile of dogs breakfast) don't really support the idea that gun CARRY is less safe. Which, whether you've stated it in those terms or not, is exactly the pantload you're trying to push.

But go ahead, tell us all how safety is measured by how often people are hurt or killed where a gun is present, but that avoiding death or injury where a gun is equally present doesn't count.

Thats a hoot.

[DanTex]

22. Still no evidence.

The reason that you (well, not you, but PavePusher, but I'll accept the evidence from you) need to provide evidence here is that PP made the original claim. He suggested that relying on the police for protection means you're just waiting to become a victim. So I asked him to back that up with evidence showing that keeping or carrying a gun makes things any better.

The evidence I presented to the contrary is just icing on the cake. And, contrary to your claims, neither study has been refuted, and writing more words in all-caps isn't going to change that.

But even if you don't accept those studies, there's still no evidence that a gun helps. Do you understand this point? Is this too subtle? You can't demonstrate that a gun provides a safety benefit by simply claiming that the studies to the contrary are flawed. You need to come up with some affirmative evidence of your own.

For example, evidence that keeping a gun makes a home safer would be great. Evidence that carrying a gun makes you safer would be great too. I'm not sure what you think the difference between "carrying a gun" and "gun possession" is, but if you find a study that shows that "gun possession" makes a person safer, that would also be fantastic!

But I'm talking about something scientifically credible. If you're only trying to convince other voodoo priests pro-gunners that voodoo works guns provide a safety benefit, then blog entries by scientifically illiterate gun nuts would be fine. But here in the reality-based community "peer review" is not a "card", but an important part of the scientific process.

[Atypical Liberal]

27. I'm willing to risk it. No insurance-policy is cost-free.

But even if you don't accept those studies, there's still no evidence that a gun helps.

I'm willing to risk it.

No insurance-policy is cost-free.

I may never be a victim of a violent crime. My firearm might be misused. Statistically, I might be at a higher risk for firearm accidents or other misuses than I am to be a victim of a violent crime.

I'll risk it.

I am supremely confident in my own ability to keep and use firearms. I am, quite frankly, an expert. I've used firearms frequently over the last 30 years and I have never once had an accident of any kind.

I may not have any study that shows I'm safer because I have guns, but I would rather have them and not need them than not have them and need them, even if there is an increased chance of accidents or some other firearm-related mishap that outweighs keeping them.

No insurance policy is cost or risk-free.

My smoke detectors contain trace amounts of radioactive material in them. My insurance policy costs me money. My seat belts might trap me in my vehicle.

I'll risk it.

[beevul]

33. LOL.

"The reason that you (well, not you, but PavePusher, but I'll accept the evidence from you) need to provide evidence here is that PP made the original claim. He suggested that relying on the police for protection means you're just waiting to become a victim. So I asked him to back that up with evidence showing that keeping or carrying a gun makes things any better."

Contrary to some very cockeyed beliefs, the country is not one large city. Police and fire response time where I live is about 30ish minutes, and there are millions of people who live under such conditions.

Secondly, I think if I called 911 and told them to send police because coyotes were trying to eat one of our pomeranians, they'd laugh at me, and a coyote would have a full meal, even if they DID bother to send the sheriff.

"The evidence I presented to the contrary is just icing on the cake. And, contrary to your claims, neither study has been refuted, and writing more words in all-caps isn't going to change that."

Enjoy your nonexistant icing. Hemenway has been SOUNDLY refuted. Both in this forum and elsewhere. As I said, google it if you care to. I think you don't. No matter. What ever you presented, it was not "contrary" to anything. the evidence you purported to present, deals with "gun possession" and guns in the home", and is not about "gun carry". So how could it refute the question you ask in post 6 9 or 11?

Let me refresh your memory:

Post 6: Do you have an evidence-based argument that carrying a gun makes you safer?
Post 9: Again: do you have an evidence-based argument that carrying a gun makes you safer?
Post 11: So I'll repeat, for the third time now: do you have an evidence-based argument that carrying a gun makes you safer?

but then you switch tracks and move the goalposts:

"So I asked him to back that up with evidence showing that keeping or carrying a gun makes things any better."


Now its "keep or carry".

Those goalposts just keep on a'movin.

Possession of a gun, and guns in the home, are distinctly different from "gun carry".



"I'm not sure what you think the difference between "carrying a gun" and "gun possession" is..."

Right now, I am in possession of a firearm. It is not on my person, however, I possess it.

See the difference? I have to actually be carrying it to be...carrying it.


"But I'm talking about something scientifically credible."

Uh huh. Nothing that measures safety by how often people are hurt or killed where a gun is present, and at the same time also ignores and does not account for the avoidance of death or injury where a gun is equivallently present, can be said to be objectively scientifically credible.

And thats where you, and your purportedly "credible" studies fail.


You can claim theyre "scientific" til you're blue in the face, but you can't make the argument that they're objective.

Say, who paid for those "studies" by the way?

[PavePusher]

41. Here you go.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

"In general, self-protection measures of all types are effective, in the sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and confrontational burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender. The most effective form of self-protection is use of a gun. For robbery the self-protection meaures with the lowest loss rates were among victims attacking the offender with a gun, and victims threatenting the offender with a gun. For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon." (p. 291)

"[W]hile defensive gun use is generally safe, it does not appear to be uniquely safe among self-protection methods as data from earlier NCVS data suggested. Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any increase in injury risk due to defensive gun use that counterbalances its greater effectiveness in avoiding property loss." (p. 292)


Edit: Sorry it took so long to reply, been busy the last few days.

[DanTex]

42. Umm... not quite.

The evidence you cite, flawed as it is, only claims to show that if you are a victim of a crime, and if you are able to use your gun to defend yourself, then you are statistically better off than someone who either has a gun on them but doesn't manage to use it, or someone who does something besides DGU.

And, actually, based on the data shown, the outcome of DGU wasn't markedly different than the outcome for people who defended themselves with another weapon -- in fact, for burglaries, for example, using a non-gun weapon turns out better than using a gun. Not to mention the fact that NCVS, being a survey, can't possibly try to determine whether a gun helps prevent people from getting killed.

And then, of course, there are the causality issues. The data can't tell whether people who DGU are actually making the outcome better, or whether it is the other way around: that people are able to use their gun because they are not facing as lethal a threat. For example, if a criminal surprises you, knocks you down, takes your money, and runs off before you pull your gun, that wouldn't show up as a "failed attempt to DGU", but rather as "no self-protective measure".


The other big problem is that comparing the outcomes of crime victimization events doesn't and cannot address the question of whether the overall effect of the gun is a net increase in safety. It only tries to argue that you are better off at the very moment that you are being attacked. As you quote, "there does not appear to be any increase in injury risk due to defensive gun use"

But it doesn't take into account the increased injury risk that could occur at other times (e.g. just ordinary gun accidents). And it also doesn't take into account the possibility that a gun could increase your risk of being a crime victim in the first place, say because your domestic partner decides to use the gun against you, or maybe because the gun gives you the added bravado to escalate an argument to the point where it results in an assault, rather than just walking away. Etc.

[gejohnston]

47. I fail to see how it encourages vigilantism

Zimmerman is claiming self defense but could be a murderer, and these guys just murdered people. The two cases are not even related.

vig·i·lan·te (vj-lnt)
n.
1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
2. A member of a vigilance committee.

The only vigilantes I see are Roseanne Barr and Spike Lee.