Why do some people believe that 2.5 million crimes are prevented by guns?

Parent Cafe
201

<p>^ He would probably believe someone if they said they had their gun snatched from their trembling hands and used against them :rolleyes: :D</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What does this have to do with anything? What are some of your hobbies? I’d be willing to bet that you have a “greater than average affinity” for that hobby. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Its a rather large step to me. Perhaps you know a lot of people without much integrity. Or maybe you’re assuming (without merit) that most gun owners are without integrity. It seems that a lot of what you’re saying is based off a dislike for gun owners, since you’re calling quite a few people liars.
I know the people who have told me abou their DGU’s well, and they most certainly weren’t lying.</p>

202

<p>I’ll only add that another possible reason that DGU’s (of the type where the victim shot someone) are not as well known to you is that shooting someone is an especially traumatic experience (even for soldiers or police who can reasonably expect the possibility), and people tend not to talk about them to people who they don’t know well, if at all.</p>

203

<p>Icarus, I’m 57 years old. I know lots of people. I know two women who have had abortions, and confided that in me. A friend who had accidentally hit and killed a jaywalking pedestrian on a dark, rainy night called me and talked to me about it. I once represented an very normal and conscientious appearing government official who confided that his agency was committing a very serious breach of its ethical duties to the public - he later went to a TV station, which launched a highly publicized “expose” of the agency - then quietly discontinued it when they discovered - as I had - that the official was quietly, and with no apparent outward sign, going nuts - he could never back his claims up because they actually were a figment of his imagination. I know people who have done things they are deeply, deeply ashamed of and embarrassed about – and they’ve told me about it. I’ve also had people lie to me for no reason, and to their actual disadvantage (I’m a lawyer, my clients can tell me the truth, and only hurt themselves by not being completely honest, but they “shade” the facts anyway - until I drag the truth out of them.) It’s a big part of my job to be able to tell when people are telling the whole truth, a partial truth, an intentional lie, an unintentional lie and – even more frequently - are just lying to themselves. </p>

<p>A statement like

isn’t based on experience, or reliable data. That belief is held because it comports with a world view which the person who believes wants to be validated - consciously or otherwise.</p>

<p>The kind of stories Ramius has heard are exactly the same kind of stories all of us old guys have heard over and over throughout our lives. The stories always are “better” than the truth, and they get better with each telling. The closer one of those stories gets to a cinematic cliche, the more scrutiny it demands. And Ramius’ stories are extremely cliched:

It’s the kind of story I would have swallowed uncritically 40 years ago. But not at my age - and not because of the subject matter, but because it just doesn’t ring true. Did such an event happen to somebody, at some time? Undoubtedly, some where, some time. But the odds that one young man would know more than one person who had had such an experience are astronomical. But the odds that a young man interested in guns, who hangs out with other young men who are interested in guns, would hear such a story - and hear the key, gun-totin’ role in the story ascribed to the teller of the tale - are not bad. It’s hard to go through life without learning that most of these stories aren’t, strictly speaking, true. They didn’t happen to the person they are said to have happened to; they didn’t happen exactly as described; usually, they didn’t happen at all.</p>

<p>About ten pages ago I threw out a request for reports of actual DGU’s - and intentionally and specifically limited the scope to those which had actually happened to the poster, or a family member or friend who was close enough that the poster would be confident that the story was true. “Guys you’ve talked to” don’t count, for good reason.</p>

<p>Incidentally - among the “anomalies” in the Kleck/Gertz study is the fact that the teller of the tale reports having actually hit the bad guy with a bullet in an entirely unrealistically large percentage of the time they shoot at them. What does that tell you?</p>

204

<p>

</p>

<p>But your lack of evidence/experience cannot be used as evidence of a lack of DGU’s. Another possibility (and I don’t know how much of your life has been spent in CA) is that since CA does not grant CCW licenses at request like most other states (although there are still tens of thousands legally held by private citizens in CA), there are less DGUs outside of ones home (or at least are less reported because admitting it would be admitting to carrying without a permit). I’m just suggesting possibilities, although I’ve little doubt that they will be disregarded without much thought.</p>

<p>But for you to say this…

</p>

<p>is a bit overboard. I happen to be a young man who knows more than one person who has defended themselves with a gun. Whether you chose to believe me or simply believe in “what comports to your world view” is your problem. However, you were the one who asked…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>… I’m pretty sure thats what I said in my last post, but I’ll say it again. I am very close friends with these people and I am perfectly confident that their stories are true.</p>

205

<p>Here are two recent news reports where people used guns, and fired them, hitting their attackers, to defend themselves.
In both cases the attackers did not have firearms.</p>

<p>In one case I think the use of the firearm was justified and saved the victim from harm.
[Woman</a> Who Shot Intruder 3 Times Talks To KNBC - News Story - KNBC | Los Angeles](<a href=“News – NBC Los Angeles”>News – NBC Los Angeles)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In the other case the presence of the firearm appears to have made the situation worse.
[Defendant:</a> ‘I didn’t mean to shoot this young man’ – Newsday.com](<a href=“Long Island News | Nassau & Suffolk - Newsday”>Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source - Newsday)

It will be interesting to see what the Jury does with this case.</p>

<hr>

<p>By the way. Both of these gun owners were much more accurate than the Police.
Police hit their targets less than half the time when they fire their weapons.
A Hail of Bullets, a Heap of Uncertainty - New York Times
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1197810783-8D5kKvSiy1GjToaN04ZLIw[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1197810783-8D5kKvSiy1GjToaN04ZLIw&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

206

<p>

I posted just such a report in post #60. If you want more details, I would be happy to provide them via PM.</p>

207

<p>SJMom - Sorry I didn’t comment but I didn’t question your story. Question - did the presence of a gun actually make a difference in that situation? Most burglars flee when their presence is detected - whether the homeowner is armed or not.</p>

<p>Icarus, I’m confused - it was Ramius who offered that he knew of these incidents - now you’re saying you know some too although you’ve provided no description of the events, or how you know they’re true. Sjmom has provided a description of a crime intervention by a person with a gun that I find no reason to question. Why? It is credible. It is the kind of thing that actually does happen. The “I pulled back my coat to show my gun and they slunk away” story is dubious - particularly when the assertion is of multiple events. </p>

<p>Guys: This is what this thread is about. The ability to distinguish between facially plausible and factually improbable claims. And understanding why some people believe stuff they should actually question. Icarus, what you don’t get is that I don’t have a dog in this fight. I know you feel a need to label me as wanting the answer to be one way or the other, because I don’t promote the premise you’re wedded to. But you’re wrong. If the beneficial contribution of DGU’s actually outweighs the negative consequences of widespread gun ownership I’m ready to go with that. My problem is that my assessment is that the gun nuts have skewed the data because they want - so very, very badly - to have their side “win the debate.” Gun nuts exaggerate the beneficial aspects of gun ownership because they’re driven by an emotional attachment to their guns. That’s my rational assessment of the flaws in assessing anecdotal evidence on the subject. No one will deny using a gun in an appropriate circumstances, but a gun lover will claim a gun use where none occurred to bolster his “religion.”</p>

<p>And it’s interesting to me that the claims of the gun nuts are facially implausible, yet still uncritically swallowed, hook, line and sinker by the rest of the gun nuts. From the 2.5 Million DGUs a year, to the literally incredible marksmanship of the self-reported gun totin’ crime fighters, to the obvious mismatch between the number of crimes claimed prevented vs. the number of crimes actually reported, etc.</p>

208

<p>Kluge, from what I remember, the bad guy also had a “zip” gun or something like that. The guy I know chased him out of the garage. I still think it’s a miracle he wasn’t shot. But I think perhaps the fact that the homeowner had a gun scared the burglar off – I don’t know what might otherwise have happened. I don’t think an armed burglar would necessarily run away just because the homeowner discovered him.</p>

<p>Maybe I’m an anomaly. I still think the 2nd Amendment pertains to an individual’s right to have a gun, and I’m also in favor of gun control. I hate guns, but I don’t think this country will ever eliminate them altogether.</p>

209

<p>Ok, let’s look at what we do agree on. The NCVS survey has problems reporting DGUs (it never specifically asks and there are negative connotations to answering “yes”), the Klenk survey has certain statistical errors (positive connotations for “yes” answers), the other 15 or so serveys have certain errors. So, now that we have cast doubt on the accuracy of all current DGU surveys, we don’t have any firm statistics to look at. Do you concur?</p>

<p>About all I can conclusively prove, is what is reported via the media. American Rifleman (I know, a horribly biased source), runs stories of about half a dozen clear DGUs per month (taken from other news sources, such as local papers). Combining that information with news stories I run across randomly, I can prove about 100 to 150 DGUs per year. That’s not exactly the scope we are looking for in this debate. I think we can both agree that it is not a representative sample of reality either.</p>

<p>Then, we argue semantics…and neither side can prove much more than whether or not they have experienced a DGU. Even that has arguments concerning the reliablility of experience. </p>

<p>I think our debate is failing based on lack of evidence.</p>

210

<p>Raimius, other than the argument about negative connotations to mentioning a legitimate self-defense gun use to a census worker, I agree with what you say. This is why it is interesting, frustrating, and worth thinking about:</p>

<p>I feel pretty much the same about gun nuts as I do SUV nuts. An SUV nut is a guy who insists that he drives an SUV to ensure his familiy’ safety, and anyone who would infringe on his right to drive a gas guzzling behemoth is threatening his family’s safety, and should be dealt with accordingly. As it happens, we actually have pretty good traffic safety statistics, so we actually know that driving your family around in an SUV is no safer than driving them around in a sedan. It does increase the risk of killing somebody outside the car by a factor of 6, however. So when it comes to formulating reasonable regulations for SUV’s - CAFE numbers, vehicle taxes, or whatever - a rational analysis can be undertaken. Joe SUV’s rage at being told that his driving an SUV doesn’t make his family any safer won’t change, but reasonable legislators can ignore him, and rational risk-benefit analyses can be made. </p>

<p>Now, the interesting thing about Joe SUV’s erroneous conviction about SUV safety is that it rests on one of the same bases as the gun nuts’: Joe SUV’s personal conviction that he is a better than average driver, and any threat to his family’s safety will come from somebody else, not from his error. SUV’s do provide greater survivability in a car vs. car crash, from sheer mass, but pose a greater threat to their occupants from their propensity to roll over. So the danger to Joe SUV’s family in a sedan comes from other drivers (at least part of the time); the danger in a SUV comes from Joe losing control of his car. Statistically he’s wrong; but acknowledging the reality requires admitting that he’s no less likely to fail than anyone else; i.e., he’s actually not a “better than average” driver. He can acknowledge the risk from others, but cannot acknowledge the risk of his own fallability.</p>

<p>Guns; same problem. Nobody who posts here about guns acknowledges the possibility that he’ll get drunk, or depressed, or bipolar, or really, really angry, or just totally misread a situation and allow an inappropriate use of his gun. Or that somehow another member of his household will. But in fact, lots and lots of people are wounded, killed and threatened by the inappropriate use of guns owned by “non-criminals.” Statistically, it’s not always “the other guy.” So, there’s a risk to owning a gun. But just as there’s a risk to SUVs, there’s a benefit. (I own one.) There’s also a benefit to owning a gun - gun are used in DGU’s, every year. The problem is trying to get a handle on the real risk/benefit ratio, when gun nuts exaggerate the benefit of the choice they’ve made - just as SUV owners would, if we didn’t have reliable external data sources.</p>

<p>So the debate isn’t about the ultimate answer - it’s about getting the data with which to make the analysis meaningful so a rational debate on the ultimate issue can be had.</p>

211

<p>Every time someone pulls a Columbine, a VaTech, or another random crazy school, church, mall or postal shooting, it is further proof of nutcases endangering public safety because of their personal belief that they should own guns.</p>

212

<p>kluge, I just wanted to say that I thought that post was excellent and well thought-out.</p>

<p>In the end, I agree - there are risks and benefits, and I think society has to take those into account properly to decide the issue. On the other hand, there are also issues like individual rights - if all we looked at were risks and benefits, tobacco, for example, would probably be illegal. I’m sure many would argue against that outcome on personal choice grounds, so obviously more than the risk-benefit analysis has to come into play.</p>

213

<p>I agree with the majority of Kluge’s and 1of42’s posts. </p>

<p>As a societal debate, we should consider the averages…of which there are no undisputed ones right now. However, there are individual choices that make a person more or less likely to fit statistics. If Joe SUV driver purchased a wide SUV with airbags and a sound design, always drove the speed limit, never talked on his cell phone while driving, always left a 2-4 second gap in front of him, and drove defensively, he would fall into a much safer statistical subset. Likewise, gun owners who practice fundamental gun safety, restrict access to their firearms, don’t drink, don’t do drugs, and try to avoid dangerous situations are much less likely to become negative statistics. As individuals, we have choices that can place us into much safer statistical subsets. It comes down to the risk-benefit calculations and choices that everyone must make. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, it is very difficult to argue individual cases when making a societal argument. I often prefer to let people make their own decisions while informing them of the positive actions to make their decisions better.</p>

<p>My father was a cop before I was born. When I was born, my parents decided to get rid of any firearms in the house. They did not regularly use them and my father had no intention of carrying a gun. They felt the risk of me getting a hold of one, even if they took precautions to prevent it, outweighed the marginal benefit of keeping a gun in the house. I think they made a sound decision. On the other hand, my grandfather keeps several firearms in his house. He does not suffer from any mental defects, rarely drinks (even then, it is never more than 1-2), and does not worry about others obtaining his guns. I do not know his reasons for keeping guns at home, but his risks of injury or death are very low, so I assume that he considers the benefits to be greater than the risks.</p>

214

<p>In a free society the risk reward calculation has to remain an individual one and not a societal one whenever possible as the basis of freedom is the freedom to make choices others may not prefer you to make. Otherwise you are no longer free and living under the ultimate in Big Brother planned society where the children are tested and their education and careers programmed to make the greatest efficiency and benefit to the common good etc etc.
Every time I see a show with people trying to climb Mt Everest, I think what a stupid waste of resources and lives. But it’s not for me to judge others. I like auto racing which is also a huge waste of money and lives.<br>
So the question is where do we draw the line between the individual deciding and the society.</p>

215

<p>

No - they didn’t commit these shootings ‘because of their personal belief that they should own guns’ - they commited these shootings because they were nutcases and happened to use a gun to do it. Your cause and effect isn’t stated accurately.</p>

216

<p>Barrons: (This makes me want to throw up_

</p>

<p>The only problem is when Republicans draw this line it justifies everyone owning guns,. but none of us having privacy rights when we pick up a phone or check a book out from the public library.</p>

217

<p>That’s why we pay them the big bucks. Tough choices sometimes. I have nothing to hide in my phone or library records but I can see why people might object to having them tracked in any way. If it is only used for the intended purpose (finding terror plots) it’s OK with me I guess.</p>

218

<p>Raimius:

This illustrates the dilemma well. The description of Ramius’ grandfather fit my father to “T” for several years prior to his death. But my father was actually sinking into an increasing state of dementia, which only his wife knew. They lived in another state, so I only saw him a couple of times a year; when I saw him, he seemed fine. Their neighbors had no clue. She got a friend disable his car so he couldn’t drive - fortunately, he quickly forgot that it wouldn’t start. The thing is - you don’t know until it’s too late. People aren’t static - they change. The problem with guns is that they enable a person to act impulsively - even uncharacteristically - with permanent consequence out of proportion to the effort involved. </p>

<p>

I think we all agree with the initial premise. The problem is, one person’s freedom to swing his fist has to end where his neighbor’s nose begins; and people frequently underestimate the length of their arms while our noses get closer together all the time. The tobacco companies sold this rant successfully for years.</p>

219

<p>I love the way Kluge owns these right-wing responses. You’re our response to Karl Rove, haha.</p>

220

<p>^^ Only in your mind.</p>