<p>
</p>
<p>Man. Why didn’t we think of this earlier? ;)</p>
<p>It’s a pity that policy solutions are so rarely this easy.</p>
<p>I can’t see how valuable statistics can be collected. How can anyone know if some crimes are prevented because of the threat that homeowners are armed? How can we compare the crime in an intensely controlled country like England with a nation like Switzerland where most citizens have assault rifles. It does seem that a lot of violent crime is associated with drug abuse. There should be good statistics on that association.</p>
<p>Rather than enter the debate, I thought I would just point out how much our attitudes have changed. When I was a kid, I lived in suburban Washington, DC. One of the math teachers had shot on the Olympic rifle team. I guess she did pretty well but did not win a medal. She started a rifle club in the high school. Every Friday, I brought a rifle to school and left it in my locker. After school we went to another HS several miles away that had an indoor rifle range. Several times a year I also went alone on the bus to downtown DC and used a private range. No one ever asked or made a comment about a 15 year old riding a bus carrying a rifle (in a case, but obviously a rifle).</p>
<p>Icarus, comparing guns with utilitarian articles which can be used to cause death is dumb, to the point that reasonable people just roll their eyes when that canard is trotted out. (That’s why I call people who advance this argument - over and over and over again - “gun nuts.”) Automobiles transport people 77 million miles for every auto-caused fatality. Knives have a similarly one-sided risk-benefit ratio. Not guns. Outside of the very limited activities of target shooting and sport hunting, which generally involve a specific type of firearm, in specific settings, few people actually have any use for a gun, other than the belief that owning a gun is more likely to help the owner resist crime than it is to result in bullying, injury, or death within the owner’s family and friends. A gun is an efficient and easy to use weapon - designed for that sole purpose. Since the risk/benefit ratio of guns within the actual design purpose of the item isn’t as clear cut as the risk/benefit ratio for automobiles, why do you bring up cars and knives? Because you don’t want to address the actual substance of the issue? That’s my guess.</p>
<p>The realistic question is: Does owning a gun make Joe Homeowner, and his wife and kids and their friends, safer or less safe? And does Joe owning that gun make everyone else less safe? Because safety is the “utilitarian” purpose guns are supposed to serve, outside of the small groups of hunters and target shooters. With cars and knives the answer is clear. With guns it isn’t. The Kleck and Gertz study was an attempt to make the risk/benefit ratio seem good, which is, suppose, why gun nuts wanted to believe it so bad that they ignored its obvious folly. The zeal, intellectual duplicity, and emotional drive exhibited by gun nuts makes it clear that a calm, rational analysis of the pros and cons of private gun ownership is off the table for the guys that just gotta have 'em.</p>
<p>
Yes, a planet devoid of humanity would be a safer place, I guess…</p>
<p>I have never agreed with the 2nd Amendment being interpreted as having an unfettered right to bear arms. in the Amendment wording and in the Federalist Papers regarding same, both grant this right in conjunction with "well-regulated militia as “being necessary to the security of a free State”. And recall that this wording was penned before there was a free standing army. In fact the Federalist Papers offers clarification as to what constitutes a well regulated militia and it is not a yahoo like me packing for self-defense.</p>
<p>A reasoned interpretation is that the constitutional right to bear arms is for the purpose of a nation defense interest and not a personal interest.</p>
<p>Yep, I am a gun owner of four rifles and a pistol. They were all inherited and vintage firearms, one being a pre-Colonial flintlock rifle with no identifying marks that I can detect. I would hate to see the government confiscate that one but the others? I would be more than willing to disable their firing capability or otherwise render them harmless. I have neve considered them to be for personal defense and have never purchase ammo for them.</p>
<p>Icarus, </p>
<p>You quoted me to say:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And then replied:
</p>
<p>I agree that you can make cuts with a knife in mere seconds that will kill someone. What I said is that a person wielding a knife is less likely to kill many people within short period of time. As the person is assaulting another person with a knife, others can get some distance. The others have a chance to get away or create distance and you can’t kill with a knife if there is distance. But with a gun, one can kill many in a short period of time and do not need to be touching either. I never said a knife couldn’t kill quickly. I said it could not kill MANY people quickly and in contrast, a gun can. I have not heard of a mass murder in which a knife was the weapon. In terms of killing ONE person, yes. Killing many in short succession, not too common. But with a gun…well just look at the news. Many can be taken down within minutes. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Knives were not designed just to kill. They server a utilitarian purpose…I use them every day in my kitchen. Cars were not designed to kill. They are used for transportation. Most who die in cars are by accident and not by intent to kill. </p>
<p>Some guns, like rifles for hunting or target/sport are designed for those purposes but not to kill people. Some guns have no purpose other than killing PEOPLE. Again, I don’t know the names of various guns but I believe assault rifles and Sat. night specials and the like have but one purpose, to kill PEOPLE by those who would kill someone with these tools. They aren’t for sport. Unless, that is, killing people is a “sport.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t agree. There are very few times where killing someone would be justified. The number of times that occurs is far less than the number of guns out there to do the job. Unless someone is pointing a gun at you ready to shoot, there are few times a gun would ever be needed. Unfortunately, guns are being used for lots of other reasons than having a gun being pointed at them. </p>
<p>I also agree with all that Kluge wrote.</p>
<p>I still think the correct point is being minimized…A2 conveys a personal right of uncertain scope to Americans. No dancing around this or trying to explain why firearms are dangerous. </p>
<p>**The militia exists because the people are armed, not create the militia and then arm the people<a href=“like%20in%20Switzerland”>/b</a>. The plain fact of the matter is that the people have a right, whether you exercise it or not, to have firearms.</p>
<p>The Parker case before the Supreme Court should clarify matters considerably.</p>
<p>Sorry, P2N, you’re in the wrong thread. This is the “gun nuts believe goofy stuff to rationalize gun ownership” thread, not the “God gave me the right to own a gun, so bug off!” thread.</p>
<p>For some reason most of the big serial killers did not use guns.</p>
<p>[What</a> evil befell women at BC brothers’ pig farm-oct 19, 2002](<a href=“http://www.missingpeople.net/what_evil_befell_women-oct_19,_2002.htm]What”>http://www.missingpeople.net/what_evil_befell_women-oct_19,_2002.htm)</p>
<p>[Gary</a> Ridgway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ridgway]Gary”>Gary Ridgway - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Barrons before posting further please apologize for insinuating that minorities are repsonsible for all the crime. You don’t want people thinking that you could be a bigot right?</p>
<p>Here is the first line in Best of Barrons
</p>
<p>gottaloveucla,</p>
<p>That line, in and of itself, is not necessarily incorrect nor bigoted. It’s flat out true-- crime rates ARE higher in minority-dominated areas, but for reasons that Barrons did not go into.</p>
<p>Nowhere, however, did he say that “minorities are repsonsible for all the crime.”</p>
<p>Kluge, let’s look at the stats again. Where do you live? (inner-city, suburbs, rural?) What crime rates have you witnessed. Do many of your acquaintinces own/use guns (for general and defensive purposes)? </p>
<p>I’m going to speculate that a majority of DGUs are by a small group of people. It makes sense to me that those with more need of protective devices would use them more often. Hence, those likely to have a gun for defensive purposes and more likely to carry one have a higher chance of mulitple DGUs. </p>
<p>How many people are killed in car crashes, accidental drownings, etc. Do those stats conflict with your firsthand experiences? I do not directly know anyone killed in a car crash or anyone who drowned, but it still happens.</p>
<p>Let’s say there are 1 millions DGUs in a year (low number for the sake of argument). With 300 million residents in the US and assuming that there are fewer than 1 million people who have a DGU in a given year (multiple DGUs for some people), that is less than one third of one percent per year. Multiply that by 30 years or so and you get somewhere under 10% of the population. This percentage does not account for births and deaths. It does not account for differences in demographics or regions. It seems plausible that you have not heard a friend discuss a DGU. It is entirely possible that you do not know anyone who has had a DGU. It is also possible that your aquaintances did not discuss a “minor” DGU. Especially since regional differences and local laws vary so much.</p>
<p>Since I lived in a low crime area in IL, I never experienced a DGU there. It is illegal to carry in IL as a civilian, period. Concealed carry was something I had not given much, if any, thought to. I was rather shocked to see one of my college friends put on his concealed weapon the first time. After some thought, it didn’t seem that unreasonable to me. I have made it this far in life without a need to defend my life or the life of someone else. I am very happy about that! I do, however, realize that there are dangerous places and people out there. Looking back, I would not be surprised if several of my acquaintances had used a gun defensively at some point. It was not something we ever really discussed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you look at what he said its implied. Just like when Trent Lott said people would have been better off if BETTER OFF IF STROM THURMOND was elected president in 1948 or 52 or w/e. He didn’t have to say anything more its implied. Oh and did I mention Strom, while running as a segragitionist had an illegitmate black daughter. I guess if his supporters knew that when he was running for President he wouldn’t have got those electoral votes.</p>
<p>gottaloveucla,</p>
<p>Please don’t run this train off the tracks. Stop playing the implication game, as we can put words in others’ mouths to whatever effect we choose.</p>
<p>Strom Thurmond’s illegitimate daughter has little to do with this conversation.</p>
<p>Raimius, I’ve lived in urban and suburban areas; my friends and families also cover the gamut of non-rural areas. I’ve been the victim of three completed home burglaries (that I know of), my wife was the victim of one successful purse snatching and another attempted robbery; that and a fourth burglary were prevented from succeeding by non-gun means in my presence; I’ve also had my cars broken into and contents stolen on at least four occasions, and my pickup truck was itself stolen. My oldest son was robbed at knife point three blocks from my current home. So I haven’t exactly led a sheltered life. (I’m not counting the “flasher” who exposed himself to my wife or any of the various other annoyances we’ve encountered over the years.) At least two of my next door neighbors were gun owners to my knowledge; many of my friends and relatives have been as well - a pretty average slice of American life. </p>
<p>So, yeah - two successful gun-free “crime defenses” - which my friends and family know about; zero gun-assisted crime defenses. But heck - we could just do a survey here on CC - I’m sure anyone who actually, personally participated or observed a DGU would be happy to speak up; anyone who had an immediate family member or close friend - no “friend of a friend” or “my wife’s cousin” allowed - who has actually participated in or observed a DGU so as to be able to absolutely reliably confirm its occurrence, could speak up. I don’t think we’ll find anywhere near the sort of 5 to 10% response rate the Kleck/Gertz study would compel.</p>
<p>gottaloveucla–My point initially was that comparing US crime rates to foreign countries was not fair as the US has far different demographics which was the thread at the time. Also please stop putting your conclusions into my mouth.</p>
<p>Barrons:
</p>
<p>Ok please elaborate, what do you mean by different demographics.</p>
<p>barrons…I did not mention serial killers. I mentioned mass murders, such as the ones where many people are killed at one time on one day, often within minutes. Just recently there is the Virginia Tech one, the Kansas mall one, the Colorado church one, the schools in CO, rural PA, the Wendy’s massacre, and others. Those involved guns. </p>
<p>Kluge, for your poll, I don’t know anyone who has defended themself with a gun. I hardly know anyone who even owns one but I do think some in my neck of the woods have hunting rifles for hunting season.</p>
<p>Did anyone see the Jane Pauley special a year or two ago that demonstrated the fascination of the most obedient adolescent boys when left alone with a gun? Their behavior was videotaped, unbeknownst to them. ALL WERE UNABLE
TO LEAVE THE GUN ALONE, PICKED IT UP, PLAYED WITH IT.</p>
<p>Many of the people from whom we think we need protection were freed in the Mental Health
Right Act of the 1960’s that made it illegal to incarcerate the mentally ill and force medication
upon them.</p>
<p>Guns are NOT only an issue in poor, minority neighborhoods. I live in a 99.9% Caucasian
neighborhood (maybe a little lower with recent minority influx) suburban, upper middle class,
low crime.</p>
<p>As I wrote in #6, guns are a big part of the culture in my town.</p>
<p>Yes, I know people who have drowned, been killed in car accidents, been shot by a gun.
So what?</p>
<p>Buy a dictionary.</p>
<p>Soozie–I was not trying to comment on your point. It’s just interesting that many serial killers use different methods than guns. They seem to like to up close and personal.</p>
<p>Well, Kluge, I know someone who surprised a burglar and chased him away with a hand gun. I will also say that I thought that was insane, and said so at the time. I would have just called the police and locked myself in the house. (The burglar was in the garage)</p>