Ever wondered how many times guns saved the day?

Started by Monfang, February 15, 2013, 03:38:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Monfang

Well, someone at the CATO Instatue (which sounds like a comic book villen organization) did the research and gave us a big map to show us.

http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense

Now you might notice areas that are completely blank or very sparse, it explains that often criminals run once they know the person they are targeting has a gun and this isn't covered in the media, and it often isn't reported. However it still concludes: "The bottom line is that gun owners stop a lot of criminal mayhem every year."

So what say you? Are they right that gun ownership by law abiding citizens saves just as many or more lives than not?

Silverfyre

You do realize that the source you are using is a rather biased conservative 'think tank" rather than any sort of objective research facility, yes?  It's owned by Charles Koch after all.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/305928
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute



Kythia

Randomly clicking on a few icons, I see one from 2005 and one from 2012.  There are at least seven years worth of data here, and it still looks pretty sparse.
242037

Beguile's Mistress

Cato Institute finds and sends mailings to anyone who publicly comes out in support of fighting any sort of gun control legislation, registration and regulation.  They also lobby lawmakers at the state and federal levels.


Monfang

Quote from: Kythia on February 15, 2013, 03:46:35 PM
Randomly clicking on a few icons, I see one from 2005 and one from 2012.  There are at least seven years worth of data here, and it still looks pretty sparse.
As it says, most of the cases aren't reported and aren't recorded by the media. If the rate is the same as crime unreported. (50-40%) then we might only be looking at half of the total data if not more.

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on February 15, 2013, 03:47:00 PM
Cato Institute finds and sends mailings to anyone who publicly comes out in support of fighting any sort of gun control legislation, registration and regulation.  They also lobby lawmakers at the state and federal levels.
Lobbing is a big part of politics nowadays, both gun control and gun freedom have lobbiests. I don't see what this has to do with the data.

Silverfyre

The data, if not recorded and analyzed, is thus worthless to those trying to create an objective portrayal of statistics for their platform.  I also question the validity of the data from such an organization.


Beguile's Mistress

Data from anything other than an objective source or a source that quotes all statistics rather than picking and choosing is unreliable.  Data from a source with an agenda is often skewed to cast a favorable light on the opinions of the reporting group.

Now, if Cato compared the number of documented instances where it was determined that a civilian wielding a fire arm prevented a crime and those statistics differentiated between actors with and without guns and then compared that to other circumstances where the use of a gun by a civilian had unfavorable results I could see some justification for using their data as a talking point.

Silverfyre

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on February 15, 2013, 04:08:53 PM
Data from anything other than an objective source or a source that quotes all statistics rather than picking and choosing is unreliable.  Data from a source with an agenda is often skewed to cast a favorable light on the opinions of the reporting group.

Now, if Cato compared the number of documented instances where it was determined that a civilian wielding a fire arm prevented a crime and those statistics differentiated between actors with and without guns and then compared that to other circumstances where the use of a gun by a civilian had unfavorable results I could see some justification for using their data as a talking point.

BeMi says it better than my muddled brain could.  Well said.


Monfang

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on February 15, 2013, 04:08:53 PM
Data from anything other than an objective source or a source that quotes all statistics rather than picking and choosing is unreliable.  Data from a source with an agenda is often skewed to cast a favorable light on the opinions of the reporting group.

Now, if Cato compared the number of documented instances where it was determined that a civilian wielding a fire arm prevented a crime and those statistics differentiated between actors with and without guns and then compared that to other circumstances where the use of a gun by a civilian had unfavorable results I could see some justification for using their data as a talking point.
But that isn't want this is for.

This is just a map that shows the cases they have found of when firearms have saved a person's life, their property or their well-being.

Can I ask that everyone stops attacking the organization and answers the fundamental question here? Does gun ownership by law abiding citizens save  lives?

Beguile's Mistress

#9
Quote from: Monfang on February 15, 2013, 04:32:12 PM
But that isn't want this is for.

This is just a map that shows the cases they have found of when firearms have saved a person's life, their property or their well-being.

Can I ask that everyone stops attacking the organization and answers the fundamental question here? Does gun ownership by law abiding citizens save  lives?

Sometimes yes and sometimes no.  I personally know two people who have accidentally killed friends in hunting accidents through carelessness.  There are cases reported across the nation where people have turned legally owned firearms on others when no crime was intended and when they failed to first identify the target have shot at, injured or killed the innocent person. 

You can say that there are incidents where a civilian with a gun may have deterred the commission of a crime but not every situation resolves itself in this way.  My self-protection instructor taught us that in a confrontation with a criminal you'll probably lose due to hesitation before you can defend yourself adequately.




As a bit of information for future posting, Monfang, please understand that Elliquiy, unlike some other sites on the internet, encourages open discussion of topics relevant to today's culture and society.  We have a diverse membership including may religions, cultures, races and nationalities as well as members who are representative of all sexual orientations and gender groups. 

Discussions of any sort are expected to have links to back up factual statements and those links should come from objective sources.  Presenting yourself or an organization in the light of an authority on a subject leaves the door open for discussion of that as well as the question you pose.

We love to see new members with a desire to become active in our community, however, the environment in which you find yourself may be unfamiliar.  It might help if you take a look around the forums open to you and get a feel for how we do things.  That way when you post about such hot button issues as gun rights, feminism and such you'll have a better idea of how to get your point across in a way that is acceptable.

Star Safyre

A good article I read/hear on this topic is Armed 'Good Guys' And The Realities Of Facing A Gunman on NPR.  It speaks to what many gun-carrying folks I've known have shared with me: the fantasy/belief that they can save everyone with one clean shot.  The reality of most situations is that a civilian rarely has the training needed to use deadly force effectively, especially if oneself or loved ones are in mortal danger and the chaos that accompanies violent altercations.  Those who have had training, the knowledge must be maintained rigorously:

Quote"The ability to safely handle and use a gun in a lawful manner is a perishable skill," [assistant chief Jim Pugel, a 30-year veteran of the Seattle Police Department] says. "If you don't practice on a regular basis, psychologically, physiologically, you will likely not respond properly."
My heaven is to be with him always.
|/| O/O's / Plots / tumblr / A/A's |/|
And I am a writer, writer of fictions
I am the heart that you call home
And I've written pages upon pages
Trying to rid you from my bones

Monfang

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on February 15, 2013, 05:44:31 PM
As a bit of information for future posting, Monfang, please understand that Elliquiy, unlike some other sites on the internet, encourages open discussion of topics relevant to today's culture and society.  We have a diverse membership including may religions, cultures, races and nationalities as well as members who are representative of all sexual orientations and gender groups. 

Discussions of any sort are expected to have links to back up factual statements and those links should come from objective sources.  Presenting yourself or an organization in the light of an authority on a subject leaves the door open for discussion of that as well as the question you pose.

We love to see new members with a desire to become active in our community, however, the environment in which you find yourself may be unfamiliar.  It might help if you take a look around the forums open to you and get a feel for how we do things.  That way when you post about such hot button issues as gun rights, feminism and such you'll have a better idea of how to get your point across in a way that is acceptable.
Is there any way that I could send you a private message instead of replying to you in a public way?

Pumpkin Seeds

Speaking in absolutes is never wise when holding a debate or even conversation.  Certainly someone, somewhere in the United States has been saved by a civilian brandishing a pistol.  Someone somewhere would have benefitted from having a gun on them at a particular movement where their life could have been saved.  To say otherwise is simply wrong.  At the same time how many lives would have been saved if someone was not in possession of a firearm?  How many accidental deaths would have been prevented if a weapon was not allowed into a household in the first place or how many accidental shootings would never have occurred? 

The problem with gun rights is not that guns can save lives.  Weapons in the hands of civilians have saved lives in the past and will do so in the future.  The question is whether the number of lives saved is worth those lost and the consequences to society for having such weaponry available.  A fine balance has to be struck between the protection of self and the good of society.

Monfang

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on February 15, 2013, 05:56:34 PM
Speaking in absolutes is never wise when holding a debate or even conversation.  Certainly someone, somewhere in the United States has been saved by a civilian brandishing a pistol.  Someone somewhere would have benefitted from having a gun on them at a particular movement where their life could have been saved.  To say otherwise is simply wrong.  At the same time how many lives would have been saved if someone was not in possession of a firearm?  How many accidental deaths would have been prevented if a weapon was not allowed into a household in the first place or how many accidental shootings would never have occurred? 

The problem with gun rights is not that guns can save lives.  Weapons in the hands of civilians have saved lives in the past and will do so in the future.  The question is whether the number of lives saved is worth those lost and the consequences to society for having such weaponry available.  A fine balance has to be struck between the protection of self and the good of society.
One of the arguments that I heard of late is that guns helps women overcome the strength that a man may have.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2013/02/11/us/20130211-WOMEN.html

Pumpkin Seeds

.....

........

I feel that a curse word is appropriate here.


Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Monfang on February 15, 2013, 04:32:12 PM
But that isn't want this is for.

This is just a map that shows the cases they have found of when firearms have saved a person's life, their property or their well-being.

Can I ask that everyone stops attacking the organization and answers the fundamental question here? Does gun ownership by law abiding citizens save  lives?

Thing is.. your 'source' is obviously curved/skewed in their approach. I'm pro-gun.. but I also feel that gun control laws need to be enforces (and they aren't.. only 11 states give data to the offenders database).

Right now we're in the middle of a literal s-storm of the 'anti' and 'pro' gun lobbies. And like most things somewhere in the middle is where things should be.

Banning gun sales won't fix the problem. Banning guns won't fix it. You have violence in countries 'without guns'. There was a movement to ban pointed kitchen knives in the UK of late.

You don't see a lot of the 'gun stops spree' events because.. well.. you never know when they will occur..they are stopped before they happen. Also.. you don't get as much jazz on 'security officer prevents gun man entry into school.' Half the time it's hard to prove a 'non-event' and when you do have a tragedy averted..well.. it's not tragic..therefore not 'newsworthy' in todays ratings battle for ad revenue.

Honestly, the folks in power failed us in preventing things from coming so commercialized. Look at today's media conglomerates compared to the way when Reagan pulled the fairness doctrine and before the creation of CNN, though in all fairness events even back then were in motion to strangle diversity in the Media.

You want a more 'responsible' media reporting and representation of how guns effect things.. well you get how to handle that.. you're going to be ahead of me.

Don't expect a cut and dried presentation like what you cited from the Cato Institute to be entirely truthful

Brittany

#16
Does civilian carrying guns save more lives than it costs?

I'm sure there are facts and figures that go towards answering this question.  But the gun issue itself is so complicated.  A mish mash of history, the value of human life, the question of whether they would just use another weapon.. there is so much to talk about.  If your son or daughters life is lost, I don't know how much you would care about the ones that were saved.

As an English girl,  I'm going to do what all smart British people do and duck this question, because I don't think we can ever fully understand.  I mean the right to bear arms is such an important part of American history and culture but there are negatives too.  I don't feel qualified to talk about it honestly, but I hope they can find a way to keep more people safe and happy.  Love the Americans.

P.S Piers, come home or be quiet, you are embarrassing yourself!!  ;D

Monfang

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on February 15, 2013, 06:04:13 PM
Thing is.. your 'source' is obviously curved/skewed in their approach. I'm pro-gun.. but I also feel that gun control laws need to be enforces (and they aren't.. only 11 states give data to the offenders database).

Right now we're in the middle of a literal s-storm of the 'anti' and 'pro' gun lobbies. And like most things somewhere in the middle is where things should be.

Banning gun sales won't fix the problem. Banning guns won't fix it. You have violence in countries 'without guns'. There was a movement to ban pointed kitchen knives in the UK of late.

You don't see a lot of the 'gun stops spree' events because.. well.. you never know when they will occur..they are stopped before they happen. Also.. you don't get as much jazz on 'security officer prevents gun man entry into school.' Half the time it's hard to prove a 'non-event' and when you do have a tragedy averted..well.. it's not tragic..therefore not 'newsworthy' in todays ratings battle for ad revenue.

Honestly, the folks in power failed us in preventing things from coming so commercialized. Look at today's media conglomerates compared to the way when Reagan pulled the fairness doctrine and before the creation of CNN, though in all fairness events even back then were in motion to strangle diversity in the Media.

You want a more 'responsible' media reporting and representation of how guns effect things.. well you get how to handle that.. you're going to be ahead of me.

Don't expect a cut and dried presentation like what you cited from the Cato Institute to be entirely truthful
I fully agree with the better gun control laws and not a gun ban. Especially with mental health.

And the only reason why I put up a link to the CATO Institute was because I just got it on my newsfeed and it interested me, thought I would share it.

Pumpkin Seeds

Alright, now that I have cursed and taken my deep breath.  A gun certainly allows a weaker opponent to match against a stronger.  That is true regardless of man or woman.  So does martial arts training, non-lethal weaponry such as pepper spray/mace/tasers and knowledge of simple self-defense techniques of avoiding danger.  A gun often gives people a false confidence that can lead them to make bad choices for their own personal safety.  So I am unclear how the article presented, which is basically highlighting the benefit of “bringing a gun to a knife fight”, is supposed to push forward the point of discussion.

Beguile's Mistress

Quote from: Monfang on February 15, 2013, 05:55:06 PM
Is there any way that I could send you a private message instead of replying to you in a public way?

Private messaging privileges are not available to unapproved members.  Please post your questions here.

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Star Safyre on February 15, 2013, 05:54:40 PM
A good article I read/hear on this topic is Armed 'Good Guys' And The Realities Of Facing A Gunman on NPR.  It speaks to what many gun-carrying folks I've known have shared with me: the fantasy/belief that they can save everyone with one clean shot.  The reality of most situations is that a civilian rarely has the training needed to use deadly force effectively, especially if oneself or loved ones are in mortal danger and the chaos that accompanies violent altercations.  Those who have had training, the knowledge must be maintained rigorously:

So citing Cato Institute doesn't jive but NPR is okay?

NPR has a long history of controversies. I don't doubt Cato Institute does too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR_controversies
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-10-NPR10_CV_N.htm

But I suppose a pissing contest over whose sources are more legitimate is probably pointless anyhow. No one is going to agree.

Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Zeitgeist on February 15, 2013, 07:15:33 PM
So citing Cato Institute doesn't jive but NPR is okay?

The thing is, Zeitgeist, conservatives still haven't gotten their heads around the fact that their massively skewed echo chamber just has a huge, huge credibility problem as a whole that other media outlets, whatever controversies they may find themselves embroiled in (and it's not possible to report news and avoid controversy entirely) don't have. Treating NPR as more objective than the Cato Institute is really just a recognition of facts. It's unfortunate, but it's something the conservative movement has done to itself by its own free choice.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Zeitgeist

Like I said, it is pointless to debate it. You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. Frankly I just really don't give that much of a damn anyhow.

Branwen

Quote from: Zeitgeist on February 15, 2013, 08:04:29 PM
Like I said, it is pointless to debate it. You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. Frankly I just really don't give that much of a damn anyhow.

Then why enter a debate thread?  I'm not being rude, I'm just asking.  It's clearly causing you concern and stress. 

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Branwen on February 15, 2013, 08:06:40 PM
Then why enter a debate thread?  I'm not being rude, I'm just asking.  It's clearly causing you concern and stress.

Sure, I appreciate that but we're also way off topic now (partially my fault) and so I was just trying to cut it short. What I really should have said I don't give a damn what Cyrano Johnson thinks of Republicans and the Conservative Movement.