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.

owen84

Well like I have said I live in Wales where gun ownership is illegal so I can only give Limited impute.
But during my time in UNI I did stay with a guy from america and he was against gun ownership and a member of the NRA. This confused me at first, but after talking to him he explained, that his dad was a member and no mater what people thing NRA members are not gun totting idiots. In an ideal world he said no one would have guns, but we don't  live in an ideal world, and the NRA do more for teaching correct gun correct use than the government.

As far as I know Switzerland Train every one between 20 to 30 to use a gun, Its some kind of peoples military, And they have half the gun crime USA dose so possession of guns is not everything.
Why is it that only in death do we truly learn about life.

Retribution

Honestly education is a very valid point. I have taught boy scout classes and the like on proper firearm handling. And in most states with concealed carry, well there is only one state without concealed carry..anyway you have to take a course to get the permit. This IMHO is a more valid way of dealing with self defense than just buying a gun when you do not really know how to use it. At the risk of sounding arrogant, me with a gun bad guy has a problem, I was raised around them, they are no mystery to me. Some other people that have guns not so much.

I also really want to see mental health in general addressed. It has gotten fleeting lip service in the whole gun debate, that goes from both sides. I do not care if it is government sponsored mental health care or what have you, but I think most the heinous heck all the way back to the shooting of President Reagan have been carried out by some disturbed people.  We need to try and see that these people get help as well as not becoming a threat to the rest of us. And the gun control crowd likes to throw rocks at security guards in schools, public places so on.  Honestly I think we have to have guards, I hate what it says about society, but this is a post 911 world. So weather it is terrorists or someone wanting to shoot up a school I think we have to address security. Heck after 911 I have gone through a metal detector at most amusement parks I enter.

Formless

A gun is practically a tool.

However , since its so lethal it is oftenly condemned as the source of trouble.

It all depends on the major concept of the community regarding weapons in general and not guns.

There is no denying that , owning a weapon is like a tailsman that wards 90% of burglers of any sort. But take it from a politician's eye. He HAVE to think of a gun holder as someone who might use it on any whim.

not sofar in the past many people used to go hunting and they had rifles as lethal as pistols yet violence was not an issue.

In the end It is he who hold the tool to be blamed.

Kythia

Quote from: Ark Noah on March 12, 2013, 05:38:54 PM
There is no denying that , owning a weapon is like a tailsman that wards 90% of burglers of any sort.

Honestly, I think I would deny that.  Happily its pretty easy to get a rough idea.  Is the burglary rate in the US roughly 10% of the burglary rate in the UK?

What do you know, it isn't.  Sure there are a lot of other factors but if 90% of burglaries are being warded off then you'd expect to see some evidence of that rather than them being roughly the same
242037

Caehlim

Quote from: Retribution on March 12, 2013, 01:42:24 PM
Problem is “assault weapon ban” if you read the laws really means semi auto ban and while we are at it assault weapon is a term that was made up for political reasons.

Oh wow, I thought they meant assault rifles, looking that up I see what you mean. That's an incredibly manipulative word choice.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Caehlim

Quote from: Kythia on March 12, 2013, 05:49:48 PM
Honestly, I think I would deny that.  Happily its pretty easy to get a rough idea.  Is the burglary rate in the US roughly 10% of the burglary rate in the UK?

Actually just mathematically, to prove that number the burglary rate in the US would need to be roughly 73% of the burglary rate in the UK based on comparative gun ownership in the two countries.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Formless

@ Kythia : I guess My judgement wouldn't suffice then since I am from niether of these two countries.

I just think the way people handle the guns is the problem.

Kythia

Quote from: Caehlim on March 12, 2013, 05:56:30 PM
Actually just mathematically, to prove that number the burglary rate in the US would need to be roughly 73% of the burglary rate in the UK based on comparative gun ownership in the two countries.

How did you get that?  As a gut that feels way too high.  I'm not arguing per se, just wondering how you got there.  Sure my 10% was a simplification but, yeah. 73 feels too high.
242037

Retribution

#58
Quote from: Caehlim on March 12, 2013, 05:51:08 PM
Oh wow, I thought they meant assault rifles, looking that up I see what you mean. That's an incredibly manipulative word choice.

Well assault rifles generally have a fully automatic selection point on well the safety if you are talking about an M16. The civilian version being an AR15 or in some cases the military/assault rifle version will shoot in three round automatic bursts basically because a soldier tends to waste ammo and melt barrels with a full auto setting. There are various configurations.

Point is for the most part, unless one has some serious licensing fully auto rifles are illegal in civilian hands in the US.  Just like on those same news clips talking about "assault weapon" bans they show rifles firing fully automatic while speaking of banning a semi automatic. Now, I am not sure if this is "incredibly manipulative" but it is tweaking things to one's liking to make a point. For the record the NRA and Cato Institute so on do similar things.

That is why I say I would be willing to talk about gun control if we got this other none sense out of the way.  But as this thread shows the none sense does not get out of the way. So *shrugs* okay I am a gun owner and I will not give an inch without a fight because of said none sense.  I simply do not feel I can trust the opposing side. Also after watching the government in action I know I do not trust them. Note I do not distrust the government due to conspiracy, I mistrust them because I think the system is incompetent.

BCdan

Quote from: Sethala on March 12, 2013, 02:40:28 AM
Those are good points, actually, and I didn't really think about that yet.  Overall though, what I want to say is that we need to make arguments and decisions based on full data sets, not just on anecdotal evidence (which, as far as I can tell, is all that the OP's link offers; a bunch of anecdotes with no real measurement as to whether they're the rule or just the exception).  Sadly, there's a lot of other stuff we have to fix here before the government can even start on an honest discussion about gun control, but that's another topic entirely.

Perhaps.  But let me give you a scenario: let's say that Bob is at that shooting (or a similar one).  He's got a gun with him, and hears shots go off around a corner.  Being the brave, good Samaritan that he is, he pulls out his gun, turns off the safety, and goes around the corner.  He sees a man, clearly shaken, holding a gun while a crowd of people forms around both him, and a body lying on the ground.  Bob quickly takes aim and fires just as the man turns to face him.

Ok, now let's go back a few seconds, and go into that room.  Dave's also got a gun.  He's actually there when the shooter pulls out his gun and starts firing wildly, injuring a few people.  Dave's got good reaction time however, and quickly pulls out his own gun and shoots the shooter.  As soon as he does, he looks around the corner, and spots Bob, already with a gun out pointed right at himself....

The problem with envisioning what might happen at a mass shooting if someone has a gun, is that the person that started the shooting, and the person that shot them to save everyone, can look pretty similar when you're in a panic and don't have time to find out what's going on.  And unfortunately, in real life, there's no way to turn off friendly fire.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should all just try to run and hide if someone's shooting up the building.  But thinking that adding more guns to a situation will make it less dangerous, instead of escalating the situation, seems naive.  Sure, it might work sometimes, but it might not.  And going back to my scenario, what if there were five gun-owners instead of only Dave and Bob?  How many would-be saviors would get shot because no one knows who the original shooter is?  And worse, how many people are going to get caught in the crossfire if that happens?

Actually this did sort of happen when Congresswoman Giffords was shot, but both men carrying personal weapons relaxed and calmed down when they understood the situation.  It is rare for legal gun owners to be trigger happy or poorly trained with their guns.  While you paint an example of something that could theoretically go wrong, it doesn't really convince me or change my stance that law abiding gun owners should have their civil liberties left alone.  Regulate the bad guys and look at the root causes of violence, don't turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.


~I enjoy random PM's~

MHaji

QuoteIt is rare for legal gun owners to be trigger happy or poorly trained with their guns.

Do you mean rare in a statistical sense? Because over 600 fatal gun accidents in a year (before the gun lobby stopped the CDC from collecting subsequent data) suggests that even when we only consider cases where someone actually dies, people accidentally kill themselves and others with guns pretty often - and that's not even in situations where a target's hard to identify.
Ons and offs, in song form.

-

AUCUUCUACGAACGUGAAGCUGACACUCAUAUUAGUCCCAUGAUGGAA

Retribution

Quote from: MHaji on March 13, 2013, 03:05:30 AM
Do you mean rare in a statistical sense? Because over 600 fatal gun accidents in a year (before the gun lobby stopped the CDC from collecting subsequent data) suggests that even when we only consider cases where someone actually dies, people accidentally kill themselves and others with guns pretty often - and that's not even in situations where a target's hard to identify.

This actually kind of illustrates my point. If I wanted to follow the dance script I could answer with a factoid about per capita vehicle ownership and injuries and deaths or the like. Or comparisons of the numbers of injuries and deaths to the number of firearms owners. Suffice to say both sides can supply factoids to justify their stance.

We can meet in the middle though if someone actually acknowledges that say I am not a beer swilling redneck just because firearms are integral to my life. And I will acknowledge that there are some things that can be changed to make life safer and just because you think that way it does not mean you are a communist.

Beguile's Mistress

I grew up with guns, own a few and have had self-defense training.  I don't carry a concealed weapon even though I have a permit.  I go to the range on a weekly basis for target practice and work with an instructor.

The first thing my personal safety instructor told our class is that the gun will only do what you tell it to do. 

My hope is that any hand holding a gun is connected to a fully functioning brain of a sober person exercising common sense. 

Kythia

Hmmm.

I'm interested now , Retribution.  I really don't want to start an argument after you've taken such pains to be reasonable, but I am fascinated.

Lets assume MHaji figure is spot on the money - 600 people die each year accidentally from firearms.  So a blanket ban would save 600 (or there about.  595 maybe) lives a year.

Sure, cars probably kill a lot more.  No desire to go looking for the numbers but I'm happy to, you know, stipulate to that.  But is 595 less deaths a year not a good thing?  I guess what I don't get (and I'm in the UK so thats likely colouring my stance a lot) is why there would be any, I dunno, argument about this.  "This thing kills hundreds a year accidentally let alone the god knows how many it deliberately kills.  That makes it bad." is kinda how I see it.

As I say, you've taken great pains to be reasonable and I totally get your position about entrenched positions and defensiveness and so forth and I've no desire to trigger that.  I am just intrigued.

As a side issue - are guns taxed?  The only analogy I can think of is things like alcohol and cigarettes - both of which kill loads, both of which are legal.  The reason, at least over here, is the tax revenue they bring in.
242037

Retribution

Quote from: Kythia on March 13, 2013, 09:30:05 AM
Hmmm.

I'm interested now , Retribution.  I really don't want to start an argument after you've taken such pains to be reasonable, but I am fascinated.

Lets assume MHaji figure is spot on the money - 600 people die each year accidentally from firearms.  So a blanket ban would save 600 (or there about.  595 maybe) lives a year.

Sure, cars probably kill a lot more.  No desire to go looking for the numbers but I'm happy to, you know, stipulate to that.  But is 595 less deaths a year not a good thing?  I guess what I don't get (and I'm in the UK so thats likely colouring my stance a lot) is why there would be any, I dunno, argument about this.  "This thing kills hundreds a year accidentally let alone the god knows how many it deliberately kills.  That makes it bad." is kinda how I see it.

As I say, you've taken great pains to be reasonable and I totally get your position about entrenched positions and defensiveness and so forth and I've no desire to trigger that.  I am just intrigued.

As a side issue - are guns taxed?  The only analogy I can think of is things like alcohol and cigarettes - both of which kill loads, both of which are legal.  The reason, at least over here, is the tax revenue they bring in.

I agree Beguile and now onto addressing Kythia's issues...

Okay, lets assume it is 600. Those deaths only end if when a ban is enacted every single firearm in the hands of private citizens magically vanishes. Not to put too fine a point on it they are not going to vanish  so those deaths will still be taking place and I would vote that deaths would increase. Why? we had prohibition on alcohol in the US at one time the crime that lead to was horrific and full of murder. And lets not get into how ineffective the whole war on drugs has been. Not to mention, well come to take my firearms and we will be testing weather that whole "well armed militia" portion of the second amendment is really still applicable as many pro gun control types say. And I am not the only one who feels strongly enough about this to fight in the very literal sense.

On a similar note, I view the whole lets outlaw guns because a gun lets say killed one person as a cop out. I view it in the same light as saying we should persecute homosexuals because the AIDs epidemic started in that community. That is blatant discrimination and is well wrong. I know comparing apples to oranges, but I hope it makes my point.

And yes guns and ammo are taxed pretty heavy.  There is a law called Pitman Robertson that taxes guns, ammo, hunting equipment so on. Those funds are then put into or supposed to be put into wildlife conservation. It was one of the building blocks of the modern conservation movement funded by hunters like me who have put their money where their mouth is through various taxes that we essentially asked be applied to us. Same as hunting license funds and such. There has been talk of putting a "sin tax" on guns. I would go with that to a point, problem is the other side then starts ranting about making the tax so high no one can afford to own a gun. *Smiles faintly and shakes his head no* alright now me and that crowd have a fight.  That tactic is how the former friend I was speaking of in my first post became a former. There are also charges for background checks and the like on gun sales that vary from state to state.


Kythia

Quote from: Retribution on March 13, 2013, 09:50:35 AM
we will be testing weather that whole "well armed militia" portion of the second amendment

Regulated.  It's a well regulated militia.

Sorry, that just made me laugh.

Anyway, thanks for answering.  Honestly I don't think we're gonna agree here but that's groovy.  Thanks very much for answering my question and a belated welcome to E.  It's always nice to talk to a new (to me) person.
242037

BCdan

Quote from: Kythia on March 13, 2013, 09:30:05 AM
Hmmm.

I'm interested now , Retribution.  I really don't want to start an argument after you've taken such pains to be reasonable, but I am fascinated.

Lets assume MHaji figure is spot on the money - 600 people die each year accidentally from firearms.  So a blanket ban would save 600 (or there about.  595 maybe) lives a year.

Sure, cars probably kill a lot more.  No desire to go looking for the numbers but I'm happy to, you know, stipulate to that.  But is 595 less deaths a year not a good thing?  I guess what I don't get (and I'm in the UK so thats likely colouring my stance a lot) is why there would be any, I dunno, argument about this.  "This thing kills hundreds a year accidentally let alone the god knows how many it deliberately kills.  That makes it bad." is kinda how I see it.

As I say, you've taken great pains to be reasonable and I totally get your position about entrenched positions and defensiveness and so forth and I've no desire to trigger that.  I am just intrigued.

As a side issue - are guns taxed?  The only analogy I can think of is things like alcohol and cigarettes - both of which kill loads, both of which are legal.  The reason, at least over here, is the tax revenue they bring in.

In a perfect world a blanket ban might save some lives, but definitely not everyone.  You have to remember that there is the 'pandora's box' effect.  Its easy for a country that never had a large number of modern firearms to enforce a ban compared to a country like the US which already has something like 88 guns for every 100 people.  So far strict bans in cities have only resulted in larger numbers of deaths from gun violence. 

Theres actually an interesting study by Harvard that talks about this: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf  Basically the study talks about 'minimization' especially during the cold war in which many countries had a major incentive to lie about their gun related murder rates.  Theres also a negative correlation between firearms deaths and number of weapons when it comes to homicide when you look at a local level breakdown. 

So you might be getting fewer accidents with an all out ban on weapons, but you could be trading that in for a significantly higher homicide rate. Mainly because the worst thing for a criminal is a gun owning victim.  An armed victim presents the potentially highest possible cost for a criminal. 


~I enjoy random PM's~

Oniya

Out of curiosity, what do you think of something similar to the regulations placed on car ownership - the applicant needs to pass a written and performance test that must be renewed periodically, and must also meet certain health guidelines (for cars, it's vision, but for guns it could be a mental health evaluation).  A licensing fee would be assessed to cover the necessary exams, much like you pay the DOT/BOT for your auto license.  Insurance against accidents would also be required - just like with cars.  Having a license would allow you to own and operate as many legal firearms as you want, but insurance must be covered on each one.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Caehlim

Quote from: Kythia on March 12, 2013, 05:59:15 PM
How did you get that?  As a gut that feels way too high.  I'm not arguing per se, just wondering how you got there.  Sure my 10% was a simplification but, yeah. 73 feels too high.

American gun ownership = 36% of the population.
British = 6% of population.
Difference = 30%.

So if guns saved you 100% of the time, the 30 extra percentage points of gun ownership would make burglaries 70% as common in the US as in the UK.

But since the figure was only 90%, then that makes it a 27% difference. (90% of 30%).

Therefore 100%-27% = 73%.

Sorry if that doesn't make any sense. I'm so tired I'm basically sleep-typing and higher reasoning and mathematical functions aren't available to my brain. I'm not entirely sure I did the math right the first time, I think I may have grossly oversimplified and created a false equivalency between percentages, but... tired. Don't know.

That's what I was thinking anyway.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Caehlim

Quote from: Retribution on March 13, 2013, 09:16:28 AMWe can meet in the middle though if someone actually acknowledges that say I am not a beer swilling redneck just because firearms are integral to my life.

I'm personally not all that interested in guns. They're a cool piece of technology but I have no need for them in my day to day life.

However my best friend adores guns and we've had some fun down at the shooting range with him dragging me along. I've helped him study for his firearms license and admired the groupings on the targets he brings back from his competition shoots.

When I'm writing a story and need some details on a gun, I always ask him. He can give me a ton of detailed information on any firearm topic and doesn't mind weird questions like "What kind of gun would a vampire use to execute a wizard?". (If you're curious, his eventual opinion on that was an original model 1911 chambering .45 after we talked about the setting/situation/characters a bit).

As much as I might tease him for his obsession (just like he teases me about loving fantasy and science fiction), I've never lost any respect for him because of his firearms enthusiasm. Just because someone likes guns doesn't make them a beer-swilling redneck.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Kythia

Quote from: Caehlim on March 13, 2013, 10:49:45 AM
American gun ownership = 36% of the population.
British = 6% of population.
Difference = 30%.

So if guns saved you 100% of the time, the 30 extra percentage points of gun ownership would make burglaries 70% as common in the US as in the UK.

But since the figure was only 90%, then that makes it a 27% difference. (90% of 30%).

Therefore 100%-27% = 73%.

Sorry if that doesn't make any sense. I'm so tired I'm basically sleep-typing and higher reasoning and mathematical functions aren't available to my brain. I'm not entirely sure I did the math right the first time, I think I may have grossly oversimplified and created a false equivalency between percentages, but... tired. Don't know.

That's what I was thinking anyway.

The burglary rate in both countries is identical

The only thing preventing a burglary from happening is the presence of a gun, which has a 90% chance of prevention

Obviously both of those are horrific over simplifications but  for the sake of maths...

There are x burglaries per 100 people.  The ones targeted against a non-gun-owning household are succesful.  Therefore there will be 0.94x burlgaries in the UK, 0.64x in the US

The ones against gun owning households have a ten percent chance of success.  Therefore there will be 10% of 0.06x = 0.006x burglaries in the UK and 10% of 0.36x = 0.036 burglaries in the US of gun owning households.

Total burglaries in the UK then is 0.94x+0.006x = 0.946x

Total burglaries in the US is 0.64x+0.036x = 0.676x

(0.676/0.946)*100 = 71.45

So the burglary rate in the us should be 71.45% of the burglary rate in the UK. 

I think what was making it look so wrong was that I was assuming the gun ownership rate in the US wasy waaaaaaaaaay higher than 36%.  I guess the "guns owned per capita" figure was throwing me off, must be a shed load of houses with multiple guns.
242037

Caehlim

Though come to think of it, that's guns per person, not per household so the problem would actually be more complex.

Oh well. I'm off to bed. Goodnight.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Retribution

Regulated *shreds his degree* ahem my alma matter might be wanting to ditch that minor in government they gave me now and stick with strictly biology.

On to one of the other questions! I personally have no problem with national licensing and such to a point. The point being when it is used as a backdoor method of banning as I have touched on before. I would have no problem buying insurance for my firearm ownership, but sadly the person suggesting such then goes on a little tirade about how they can then make the insurance so expensive I cannot own a gun.

So when we reach this point there was an old movie out one time called The Sword and the Sorcerer.  Good guy goes to get bad guy who is having his soul sucked out by a demon. Good guy looks at demon "I have no quarrel with you." Demon looks at him "I am taking the wench" good guy pulls his sword "now we got a quarrel."  My view on many of these regulations is very similar stay reasonable cost and cumbersome and we have no quarrel.

On a side note a little homework. Google the pictures of the Sandy Hook shooter, the Colorado shooter, and the fellow who shot Gabby Gifford. I say Google so I do not get accused of doctoring the pics. But I think if you take a look at those pics we can agree something needs to be done about mental health. Talking guns over it is sort of like talking soft drinks and obesity in NYC in my opinion.

Oniya

Ah, but if you make the insurance so high that no one can own an insured gun, then it works like cars - lots of people running around with uninsured guns.  ;)  If it were up to me, I'd not only keep the insurance costs reasonable on the average, but actually implement things like discounts on the insurance for people that have gotten extra certified training, or who are in a demographic that doesn't have a lot of firearms accidents (or 'on-purposes'), the same way that car insurance is less expensive if you're a reliable, safe driver.

And completely with you on the mental health side of things.  People should not have to reach a breaking point before the system lets them get help.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Valerian

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

According to that link, the number of U.S. households with guns is about 47%, the highest for almost two decades.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/14509/Americans-Guns-Danger-Defense.aspx

According to this link (slightly older than the first; I couldn't find anything more current) among those who own guns, 31% own just one, while 62% report owning more than one gun.  This includes 29% who say they own five or more guns.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining

CNN says that about 20% of of gun owners own about 65% of the total guns in the U.S.  (On a side note, the U.S., with less than 5% of the world's population, owns about 50% of the world's guns.)



If you want those numbers crunched, though, you're on your own.  <.<
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE