Gun Culture

Don said:

It sure made a difference for me the night it wasn't my wallet I pulled out of my hip pocket. Suddenly, waving a kitchen knife in my face and demanding my stuff wasn't something the knife-wielder wanted to be doing any more. He was too busy simultaneously trying to run backwards, pee his pants, and dropping the knife. Nice knife, btw.

No muggers were harmed in this particular case, unless you consider damage to his ego and the chaffing from running in wet pants.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't have made a difference to me the night I was threatened by three large men who'd just smashed my much bigger, much scarier male friend in the face with a brick. They'd just have taken the gun off me and used it against me, like they did with the keys I'd been holding between my fingers in case I had to fight back.

What made a difference was the astonishingly loud rape alarm in my bag which made them consider me a risk not worth taking, and alerted a man from a local builder's yard, who took my friend and I to the hospital.

Not everyone is made safer by a weapon. Sometimes, it can very well make it worse. When you're small, disabled, scared and outnumbered...well. I'm just glad I didn't give them the means to hurt my friend and I worse than they did.

(Not that anecdotes prove anything at all, but since everyone else was playing...)

Keys don't fire deadly projectiles.

But of course, you might be right. A gun in your hands may have made no difference.

But Don's anecdote was in response to a specific idea of not being able to imagine how a gun might have improved one's chances in a mugging.

Surely you can imagine how it might, even if you don't see it in your particular case.

Me, I have no interest in carrying a gun. And I don't think people like Don should be carrying them, either. But that doesn't mean there's no conceivable benefit to the individual that is carrying one.

But Don's anecdote was in response to a specific idea of not being able to imagine how a gun might have improved one's chances in a mugging.

Surely you can imagine how it might, even if you don't see it in your particular case.

Click to expand...

My point was, while it can undoubtedly be a potential benefit, it can also be a potential detriment. Or make no difference either way. Just the mere fact that one is carrying a gun doesn't automatically make them safer, better protected. It may mean the opposite.

benbradley said:

How many guns should there be?

Click to expand...

I don't know. Less?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ed-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

crunchyblanket said:

My point was, while it can undoubtedly be a potential benefit, it can also be a potential detriment. Or make no difference either way. Just the mere fact that one is carrying a gun doesn't automatically make them safer, better protected. It may mean the opposite.

Click to expand...

In fact, it usually does mean the opposite.

"Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found. "

"Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher."

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ncreases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

JoyceH said:

In fact, it usually does mean the opposite.

"Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found. "

"Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher."

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ncreases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

Click to expand...

Just venturing a theory here, but I wonder if the threat of being shot makes the assailant more likely to shoot, rather than deterring them - as in, makes them want to get their shot in first, so as to avoid being shot themselves?

I seem to recall someone else pointing out, in this thread or a similar thread, that confrontations which might have ended in a punch-up and a trip to A&E become a great deal more dangerous - unnecessarily so - when there are guns involved. The 'fear factor' of having a gun pointed at you probably does make you more likely to pull the trigger in retaliation.

robeiae said:

And I don't think people like Don should be carrying them, either.

Click to expand...

'People who carry guns' may include people who are in very violent neighborhoods, etc, too. I'm not really for people carrying guns on their person unless they are retired or off-duty law enforcement or military, etc. But there are a lot of people who do carry guns because the people around them are carrying guns.

It is like an arms race, and I don't know what we do about that through just laws, as many of the original gun-carriers are doing so with complete disregard for the law. Laws that target illegal gun sales and stolen gun investigations could help with that, maybe.

A home invasion is an entirely different animal. Look up all the 911 calls from women (as it turns out, maybe a media thing) who were on the phone while they shot intruders. It can take a long time before the person is able to get all the way in the house. There is a lot of time to think of what to do. The young widow in Oklahoma had pushed the couch in front of the door as a barricade, etc.

Oh, in that case, this was nice unless it got pleaded down: the accomplice breaking in with a large hunting knife with the man who got shot was charged with felony murder. He ran away after hearing the gunshot, but he got charged with murder because their breaking in armed as they were led to a death (his accomplice's). That sort of law is excellent, imho, in trying to lock up the real cause of so many of our problems.

Other problems we have are related to trying -- stupidly -- to protect against the criminals, like not securing guns around children. Those are enormous problems, but I fully believe that a huge part of our gun culture is due to the sort of criminals we have, what they do (higher murder and rape rate), and what they often carry -- their guns If you really are more likely to be killed during a violent encounter or house break-in while you are home in the US, that affects the culture.

If I thought someone was very likely to just wield a little, legal knife and be about their business of stealing my stuff, I wouldn't be as concerned about protection, myself. I'd probably plan on escaping out a window and running in a place like that.

We get our sheds or cars broken into all the time where I am, as a matter of fact. That's no problem, because the threat of violence isn't there the same way. No those folks don't get shot (and they know that, too, lol)!

JoyceH said:

In fact, it usually does mean the opposite.

"Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found. "

"Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher."

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ncreases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

Click to expand...

So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity.

Click to expand...

But does that tell how many people are carrying guns who did NOT get shot? Do they know how many people carry guns in that area?

The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Click to expand...

I wonder what those other differences could be. Did they determine if the person shot was a purchaser or dealer in illegal drugs, or a gang member, or otherwise involved with illegal activities? How many victims owned the gun they were carrying (bought it legally, it wasn't stolen) and had a permit to carry it? I'd think (if Branas can speculate, so can I) a lot of illegal drug buyers just might have legal concealed carry permits.

I think these are important and even obvious questions, and just that they're not mentioned makes me suspicious.

The link at the bottom of the article doesn't directly link to the original article, and I didn't find it. I'd like to read it.

Unimportant said:

I wonder if part of the reason for the divide on the gun control issue is due to whether the individual is, or is not, willing to pull out a gun and use it to kill another person in order to protect their own property/safety/life.


Agreed.

I looked up the info on the US census webpage. The average number of people killed per annum during a burglary (which I am assuming = someone entering your home to steal stuff) is 88. The average number of people killed per annum during a robbery (which I am assuming is a violent/threatening robbery that occurs outside the home -- getting mugged, etc) is 1000. Given a US population of 311M, that makes the odds of getting killed during a burglary or robbery to be 0.00003% and 0.0003%, respectively. Slightly higher than the odds of being killed by lightning. About a tenth of the odds of dying from second-hand smoke, if you're a nonsmoker.

Click to expand...

How's that compare to the odds of being killed in a mass shooting, which is the rationale for wholesale changes in our gun laws?

robeiae said:

And I don't think people like Don should be carrying them, either.

Click to expand...

kuwisdelu said:

Click to expand...

For purposes of clarification, "people like Don" means good trustworthy people, people who are otherwise just going about their business and aren't looking to cause problems, one way or the other.

crunchyblanket said:

My point was, while it can undoubtedly be a potential benefit, it can also be a potential detriment. Or make no difference either way. Just the mere fact that one is carrying a gun doesn't automatically make them safer, better protected. It may mean the opposite.

Click to expand...

Sure, I agree.

But your story isn't evidence of any of this, since there wasn't a gun involved. It would be just as invalid for me to offer a story like yours and claim that if I had a gun, all would have been fine.

Unimportant said:

I wonder if part of the reason for the divide on the gun control issue is due to whether the individual is, or is not, willing to pull out a gun and use it to kill another person in order to protect their own property/safety/life.

Click to expand...

I doubt it. There are plenty of people like me who have zero interest in firing a gun or possibly even owning one--much less carrying one around--but who are nonetheless staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment.

Unimportant said:

I wonder if part of the reason for the divide on the gun control issue is due to whether the individual is, or is not, willing to pull out a gun and use it to kill another person in order to protect their own property/safety/life.


Agreed.

I looked up the info on the US census webpage. The average number of people killed per annum during a burglary (which I am assuming = someone entering your home to steal stuff) is 88. The average number of people killed per annum during a robbery (which I am assuming is a violent/threatening robbery that occurs outside the home -- getting mugged, etc) is 1000. Given a US population of 311M, that makes the odds of getting killed during a burglary or robbery to be 0.00003% and 0.0003%, respectively. Slightly higher than the odds of being killed by lightning. About a tenth of the odds of dying from second-hand smoke, if you're a nonsmoker.

Click to expand...

Compare the odds of being killed in a break-in to other countries to understand a cultural difference in some parts here about keeping a gun in the home.

I said the main reason I still have a gun in the home is because of animal problems. I have had one break-in here, and many more rabid animals, pets being attacked, etc by animals. My neighbor took an axe to the rabid fox that cornered him at his door several months ago, and I don't recommend an axe for it; that's for sure ! It's better not to have them scratch you, if you can manage it.

So, for me, I'd have one anyway. The fact that someone breaking in here really, really wants to break in (guns are a known quantity here), just makes me feel better about having it. I'm completely for regulation, checks, psych evals, etc, keep in mind.


eta: I'd never protect property with a gun. My life or rape (since you don't know whether you'll be killed at the end of it), yes. I would, if it were practical and safe to do so, like in the cases where the women were waiting for the attacker to break through to their hiding spot. I will protect my life with deadly force, absolutely.

Unimportant said:

I couldn't find official data for that. Mother Jones lists 151 victims of spree shooters for 2012, so based on that, your odds of being killed by a random nutjob are twice those of being killed in your home during a burglary.

(And, of course, these are all just counting deaths, not people who are injured but survive a shooting.)

Click to expand...

No, you've misread it. 151 victims, killed or wounded. And 2012 was a high point. The article yours links to tabulates them since '82:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

In twenty of thirty years, deaths from rampage killers are under twenty. Odds of being killed by a burglar/invader are definitely higher.

robeiae said:

Me, I have no interest in carrying a gun. And I don't think people like Don should be carrying them, either. But that doesn't mean there's no conceivable benefit to the individual that is carrying one.

Click to expand...

It really comes down to the same ideological argument.

In in my own particular circumstances, I believe that given my experience, temperament, and judgement, owning or carrying a gun will make me (marginally) safer. Of course, everyone who wants to have a gun feels exactly the same way, regardless of any reality to their beliefs.

But the question is whether the government has the right to restrict firearms, simply because in the big picture it makes society safer -- because on a particular individual level, it may not.

That's why the issue is so contentious. It's not just about guns. I would put money on the notion that a majority of gun owners, and a large majority of carry permit individuals are also unalterably opposed to universal (socialized) health care and think Obama is a disaster and is not qualified to be president.

Even such reasonable things as preventing anonymous online gun sales, allowing guns to be purchased without any background checks, or registering firearms is ideological anathema. Hey, if the government knows who owns guns, theyt can show up one day and take them away.

But the thing that bothers me is not so much that philosophy (actually it does) but the complete refusal to acknowledge reality.

There's no need to tighten up gun laws, gun proponents say, because easy access to guns has nothing to do with the astounding homicide rate in this country.

But apart from mass shootings, the number one cause of death for young black males is homicide.

Researchers looked at the homicide rate for every 100,000 people. Among young black men, there are 39.2 homicides. For young hispanic men, there are 17.1 homicides, and for young white males, the homicide rate is just 2.6.

Click to expand...

http://www.news4jax.com/news/Homici...Males/-/475880/2004806/-/mj4spmz/-/index.html

Across the bay from me in Oakland there are shootings almost every single day.

The idea that the easy availability has nothing to do with this, or that the answer is more people on the street carrying guns is mind boggling.

As is the oft repeated claim that guns like the Bushmaster are not really assault rifles and are no more dangerous than the average hunting rifle.

Studies have shown that having a gun in one's home is statistically more dangerous than not having one. Now, whether that trumps the right to own a gun regardless is a valid debate. I actually think that no, it does not trump that right.

But to pretend those studies are false and insisting it makes people safer is denying reality. It reminds me of trying to have a discussion about the best way to fix the health care system with someone like Mitch McConnell, whose position was that there was no problem, that the US has "the best heath care system in the world."

So basically it's pointless to discuss this problem with gun proponents. Problem? What problem?

I can't understand taking a gun outside. I can understand why people might want to keep them in their homes-even if I don't agree with it. Most people (even 'bad guys' out to rob you) don't want to be murders. Even if they were truly 'bad guys' who were just evil without any conscience; murdering someone is messy, bodies are hard to get rid of and prison isn't a nice place to be.

You could drop it. You might trigger a panic in the person you want to defend yourself from. It could be taken from you and used against you. In the case of a pick-pocket you wouldn't even know it was gone. That person might not be as 'responsible' a gun owner as you.

(ASIDE: Which brings me to another issue I have with guns. Just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean they are bad at it. If they have done it before they know to when a house is empty and that's when they will strike. How much of that responsibility gun owners rant on about is taken for the damage their gun does after it has been taken from them? I know that will annoy many of you. I thought about taking it out. However, it's how I feel and I think it's worth mentioning. Feel free to disagree-I won't argue about it.)



My dad thinks anyone who takes a gun outside should be charged with attempted murder as the act of taking it shows planning and guns are tools aren't used to hurt or stun. They are a tool with the sole purpose of killing-not protecting. If you're interested in protection you get mace or a tazer. I have to say that I agree.


Full disclosure: outside perspective.

Do you find it amazing how many people are more than happy to live completely defenseless, with this bizarre belief that the police will show up and save them?
Even though the US Supreme Court has already ruled that the police do NOT have to do so? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0 They aren't there to protect. They are there to clean up the mess and arrest, and hopefully convict the guy that rapes/kills you.
Nothing more.
We have 370,000 house fires a year. Everyone has smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.

But we had over two million break ins.
But there is this hue and cry to prevent defending one's home.
You're four times more likely to be the victim of a break in than a fire, but people prepare more for the fire because that is 'common sense' but protecting yourself is 'paranoia'.

And yes, I do have a Carry and Conceal, and do so because in my day job, I get sent to some very unsavory neighborhoods.

CQuinlan said:

I can't understand taking a gun outside.
...
My dad thinks anyone who takes a gun outside should be charged with attempted murder as the act of taking it shows planning and guns are tools aren't used to hurt or stun.

Click to expand...

Well, where I'm from, we take guns outside because we hunt with them.

It's not illegal to kill a deer.

They are a tool with the sole purpose of killing-not protecting.

Click to expand...

I agree with that.

benluby said:

Do you find it amazing how many people are more than happy to live completely defenseless, with this bizarre belief that the police will show up and save them?

Click to expand...

Defenseless? What are you talking about?

Most of us have locks on our doors. That's defense. A gun is not.

A gun is a strictly offensive weapon. Unless you can deflect a bullet with another bullet, Matrix-style, you can't use a gun for defense.

Unimportant said:

people are fine with pretty much everyone carrying a concealed weapon in shopping malls, restaurants, etc, but they're also fine with being restricted from taking brooches, nail clippers, and forks on an airplane.

Click to expand...

I think when you say "people" in this case, you're really referring to two groups of people with very little overlap. I think those who believe the TSA is working also believe it is the police's responsibility to protect the citizens, contrary to the opinion of The Supremes.

rugcat said:

...

So basically it's pointless to discuss this problem with gun proponents. Problem? What problem?

Click to expand...

'Gun proponents' is a tough one, though, isn't it? If you mean the people who are not for regulation, background checks, psych evaluations, etc., I think there must be a better term than 'gun proponents'.

I know that I may be wrong in thinking a gun in my house is 'safer'. But I'm completely for the state checking out what they need to for societal safety regarding me and my guns. I don't think it should be up to the individual to decide their own level of responsibility. That's one of the biggest problems we have, imho.

Don said:

I think those who believe the TSA is working also believe it is the police's responsibility to protect the citizens, contrary to the opinion of The Supremes.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. I think the TSA is stupid, but I'm not about to start carrying a gun everywhere.