A Question For The Non-Paranoid

Being your basic Idaho citizen with a moderate interest in firearms, I sometimes check out a website called Glocktalk. I don't post there, but lurk sometimes. There are some intelligent posters there, and a bunch of law enforcement people, but the overall quality of the discussion is much lower than what you find here. Since the attack, I really haven't been able to read the stuff there, since among the people who can discuss it rationally, you get a lot of RGP level (or lower) comment. But I checked it out yeterday to see if things had calmed down. There was a lot of talk about all the people rushing out to buy weapons. Most of the people who post there have a bigger arsenal than they will ever need, so a lot of the discussion was geared to questions the gun nuts were getting from people who had previously rejected firearms ownership. People who were scared of guns before want to know if they should get a shotgun or an AR-15. (Some were just buying toys they wanted previously anyway but had put off.) I have also read some articles that suggest a lot of people are going out to arm themselves.


I don't quite get this. I don't see how the need to arm and protect yourself has really changed. Odds are you won't be able to stop the next attack with your trusty home arsenal, but I can see that an attack could create enough upheaval that having a gun afterwards is a good thing. For instance if power and water are out and stores close, a lot of people will be out looting or whatever. Like in the L.A. riots or Florida hurricane aftermath, a lot of normal people found it beneficial to own a weapon or two. But what has changed since the attack? The things that could cause you to take steps to prepare existed before. The same criminals are out there. The same things that could cause interruptions in usual services that a bit of preparedness could mitigate are still the same.


As for me, I was part of a local committee that took some steps to prepare for the possible Y2K crap that never happened. Despite the fact that we were all Idaho lunatics or whatever you want to call us, we weren't too paranoid or anything. But we had to think about how to deal with various problems.(Including terrorist attacks) We encouraged people to have basic stuff. Extra non-perishable food, some water, flashlights, adequate clothing for the season, that kind of stuff. We made sure governmental agencies had enough supplies, like enough food for the jail and that kind of thing. The same stuff you should have in L.A. or S.F. for earthquake preparedness, in FL. for hurricanes, or the midwest for blizzards. So if something bad happened, government services wouldn't be totally clogged by the unprepared. I am not particularly prepared, but I did make sure we had a little food and didn't run out of stuff like soap.


Do you, the non-paranoid intelligent 2+2 people take any steps to prepare for bad stuff? Did anyone rush out to buy weapons they didn't want before? Do you know anyone who was unprepared for anything two weeks ago who is turning into a compound-owning survivalist? I read the surplus stores in Las Vegas were selling gas masks like hotcakes. Is it the 2+2 ers on the way home from poker? Do you know these people? And what do you think of the whole preparedness v. paranoid bit? I don't agree with the head-in-the-sand crowd, but I can't get into the off-the-grid survivalist compound stuff either. (Not saying Ray Zee's Montana hideout falls in this category) :-)

if ya want the paranoid crowd try internet forum,,,bet they have survivalist tactics down....gl

I think that if things ever got so bad that you had to defend your homestead with an arsenal of automatic weapons (which by the way, seems totally unrealistic to me short of something akin to all out nuclear war), no amount of preparedness is really going to help you. On the other hand, our society (talking North America here) is very complacent about short term interuptions of normalcy from natural disaster and civil unrest (especially in urban areas) so I think a basic amount of preparedness is a good idea. As I gambler, I think you have to take into consideration the statistics that show that you or one of your family members is far more likely to be killed by one of your weapons than saved by it.

Be careful in your decision making. Some of those stats you are talking about are not accurate. There are all kinds of numbers flying around out there, and many are inaccurate. So before you make the decision not to be armed on the basis of statistics, make sure they are accurate. There is a set of numbers out there done by a competent social scientist who was previously an anti-gun guy that show what you said above is not true. But obviously, weapons ownership and safety is a personal thing so you have to decide based on various factors. I just wouldn't decide on the basis of some of the numbers I have seen that have been subsequently proven to be fabricated by anti-gun groups. But I don't know exactly which stats you are talking about and I don't keep tabs on all the studies done out there.


A funny statistic used by pro-gun groups now is the one comparing accidental firearms deaths to deaths caused by medical malpractice. It was put together to respond to the anti-gun doctors who have been mixing medicine and politics. Needless to say, the statistic is overwhelming evidence that doctors kill many times more people than guns. So you have to watch how the numbers are compiled and which group is using them.

This is the original and most often cited study that supported the conclusion that firearms in the home can be a net risk. The results have been closely replicated in numerous studies since then. As for a study that purports to draw any conclusions from results that show medical malpractice kills more people than guns (if indeed this is true), the underlying premise of such a study in so ridiculously fallacious that it doesn't warrant comment.


"Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home, Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH and Donald T. Reay, MD, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 314, No. 24, June 12, 1986, pp. 1557-1560.


The authors examined firearm-related deaths in the home during a six-year period (1978 to 1983) in King County, Washington. For every case in which an individual used a firearm kept in the home in a self-defense homicide, there were 1.3 unintentional deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms."

No, actually the statistics don't show that. The statistics have shown, consistently, that a firearm is the most effective means of defense against a violent attack. This comes directly from the Department of Justice's statistics and has held consistently true since the records became available.

Kellerman's study is a statistical joke. If you're interested in the specifics of what makes it invalid, forward the methodology to Mason Malmuth and ask him how valid an assessment could be made concerning the demographics of the entire nation based on the data set used by Kellerman.


One of the key failings of the Kellerman study is his belief that at no time in history has anyone ever backed down because their victim had a firearm or because they were wounded but not killed. The Kellerman study only includes fatalities and even then only in one, disproportionately crime ridden, counties in the United States.


An analogy to his study would be to interview the residents of Texas', Louisiana and Florida's Death Row and then make the statement, "Males between the age of 18 and 50 are probably going to become convicted murderers."


In addition, Kellerman makes the implication that suicide is somehow the fault of the handgun and not the fault of the person sticking it in their ear and pulling the trigger.


Jeff

Baron is correct here. I am a hard case and disregard any suicide committed with a gun. I just don't care. You want to stick a shotgun in your mouth, whatever. You could have jumped of a bridge or smoked yourself out in the garage. Suicides should never be compared to accidents or homicides when it comes to having a gun.


But the biggest problem in the study is the comparison of justifiable homicides with other uses for the reasons Baron mentioned. One of the studies I have seen is the one that estimates there are over 500,000 incidents per year where guns are used in self defense but no shots are fired.(I think it was Lott's study) A lot of these go unreported too. So you have to compare all the times guns are used defensively with the times guns are negligently discharged (they don't "just go off") or are used in a criminal homicide by the homeowner. It is very rare for a homeowner to shoot and kill an intruder. Most times a threat with the gun will stop an attack. If not, most gunshot wounds are survivable. (yes I've seen cases where someone survives two headshots and others where one .22 kills someone instantly.) So you can't judge only the times where an intruder is killed by a gunshot.


I can't speak as to the methodology. I would be interested in an analysis of it though.

You're right, that particular study was bogus. I read that it's findings have been replicated in several studies, but a quick internet search didn't turn them up. I'll have a better look later when I'm not busy.

"Do you know anyone who was unprepared for anything two weeks ago who is turning into a compound-owning survivalist? I read the surplus stores in Las Vegas were selling gas masks like hotcakes"


A friend of my wife's went out to buy gas masks for her entire family. She claimed it was in case of nuclear attack.


"Like in the L.A. riots or Florida hurricane aftermath, a lot of normal people found it beneficial to own a weapon or two."


We have no normal people here in L.A. and I resent the suggestion that we do.


"you get a lot of RGP level (or lower) comment."


Lower? Is this possible?

Both The Baron and High Desert Poker Man ignore the factor of availability : In every instance where a violent act or suicide are possible, the "tools" at the disposal of the players have an important, a decisive role. This is easily understood when we accept that our decisions when under emotional stress are different, and usually more erroneous, then if taken in a calm & collected manner.


Having a loaded handgun around, therefore, when one is in a state of rage or a state of suicidal depression is vastly different than being near "a bridge". Even more crucially, a handgun, in close-quarters dramas such as those taking place at home or at work, is far more lethal than anything else available, including kitchen knives and staplers. No opportunity for regrets or amends.


How serious students of statistics, such as advantage players, can dismiss so casually the distorting effect that accessibility to handguns brings to any violent-prone situation is always a wonder of wonders! Kellerman's statistical study (which I haven't yet read) should only be confirming the intuitively obvious. Until, of course, one realizes that this is no longer a question of statistics or poker but something deeply emotional and psychological.


Enter Ernest Becker...

You are partially right. The issue is one of deep emotion and psychology. More so than availability. Take workplace violence. What is the most heavily armed workplace, even in countries that ban guns? The police station. I don't have any studies on this, but how many workplace shootings do you hear of between policemen? And you are kidding yourself if you think cops don't have problems. They sleep with each other's women,they date other cops and break up, they get fired, they have financial difficulties, they have workplace politics. You would think they would kill each other every day if access to firearms coupled with stressful situations is all that led to shootings.


I wish I had the statistics at hand that analyze the histories of the people who actually misuse a firearm.(I may have to find them when I get a chance) Again, I think it was something Lott put together, but it confirmed the "intuitively obvious." That people who "lose it" when there's a gun around and "suddenly" "go off" and kill someone are at the statistical bottom of society when it comes to their prior behavior. They are losers who have usually committed crimes before. Compare them to cops, who are neither at the bottom or the top of society. They are somewhat educated, but not the best educated. They make an OK living. Their backgrounds are varied and not without any blemishes. So why don't average people who are cops shoot 'em up at work?


Of course, when cops get suicidal they are likely to use a gun. But anybody who is suicidal and really wants to kill themselves (as opposed to ridiculous cries for help) will often choose a gun if they have one over other methods. And it's not necessarily spur of the moment.


This is one reason that the infamous Lautenberg amendment which is so hated by American pro-gun groups makes more sense than some of the other gun control laws. This amendment to a crime bill made it illegal for anybody ever convicted of any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from EVER possessing a firearm again. It had an unconstitutional (IMO) retroactive effect. I think it is draconian, and might be unconstitutional on other grounds, but at least it is trying to keep violent people from having guns without taking a basic right away from others. It won't work of course, and federal prosecutors seldom file cases charging such violations, but it has a basis in reason at least.

First of all, handguns are markedly less lethal, in general, than edged weapons. A handgun is simply not capable of disemboweling for example, a box cutter can easily do so.


As for the suicides, you're right. Someone who sucks on the muzzle of their shotgun is probably going to die from it. That's the way things go. Suicides aren't the responsibility of the rest of society and the rest of society shouldn't be penalized for the suicide.


One of the ongoing myths perpetuated even today, is the supposed lethality of handguns. They're demonized simply by virtue of their dimensions. A handgun is a woefully underpowered and dismally inappropriate system for defending your life against an armed or overpowering attacker. Their sole benefit lies in their transportability. Compare the energy available at the muzzle of a rifle chambered in .223Remington to that available at the muzzle of a handgun chambered in .44Magnum. The .223 is still derided as being ineffective against targets any larger than a coyote yet it's fully three times as powerful as one of the more powerful handgun cartridges available.


Having had the misfortune of having been both shot and stabbed, I can say from my experience that the knife was much more debilitating and disabling than the gunshot. It hurt more, shock set in faster and it was a markedly more frightening experience. At handgun velocities, the bullet does nothing more than poke a hole through the target. Even the dreaded, "Black Talon", which turned out to be nowhere near as effective as the manufacturer hoped, does little more than expand, rotate sideways and poke a hole. Interesting to note that after the BT enters the body, it nearly always yaws 90degrees and finishes its trajectory in that position. In that position, it cuts a slit through the tissue approximately the width of the expanded jacket or .65-.70 inches. This isn't even the width of a typical butchers knife and the bullet only generates a wound of that dimension after it's penetrated the first 2 1/2 to 3 inches. The knife generates a wound profile matching that of the blade for the entire length of the penetration. The bullet is also incapable of being withdrawn in a trajectory outside that of its entry and causing additional damage. The knife is remarkably easy to jerk out of the wound using a slicing motion causing it to cut its way out of the body.


When you look at the injuries caused in the military in combat environments, you'll find that the majority of them are caused by artillery, mortar and aerial bomb fragments. These fragments don't act like a bullet in their mechanism of injury but are more closely similar to edged weapons. In short, they're large, fast moving, serrated blades. Bullets poke holes, edged weapons cut things open.


Jeff

Baron, you are supposed to observe wounds on other people, see pictures, analyze various cases, and maybe go to the occasional autopsy to study this stuff. That's what I recommend. DON'T try it on yourself! :-)


You are right, Black Talons are not very good. I do have a box in the garage just to make the anti-gun people uncomfortable, but will just keep them as souvenirs of a stupid anti-gun episode.


In the various handgun shootings I have had to be familiar with, the only common denominator is shot placement. Generally ineffective .22's to the brain or an artery kill. Generally effective .40 caliber or .45 ACP won't work well if the bullet doesn't hit vital areas, although some people do give up the fight after being shot, even when they aren't too badly injured. I always laugh when anti-police people question shootings by the police by asking "Why couldn't they shoot him in the leg?" in cases where the guy survives multiple shots to center-of-mass. Don't they know Murphy's Law of wound ballistics that any warning shot to the leg will result in a femoral artery hit and quick bleed-out? Knife wounds can be a lot nastier than people think, as you point out. Nerve damage and gaping wounds are no good.


But dang, Baron, stay safe. Don't try this at home anymore. Knives are sharp and guns are not toys! :-)

I'm sorry to hear that you've been "both stabbed and stabbed". This naturally gives you greater insight in the respective methods. However one case, even if it's your personal case, cannot speak for the overall situation : the fact that you've suffered more from the stabbing than the shooting, only tells us something about the respectie attackers!


Statistically the case is overwhelming. I don't know why pro-gun activists even bother to deny the obvious, since it only takes one second to take in the relevant statistics. Take the graph about Fatalities In Domestic Incidents. Take any year. Compare the numbers between the United States and the rest of the western democracies.


The numbers for the U.S. go out of the chart!..


Yet pro-gun activists, who are in deep denial about all this, want to blame the "decline of morals" (while these stats are valid for ANY period of time they were kept and, moreover, the U.S. is not less "moral" than Sweden!) or "Hollywood culture". But Hollywood movies are a hit all over the world! Why don't we have so many killings at home in Italy or Japan?


Read my lips, Jeff : Accessibility.

And here's the unavoidable poker example : When I go on tilt in Hold'em, it's easier to lose lotsa money if I hold 72o than AA. (Guess which hand represents the stupid handgun!)

why don't we look at ALL gun related deaths during the past century. European nations clearly have us outdone in this respect. think WWI, WWII and the wonderful Stalin years. In addition to Stalin, Europe has also bred great leaders like Hitler, Mussolino and Franco. Oh yes, and don't forget about that Milosevich guy. I'll take the second amemdment any day.

If "accessibility" is the key, why did the stats go up when accessibility went down?

--"If [easy] accessibility [to guns] is the key, why did the stats go up when accessibility went down?"


It takes many years for any anti-gun measures to take and have effect. When accessibility is "taken down", the guns already out there, in homes and other places of social gatherings, do not go down in number! Nor do they become immediately that much tougher to access.


It will take a persistent and very harsh anti-gun policy for it to have any effect. The American gun culture has been ingrained into the citizens' minds through centuries. It cannot be expected to reverse it or seriously change it with a few gestures.


But you already know that.

Groan.


Actually, the recent spate of new gun seizures in England(even though they had extreme gun control before)and Australia had very quick effects. Home invasion robbery increased almost instantly. Violent crime is getting much worse in England and Australia, although it won't necessarily be with a gun. But thugs armed with clubs can more easily prey upon hapless victims. This is happening but the anti-gun people are very good at keeping this out of the news. And Hitler's gun control laws had very immediate impact BTW.


But crime alone does not tell the whole story. This is where your statement that the American gun culture has been ingrained into the citizens' minds by some form of brainwashing completely misses the point. You can't possibly believe this statement. Anyway, the point of the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, a lot to do with self-defense, and a lot to do with political liberty. I suspect you will respond with a post about how citizens can't overcome an oppressive regime with small arms, but you know an armed civilian population can defeat an oppressive and better-armed governmental adversary. This is what the Founding Fathers had in mind. I don't want to debate the exact wording of the Second Amendment, which I think meant each individual has the right to keep and bear arms, but rather will point out that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right and did not even have to be enumerated in the Constitution.


There is no more basic human right than the right to be free from improper physical aggression by another of our species. Whether a thug is after you for your money or because the regime he marches for wants you dead for your beliefs, you have the right to stay alive. You do not have the right to initiate force against another, but do have the right to defend yourself against illegal deadly force. For the right to mean anything, you must have adequate means. And because of the wonderful invention of the firearm, anyone with minimal physical strength has the means to assert the most basic of human rights. So with the invention of the firearm, no longer can the animal who can hit the hardest with a piece of bone get his way. No longer did physically weak people have to live in fear of any thug who would do them harm. I admit, I value myself highly. I value myself more than some barbarian who wishes to invade my home to do harm to my family and steal to feed his drug habit. I will take steps to keep myself alive against threats of physical violence. I do not apologize for that, but demand the right to do so. And if there are people who cannot adequately handle a weapon and thereby accidentally kill someone or take their own life in a suicide, well the exercise of rights hurts. The rights to free speech and free exercise of religion have all kinds of negative side effects, and sometimes cause death when people cannot exercise them responsibly, but I see few criticisms of these rights based on the damage they cause. I admit I am a bit of a hypocrite because while I demand the right to defend myself, and do believe most laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms violate both my constitutional rights as an American and my human rights, I do not break the various gun laws that exist. If I am in a jurisdiction or country that prohibits guns, I follow the law. And so far I have been OK and odds are I always will be and won't have to use a gun in "live action". (Even though I am in a field where someone may choose to attack me based on what I do) But the real reason I need a gun is not for any specific threat or reason, but because I am a human being. I am a citizen, not a subject, and want to keep it that way. It is my right, and no statistic telling me how many mentally unbalaced people chose to kill themselves with guns can change that.


P.S. I wish I believed that the American population had been as well-brainwashed as you believe regarding gun rights. I think the right to keep and bear arms has been under constant assault since the 1930's and most Americans don't really understand it or even want it. Since 1968 the federal government has eviscerated the Second Amendment, and many state governments have done so as well. I am hoping for the bombshell Supreme Court case that upholds our rights. But I'm an eternal optimist.

Take it from a purely "technical" point of view. No politics, no anti- or pro-gun statements, no seminars about morality or religion or culture, no nothing. Just look at the statistics.


The United States are #1 in the world in the number of gun-related violent incidents, in both absolute figures and in per capita figures. They are not just ahead, they are by far the world champions!


Hide your head in the sand and groan as much you like : the numbers don't lie. And I gave the only logical explanation, i.e. correlation between these figures and the availability of handguns. You choose to ignore reality and go on with abstractions. So be it.

No, you missed the point of my post. I talked about political issues because statistics are not the issue when it comes to gun control. I will say it in a stronger way: I don't care what statistics say, statistics documenting misuse of guns cannot be the basis to take away a basic human right. Negative consequences of a right do not themselves provide a basis for taking away the right. I am not ignoring reality, but I did go on with abstractions because the abstractions discuss reality too. The abstract ideas behind the right to bear arms in fact give a more accurate view of reality than the statistics you choose to talk about. I do know that many people who are against guns don't wish to discuss the issue at an abstract level. That's OK, in case you are one of them, I typed this slowly for you, as you requested in the title to your post.

n/m

I read and re-read your post, Desert Man, but still it was too fast for me! : )


..Lest I be labeled a vulgar materialist, I hasten to clarify that abstractions are as fine with me as they are on any Jackson Pollock canvas! I welcome abstractions. Abstractions are my bed and breakfast. So go ahead and abstract away.


Alright. We can only debate on an abstract level the socio-political implications of the American Way on guns (does AmWay sell guns?) but we must surely take into account the statistics too, the damn statistics.


'S like PokerWiz simming after the local hotshot's preflop preference for suited connect-oh's over Jacks. 'S like 'spresso after 3 margueritas. 'S like a dump after a wank. 'S sobering 's what.

Amway COULD sell guns if not for the infernal 1968 Gun Control Act! I would love that, a multi-level marketing program to get guns in the hands of secretaries everywhere.(Some of mine already had theirs -see why I need guns) Statistics be damned, I want to repeal the '68 act just so I can start such a company. Sell a whole line of concealment purses, holsters that fit the hips of women, training classes, the works. You have given me a great idea, now I just have to get that damn law repealed. Before I just wanted to open a chain of convenience stores called ATF- Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. So you could get firewater and firepower in easy one-stop shopping. But now my horizons are broader. :-)

Okay. Let's say I'll be better off if nobody has access to legal firearms. I go out and get rid of mine. Now what do I do for the next two to five hundred years it's going to take for natural degradation to take the current stocks out of the hands of the people who aren't concerned about the legality of their use?


I recently sold a perfectly usable rifle that was built in the late 1700s. Larger caliber than virtually anything currently on the market and generated a muzzle energy in excess of that of a .50 caliber machinegun round. Very deadly. Could be readily loaded with the scrapings off of kitchen matches so the lack of black powder wasn't even a big problem.


That was a piece of 18th century technology with only minimal effort made to preserve it past it's second owner. It essentially sat in a gun cabinet for almost a century. It took an hours work to make it fully operable. Modern technology is significantly more durable than that. Made in greater quantity and has more effective preservation technology available.


What do the people who do want to follow the law do about the people who don't while we're waiting for those existing guns to go away? Personally, I'd prefer to be able to defend myself against Bob the BadGuy rather than just hope he'll remember it's against the law to shoot me with his illegally aquired firearm.


Jeff James

The United States doesn't even aproach such idyllic places as Nicaragua, Cambodia and Somalia. Places with absolute bans on private ownership of firearms.


Work out the same figures only include all violent attacks resulting in injury. Get back with us when you can explain why it's better to be knifed in a Japanese school than to be able to fend off the rapist in a western Washington city. Explain why it's better to have your head smashed against the sidewalk by a gang of random street punks, like Eric Toews of Tacoma, rather than being able to defend himself as several of the defendants agreed he would have had numerous options to do. Eric is dead, his killer will be out of prision by his 35th birthday. His killer adamantly conceded that Eric would have had, "a whole bunch of times", where he could have used a firearm or an edged weapon to defend himself. Eric is dead. Eric was a hell of a nice guy. Played too hard after the flop if he only caught part of it but a nice enough guy anyway. Eric is dead... oh, wait, I already mentioned that.


Jeff James

--"Personally, I'd prefer to be able to defend myself against Bob the BadGuy rather than just hope he'll remember it's against the law to shoot me with his illegally aquired firearm."


Personally, I'd prefer to see us staying with out subject, which is not about defending against criminals. It's not about that. (By the way, statistics demonstrate that legally obtained firearms are involved more often in accidents or domestic & other disputes and incidents than when fending off a miscreant.)


The issue is about the distorting effect that easy accessibility to handguns and most firearms in the United States has on the figures of deaths and near-deaths, in instances of confrontations. The denouement of such incidents in the U.S. is MUCH more often lethal or near-lethal because of said guns.


Keep that head deeply buried in the sand, man, and keep talking about your right to defend your home or manhood or whatever. This is not about that right. It's about the price you pay for it. I'm only trying to show you the small print on the price tag.

Let's cut it to the chase. Twice I've had to use a firearm to defend my life against violent attack. I'm alive because I had a gun. Makes the pricetag very easy to understand.

Exactly Cyrus. But the price is much lower than you might guess. This is what I was saying in one of the posts above where I indicated that the group of people killed or injured by handguns is at the statistical bottom of society. So the price varies depending on who you are. In my home, it is next to impossible for me to be injured with my own gun. I am stable enough that I won't commit suicide with it. My wife is stable enough that she won't just "go off" and kill me with one of our guns. I won't go shoot the neighbor kid. We don't have kids, but if we did, we would take adequate steps to prevent them from playing with the guns. When kids are at our house, like when relatives come over, adequate steps are taken to prevent them from getting their hands on a gun. (But I will still have access to one) I suppose I could have an accident with a gun, but statistically this is pretty rare. (And FWIW people are much less likely to have a negligent discharge with a handgun as opposed to a shotgun or rifle, believe it or not. The rate of gun accidents in America has gone down as rifle ownership went down and handgun ownership went up, FWIW)


Now if you are a wifebeating drunk whose 19 year old "child" is in a gang, guess what. The odds of someone in your family dying in a shooting incident go way up. Your kid might get shot in a driveby (yes the anti-gun people count dead 19 year old gang members as "child victims" of guns.) You might get shot by your wife after you beat her for the millionth time. You could decide to clean your gun while drunk and manage to shoot yourself. Most people involved in illegal or negligent shootings are in the bottom end statistically in terms of criminal background, stability, and probably intelligence. (I will try to hunt down these stats at some point)


So the "price" of the right to bear arms depends on who you are. For me, it is very inexpensive. The only cost could be if I am attacked by someone else with a gun, who would not have had the gun if a certain form of gun control had been in place. And in a jurisdiction where I am allowed to carry a gun, but lose the gunfight. I have yet to see an illegal shooting that could have been prevented by a given form of gun control. I know it is anecdotal, but I have occasion to have to be familiar with a range of shootings that occur where I live. And I live somewhere that has relatively little gun control. But none of the laws would have prevented any of the shootings I have been familiar with.


You might say that if guns were banned, confiscated, and destroyed, that the problem would be solved. Well, it wouldn't because this is not feasible. Even if you somehow managed to destroy every gun everywhere, someone would keep making them and selling them to the criminals who would buy them. Guns are relatively simple to make. Somewhere, someone will get a few machines and make them. So it won't work. Plus, in the meantime you will have millions of innocent victims. Good statistics show that about 500,000 violent crimes are prevented each year in America because of the lawful use of a gun. And nobody necessarily dies. Often, a criminal assailant with a weapon like a crowbar breaks of an attack when the victim pulls a gun. So you must factor in the price of a gun ban as well. And that price is paid by the law abiding in terms of both physical safety and political liberty, which is hard to quantify.


Unlike Baron, I have never had to use or even display a gun in self-defense (I came very close one night when someone was coming into my apartment uninvited though) But there are a lot of people like Baron out there who are alive because they had a gun. They are law abiding people, and deserve to be alive. I am not willing to sacrifice them because criminals and losers can't handle a gun. And they must be factored in the price.

Baron,


I'm just curious: how did you find yourself in a position where you had to defend yourself with a firearm? I'm forty-seven, and the only weapons I've ever needed to defend myself with were a flyswatter and a can of Raid. (Perhaps that's only the measure of my days.)


John