Morality of Self Defense

I posted this separately from the gun thread below because it does not quite fit. I think one thing Hawk's post brought up is the question of the morality of self defense. Once we answer this question, the question of gun rights becomes clearer IMO.


I think individuals have the right to defend themselves. I think it is moral for them to do so using all reasonable force. I would not go so far as to say somebody who does not defend themselves is immoral, however. I think this because all that is good, all progress that is made, all work that is done, comes from the minds of individuals. Everything a human does comes from his own mind when all is said and done. Since anything of value comes from individual effort, the individual is deserving of the utmost protection, morally and legally. This means that nobody can morally use force on another improperly- to hurt them. Hence, murder is wrong. Theft is wrong because the thief is appropriating somebody else's effort from them. Akin to a form of mini-slavery if you will.


Thus a person has inherent value and possesses his own life. His most cherished right is the right to this life, because all other rights follow that primary right. Nobody else can just go kill him or physically damage him. For this reason, the right to self defense is a very important right. It protects not just bodily integrity and physical existence, but the self-worth of an individual. For if we say a criminal has a higher right to your body than you do, it means the criminal is not worse than or equal to you, but in fact is better than you. I refuse to submit to another's improper physical force upon me; I demand the right to defend myself. And really nobody can take that right away from me, even if a government would punish me for its exercise. I understand England is doing this now in that it is curtailing the right to self-defense, even when a gun is not used. I think such a law is immoral.


Now the question is what tools should be allowed for such self-defense? I believe it is the hallmark of humanity itself to use the mind to create tools appropriate to succeed in our environment. The gun is such a tool at this stage in our development. It is very good for the job at hand, that of protecting individuals from the improper use of force by criminals, warlords, or oppressive governments. Its track record is excellent in this regard. The gun is small, efficient, effective in stopping humans who have tried to kill others. An old lady has the same right to her life as a young, strong individual who is skilled in unarmed fighting. The gun allows her to even the scales a bit and potentially defend herself from attack. Or maybe from going off to a reeducation or concentration camp. The use of the gun in such a case is moral. The gun itself has no moral value; only the act of its use has no such a value.


Because the gun is such an effective tool for self defense, and the right of self defense is so important, I believe people have the right to use the appropriate tool to defend themselves. Banning guns takes away the right to self defense because it denies people the appropriate tool. Even if you let people defend themselves with clubs or pepper foam or their hands, you have denied them a right. It is the same as giving people the right of freedom of speech, but denying them the use of writing. It does not make sense.


All this does not mean I think people must have a gun to be moral, although I have seen arguments that come close to such a position. Because I value individual choice so much, I recognize that some people may choose going without weapons, or even going without defending themselves. That is fine and is their choice. But defending myself with appropriate means is my choice. I certainly have the obligation to refrain from any improper use of force on another, as do we all.


The realities of the world are such that guns are sometimes necessary. I would be very happy if that were not so. Then the right of self defense could be exercised with lesser tools. A shot is not moral where a punch would suffice. In a perfect world, no self defense, physical or even verbal would be needed. We do not live in such a world.

Self defense is a moral in the purest sense.


One who does not defend himself is infinitely less likely to transmit his habits to his offspring.


This one way predates private property.


It is only after churches, rather than parents, become the vector for non-monastic memes - and population reaches some critical mass - that a given individual can be taught to turn the other cheek.


Also, Christianity was the first religion to really distinguish between cultural bloodline and actual bloodline, the best example being that the child of a rapist is no longer considered guilty of his father's crime.


So, the Collectivist Catholic tradition has been that the individual member of the flock won't me missed, while there is no need to kill the offending alien when he can instead be converted.


Kill them with love.


That's what happens when a religious organism puts its own propagation ahead of an individual bloodline.


eLROY

the state owns. do not resist. report to a reeducation center. comply. you do not exist. we love you.


brad

HDPM,


Interesting post.


I certainly wasn't saying people shouldn't defend themselves.


But, if guns are less readily available, then criminals are less likely to have weapons when/if they invade your space.


A question for you... Let's say an unarmed man breaks into your house, do you think it is justifiable to shoot him?

'But, if guns are less readily available, then criminals are less likely to have weapons when/if they invade your space. '


opinion not borne out by fact.


'A question for you... Let's say an unarmed man breaks into your house, do you think it is justifiable to shoot him? '


lets say that i (young strong male) break into your infirm grandmothers house. do you think she is justified in shooting me?


brad


p.s. by the way in some states (texas is one) you can use *deadly* force to protect your property. (not just your person).

Oh man! Why'd you have to ask that question? Why is he breaking in? Since he's unarmed, should we invite him to the kitchen for tea and cookies? No! Wait! Yes! It's way easier to clean blood from linoleum than out of carpet. I don't own a gun, but is it any more acceptable if I beat him to death with a baseball bat?

Hawk Said, "But, if guns are less readily available, then criminals are less likely to have weapons when/if they invade your space." This is not necessarily the case. Others have posted about rising gun crime in England. But banning guns does not have the practical effect of stopping criminals from getting them. Moreover, the chances that home invaders will attack go up substantially in areas without guns. This is because a few thugs with knives and clubs are in no danger when they come in. Both Australia and England have had a huge increase in violent home invasions since banning guns. We don't have many home invasions where I am.


Hawk asks, "A question for you... Let's say an unarmed man breaks into your house, do you think it is justifiable to shoot him?" I think it is if it is manifest the person will offer violence to me or another person in the house. (Yes, even if he turns out to be unarmed, something you cannot assume when you encounter the criminal.) That is the law in my state essentially, and I think it is right. If I do not think he will physically attack me, then no, I don't think it is justified. Remember that coming into somebody's house is a violent act. Once they offer additional violence, you cannot be sure where they will stop. Your question doesn't have enough facts to really answer though. Each situation is different. I can tell you, however, that I would be at a tactical disadvantage in a violent encounter because I would be slow to react with violence. I think you have to be pretty sure of what is happening before the use of deadly force is justified. This puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage to thugs. But that is the way things go. Also, I would not use deadly force to defend property alone, even if the law allowed it.(Depends on how you read some laws etc... but is illegal most places most of the time and not recommended anyway. That's my disclaimer.)


Question for Hawk- Aren't people being prosecuted and imprisoned for defending themselves against home invaders in England? What is the status of self-defense there, and do you think it is right?

you are sorely mistaken by using the argument that

'But, if guns are less readily available, then criminals are less likely to have weapons when/if they invade your space.' if the theory were pure, then, sure ok, the argument holds water in a theoretial sense. but life and death doesn't happen on a theoretical sense. it happens every day in the streets and in peoples homes, and on the freeways, in shopping malls, in casinos, etc. and in our real world, criminals who use guns to commit crimes aren't interested in obeying gun laws. gun laws keep honest people honest, and only serve to unarm people interested in defending themselves. i should not have to break the law in order to defend myself properly. in this sense, i agree with HDPM.

There was a very high profile case a couple of years ago where a guy was imprisoned for manslaughter. He was terrorised for months by a gang of youths stealing from him and vandalising his property.


He started to lie in wait for them with a shotgun. Eventually when they attacked again... he shot one them dead... the kid was 16 I think. I don't recall how long he was imprisoned for... 7 years maybe. The reasoning behind such a long sentence is that the judge felt it was premeditated to a certain extent as he was armed and ready for the intruders although they accepted he didn't mean to kill the kid. (hence not murder)


I am against the use of guns period.


I am against the use of force to protect property.


Self defence? Yes, protect yourself and your family to a point where the threat is no longer a threat.

Assuming that the kids were going to do anything physical to the guy in his home he should get a medal, not 7 years. If they were spray painting outside, 7 years is light.


As to your statement about being against the use of guns no matter what, well, I respect that as long as you are consistent. That means no police officers can have them, no military use, etc... After all in a free country the police have only powers derived from the other citizens. But again, had this policy been in effect a few years back, you would have no country.

The regular police do not carry guns here.


Society gives legitimacy to the police and military using weapons to protect us. They are trained and almost 100% of the time use guns responsibly.


Unfortunately... the same can not be said about citizens who buy guns. Noone can be sure what the reason why the gun is purchased.


As far as I can remember, the kid who was shot vandalised his property and stole some things... and had done so at least twice before. You hit the nail on the head with your comment... half the UK thought he should get a medal and the other half thought he should be locked away for good.

"Society gives legitimacy to the police and military using weapons to protect us. They are trained and almost 100% of the time use guns responsibly."


You need to get to know cops better.


I can also assure you that the police cannot protect you. They can collect evidence once you are attacked and haul your body off for a forensic pathologist to confirm that yes, you died as a result of the hatchet in your skull, but they can't be there to protect you except in rare and lucky situations.


Also, the police cannot somehow acquire "legitimacy" in their power if citizens do not have the power in the first place. Cops are just hired for convenience sake. Ideally they have good training and skills. Some do.

An elegant argument, HDPM. But I can imagine the madman of Iraq making the same argument about his need for nuclear weapons. We already saw George W. hinting at preemptive nuclear self-defense last week.


Guns may be effective tools for self-defense, but they're also effective tools for criminal behavior (for example, murder). To consider only the one, without consideration of the other, makes for bad public policy. Cars are effective tools for getting around, but they also cause pollution and make us dependent on OPEC. We need to consider if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks and act accordingly. Same thing, I think with guns.

"I am against the use of force to protect property. "


In an extreme case, this says that if someone invaded your country, fighting them off would be wrong. For the simpler case of someone stealing from you, how do you stop them without force? I am not saying that you should shoot someone who is stealing a pack of gum from your store, but some form of force is necessary to stop him. The only way to preserve property rights is the use (or threat) of force in some form.

'You hit the nail on the head with your comment... half the UK thought he should get a medal and the other half thought he should be locked away for good. '


you need to reread that.


brad

not in arizona ,bud, part of our state constitution.


anyway, i remember the police during la riots said that had the rioters come to your part of town would have been fire at will.


brad


p.s. why are most jews anti-gun?

Why the constant questions about Jews and their positions on firearms? What is the hang up? Am I missing something? I think some of your questions and post titles have been inappropriate, even if you are Jewish which I have no idea about. But why don't you check out JPFO-Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership. They are a Wisconsin organization I think. I see them written about, but have never checked them out. See if they have a website.

"not in arizona ,bud, part of our state constitution"


What is part of your state constitution?


"the police during la riots said that had the rioters come to your part of town would have been fire at will."


They said that had the rioters come to Andy's part of town, they would have been what? Which police official said this and what exactly did he say?


"why are most jews anti-gun?"


You have some evidence for this assertion?

Why is it that gun control opponents have such difficulty squarely addressing the issues of this controversy and choose instead to knock down straw men?


To wit: "Because the gun is such an effective tool for self defense, and the right of self defense is so important, I believe people have the right to use the appropriate tool to defend themselves. Banning guns takes away the right to self defense because it denies people the appropriate tool."


I defy you to name a single national leader, politician, pundit or group that has ever, on any occasion, proposed or advocated "banning guns," by which I assume you mean the criminalization of all gun ownership, sale, etc. (Notice that if you had referred to banning "some" guns that your sentence doesn't make any sense).


In the real world, the issue is whether and how to reduce the population and availability of handguns, assault rifles, and other offensive weapons designed for hidden access and the ability to rapidly kill multiple human targets, often at fair distance, and not for "self-defense." To be sure, these weapons can perform double duty, and the NRA assuredly has large archives of uzi-toting grandmas catching burglars. None of these silly stories, however, can begin to dilute the force of the following incontrovertible facts:


1. Outside of the inner circles of fringe pacifist groups, there is no debate over the right of individuals to defend themselves, nor has there been since roughly the beginning of time.


2. There is virtually no debate in this country about the complete abolition of all guns, or about the rights of individuals to own rilfes and shotguns for sport and self-defense. I say "virtually" because there is probably somewhere a vegetarian earth-goddess collective that wants to abolish kitchen knives and other weaponry, but I'm referring to the 99.9% of the middle spectrum.


3. With extremely rare exceptions (that could easily be addressed by policy), citizens do not require rapid-fire repeating handguns and assault rifles to defend themselves, even on the rare occasions when a gun might be most expedient or even necessary for this purpose.


4. The grossly disproportional death rate in the U.S. from handguns and assault rifles has no other obvious explanation except for the grossly disproportional population and availability of such weapons.


The real debate in this country is whether a small minority should be able to create a market, and thus ensure access, to weponry of unlimited lethality because they consider these instruments toys (or something deeper and more mystical) that they enjoy owning and playing with. Against this everyone else must balance an unprecendeted and growing toll of human carnage and loss.


It should be a slam-dunk policy solution, as it is with nearly every other country. Instead, the U.S. is handicapped by beltway suits cranking out paranoid, typically fabricated nonsense (the sort that inspired Tim McVeigh) for the gullible in order to (1) make six-figure incomes by (2) bribing and threatening politicians to maintain unpopular, irrational and often simply insane public policies.

"3. With extremely rare exceptions (that could easily be addressed by policy), citizens do not require rapid-fire repeating handguns and assault rifles to defend themselves, even on the rare occasions when a gun might be most expedient or even necessary for this purpose."


I think most self-defense weapons would fall under your definition. Any handgun now available (except for special use target or hunting handguns) is a rapid fire repeating handgun.(Even a revolver.) Handguns are much safer than long guns to keep around the house, as the statistics prove. Handguns also offer tactical advantages over shotguns for various home defense situations. Also, the right of self defense extends out of the home and handguns are much easier to carry than a shotgun or rifle.


I get the sense you use terms provided by anti-gun groups that blur operating features among firearms. (I.E. confusing "repeating" with "full automatic" with "semi-automatic" until all guns are bad.)


The group formerly known as HCI most assuredly wants to ban ownership of any firearm. The enjoy widespread support in government and the media, not just 1% fringe types.

"The group formerly known as HCI most assuredly wants to ban ownership of any firearm. The enjoy widespread support in government and the media, not just 1% fringe types."


I found this mission statement from the website For Handgun Control Inc.:


"As the largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center are dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities. The Brady Campaign and the Brady Center believe that a safer America can be achieved without banning all guns."

Yes, that is their public posture because to say they want to ban guns would turn people against them. In moments of candor, their leadership has admitted that their incremental approach is designed to lead to the ban of all guns. This is why many in the pro-gun camp believe the NRA is a sell-out organization in that they agree to cave on some issues instead of fighting everything as hard as possible. I support the NRA because they have some politcal skill and have sucessfully fought for some gun rights. However, the philosophy of the NRA is not cohesive; the NRA positions are positions of political expediency. The most philosophically consistent pro-gun group is Gun Owners of America. This is a no-compromise group. The NRA has had more success because of the existence of the GOA, because the NRA can take a middle course between the anti-gun groups and the GOA.


The whole NRA bit about Project Exile is an example. GOA wants to repeal the laws the NRA seeks federal funds to enforce. GOA has had some impact, but will always be something of a fringe group because they say what they mean. Unlike HCI.:-)

I know nothing about GOA; what I do know about the NRA has not led me to believe that they are appeasing compromisers. Their reputation as an effective right-wing pro-gun lobby is well deserved.

well, i am circumcised.


brad

right to carry/own firearms in state constitution.


yeah, beverly hills police dept. said that they would not have let the rioters start looting there (would not pull out and leave the scene as LAPD did.)


'You have some evidence for this assertion? '


hoisted by my own petard.


http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=5575&intcategoryid=3

----------------------------------------------

As the largest Jewish women's organization in the country, Hadassah considers it a responsibility to participate in the Million Mom March.


"Could I quote you a [biblical] text about guns? Probably not," said Tana Senn, director of Hadassah's National American Affairs/Domestic Policy Department. "But it's inherently Jewish to want to protect the Jewish community and communities at large."

-------------------------------------------------


http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=4884&intcategoryid=6

----------------------------------------------

...Jewish lobbyists are vowing to push lawmakers to enact stricter laws to combat hate crimes and control guns.

...While most Jewish activists continue to back those proposals,

------------------------------------------------

but, you know, ive got a real stubborn streak. so im still smarting from everybody calling me a nazi from a previous couple threads when i wrote US interests should determine whether we support arabs, israel, both, neither, whatever.


anyway, i think its true that jewish special interest groups are predominantly anti-gun. whether this is a function of general culture or just a few monied opinions i dont know.


brad

"3. With extremely rare exceptions (that could easily be addressed by policy), citizens do not require rapid-fire repeating handguns and assault rifles to defend themselves, even on the rare occasions when a gun might be most expedient or even necessary for this purpose."


From an interview with John Lott (Chris I'm sure you love this guy, lol) in the January 2000 issue of Reason: You hear claims from time to time that people should behave passively when they're confronted by a criminal. And if you push people on that, they'll refer to something called the National Crime Victimization Survey, a government project that surveys about 50,000 households each year. If you compare passive behavior to all forms of active resistance lumped together, passive behavior is indeed slightly safer than active resistance. But that's very misleading, because under the heading of active resistance you're lumping together things like using your fist, yelling and screaming, running away, using Mace, a baseball bat, a knife, or a gun. Some of those actions are indeed much more dangerous than passive behavior. But some are much safer.


For a woman, for example, by far the most dangerous course of action to take when she's confronted by a criminal is to use her fists. The reason is pretty simple: You're almost always talking about a male criminal doing the attacking, so in the case of a female victim there's a large strength differential. And for a woman to use her fists is very likely to result in a physical response from the attacker and a high probability of serious injury or death to the woman. For women, by far the safest course of action is to have a gun. A woman who behaves passively is 2.5 times as likely to end up being seriously injured as a woman who has a gun.


"4. The grossly disproportional death rate in the U.S. from handguns and assault rifles has no other obvious explanation except for the grossly disproportional population and availability of such weapons."


This is definitely not an incontrovertible fact. This is question of whether there is direct, proportional and causal effect between fire-arm population and fire-arm violence is definitely open to debate. More from the Lott interview:

Analyzing 18 years of data for more than 3,000 counties, Lott found that violent crime drops significantly when states switch from discretionary permit policies, which give local officials the authority to determine who may carry a gun, to "shall issue" or "right-to-carry" laws, which require that permits be granted to everyone who meets certain objective criteria. That conclusion, first set forth in a 1997 paper that Lott co-authored with David Mustard, now an economist at the University of Georgia, heartened defenders of gun ownership and dismayed their opponents. Arguing that "shall issue" laws are beneficial, while other gun laws are ineffective at best, Lott quickly became one of the most widely cited--and reviled--scholars in the gun control debate."


In the same article Lott says: About six years ago, I was teaching a class dealing with crime issues at the University of Pennsylvania, and it dawned on me that my students would be interested in some papers on gun control. It forced me to look at the literature systematically to decide what papers to assign to the class. I was shocked by how poorly done the existing research on guns and crime was.


You had very small samples. By far the largest previous study on guns and crime had looked at just 170 cities within a single year, 1980. Most of the rest looked at, say, 24 counties or 24 cities within a single year. No one had tried to account for things like arrest rates or conviction rates or prison sentence lengths. And the studies were all very limited in the sense that they were purely cross-sectional, where you look at the crime rates across jurisdictions in one year, or [purely longitudinal], where you pick one city or one county and look at it over time.


It was basically because of that class that I saw the benefit to going out and trying to do it right. So I put together what I think is by far the largest study that's ever been done on crime. The book has data on all 3,000-plus counties in the U.S. over an 18-year period. And simply having that large a data set allows you to account for hundreds of factors, thousands of factors, that you couldn't have accounted for in those smaller data sets.


CA - "The real debate in this country is whether a small minority should be able to create a market, and thus ensure access, to weponry of unlimited lethality because they consider these instruments toys (or something deeper and more mystical) that they enjoy owning and playing with. Against this everyone else must balance an unprecendeted and growing toll of human carnage and loss."


Chris I believe strongly that markets are created by demand for a particular product or service and government policy can, at best, perturb those markets with varying degrees of effectiveness. I'm assuming the "small minority" you refer to is the NRA. But Chris, the NRA members are not the people going out and shooting everybody up. It's the bad guys, to put it simply, that do that and those people will obtain fire arms whether legal or not.

Sounds like we both know there's a difference between a medical procedure and a religious rite, even if they're the same physically. Answers nothing.

well, seriously though, all these people came out and attacked me for saying US should do whats in its interests (as far as supporting arabs or israelis or whatever).


i tend to morph into what people want. maybe i like to be attacked, i dont know.


brad

1. Lott. His one-note bit of junk science, on which he's built a career, never discusses any need to carry a concealed or concealable weapon, much less assault rifles and large magazine semi-automatics, so nothing he says contradicts what I'm saying. In other words, even if people need guns to defend themselves, they don't need concealed handguns and assault rifles, much less easy, unlimited access to infinite numbers of them.


2. "This is question of whether there is direct, proportional and causal effect between fire-arm population and fire-arm violence is definitely open to debate." I agree with this, especially when it comes to calculating the directness and proportionality of the relationship between lots of guns and lots of gun violence. But lets not throw reason out the window in light of the simple facts: there are 65 million handguns in this country, and every year they kill 9,000-10,000 people. Comparable annual death figures for other countries with relatively few such weapons range from a few to a few dozen. Canada has about 100. It's an incredible disparity, and I've never heard any "obvious" explanation for it -- you haven't given any -- except for the availability of handguns. True, the relationship might not be linear, directly proportional, and so forth, but it hardly needs to be in order for one to draw the inescapable conclusion.


As for Lott's study, it's been trashed by researchers in several disciplines. But the quote you provided is telling by itself. Note how he tries to lend credence to his conclusions by emphasizing the sheet bulk of the data ("3,000-plus counties in the U.S. over an 18-year period"), something that a researcher would yawn at but a lay person might find impressive.


3. "[T]he NRA members are not the people going out and shooting everybody up. It's the bad guys, to put it simply, that do that and those people will obtain fire arms whether legal or not."


NRA members don't cause handgun violence by pulling triggers, they create the unlimited access to deadly weapons that has mushroomed the population of handguns. More handguns, more and deadlier "bad guys." The notion that all handgun violence is caused by committed killers is a myth.

"Handguns are much safer than long guns to keep around the house, as the statistics prove."


I doubt it. But if you have time, could you provide a link? I'm interested.


"Handguns also offer tactical advantages over shotguns for various home defense situations."


You're stretching and splitting hairs. Shotguns are more lethal, more likely to hit a target in the dark, and make a louder and scarier noise when you chamber a shell, sometimes obviating the need to fire at all.


"Also, the right of self defense extends out of the home and handguns are much easier to carry than a shotgun or rifle."


The right certainly exists outside the home but the need for armed self-defense is less common -- people can flee outside the home, choose their environment, and so forth. 200 million guns in the U.S., how often do you see one outside a home? (Okay, maybe in Idaho).


Stole this argument from tonight's "West Wing": ever notice how pro-gunners use the self-defense thing to justify concealed weapons outside the home, when unconcealed weapons would be more convenient and more likely to deter? There's something else going on besides self-defense.


"I get the sense you use terms provided by anti-gun groups that blur operating features among firearms. (I.E. confusing "repeating" with "full automatic" with "semi-automatic" until all guns are bad.)"


No, I let my membership in HGC, Inc. lapse about 15 years ago when I thought our side was inevitably going to win. Modern 9 mm. handguns fire more rounds faster than traditional revolvers, to say nothing of large-magazine assault rifles and actual automatic weapons.


"The group formerly known as HCI most assuredly wants to ban ownership of any firearm."


They don't say they do, there's no need to, and no one wants to help them. Any evidence on this, or is it just the usual NRA-style defamation, like: "FACT: Al Gore wants to abolish all gun ownership." I read something like this in their magazine around election time. Nobody with any grasp on current events believes this, but the NRA is targeting a different audience.

"Handguns are much safer than long guns to keep around the house, as the statistics prove."

I doubt it. But if you have time, could you provide a link? I'm interested.


I don't have a link handy. This came from some research I did in college. I am talking about gun accidents here. Homes with long guns were more likely to have gun accidents. Of course, homes with no guns are less likely to have a gun accident than either. I will see if I can dig any research up.


"Handguns also offer tactical advantages over shotguns for various home defense situations."

You're stretching and splitting hairs. Shotguns are more lethal, more likely to hit a target in the dark, and make a louder and scarier noise when you chamber a shell, sometimes obviating the need to fire at all."


Shotguns are of course excellent home defense weapons. They are much more effective than handguns in terms of stopping power. But it is also easier to disarm someone when they have a long gun. It is more difficult to move in a house with a long gun. Thus police who do entry work have compact submachine guns or sometimes shotguns banned for civilians (actually I should say most citizens because police are civilians too) under the NFA. (14 inch barrels instead of civilian-legal or police normal 18 inches.) But choice of weapon is personal and I think the appropriate policy is to allow people to choose what arms are appropriate for them.


"Stole this argument from tonight's "West Wing": ever notice how pro-gunners use the self-defense thing to justify concealed weapons outside the home, when unconcealed weapons would be more convenient and more likely to deter? There's something else going on besides self-defense."


There are a couple of problems with this argument. One I have some anecdotal evidence about from gun-friendly Idaho. I was once discussing the issue of open carry at lunch with a friend of mine. We were discussing the question theoretically at the time. I suggested that open carry could be a way for pro-gun people to convey their message. If responsible gun owners began carrying openly as is their legal right many places, I theorized that it might make people more accepting of guns. If a soccer mom had to see the nice Jones couple at Timmy's soccer practice carrying their pistols, it might affect a potential Million Mom Marcher. My friend said I was nuts because people would just go berserk. I pointed out that I had run across a couple of people carrying openly and nobody panicked, but admittted I would be uncomfortable doing it. Well, my friend won the argument because someone eavesdropped on our conversation and went nuts. She basically said discussion of the issue was tantamount to advocacy of the issue which was tantamount to doing it right then which equalled killing the innocent children. I mean she overheard two guys in suits talking about a political issue and got so bent out of shape about it she began verbally abusing us. She was obviously not smart, polite, or mentally stable, but it highlighted the issue. Someone went nuts overhearing a discussion about the topic in Idaho. And its totally legal to carry openly here. I'd love see what would happen if someone decided to go pack openly in Boulder or Berkeley or something.(I think it's illegal in Boulder though and probably Berkeley.) I think it would invite physical attack by loons. Given the current social climate, I don't think people who choose to exercise their right should have to go through a bunch of inevitable crap that could get dangerous.


More importantly, however, is the fact I don't want anyone to know I have a gun if I am carrying one.(And like the Navy with nukes, it is best to never confirm nor deny whether you happen to be carrying) This is a safety and deterrence issue. I know the argument is that there is more deterrence by open carry, but I tend to disagree. There is most certainly some deterrent effect, but it is then too easy for a criminal to simply take out the one armed person, or disarm the person, and go on with the attack. It is much easier to disarm someone carrying openly than concealed. I don't want it to be easy to disarm a carrying citizen, particularly one without a lot of practice in weapons retention techniques. Cops practice because they carry openly. Their practice does not guarantee success as they are disarmed sometimes. And usually its from the holster. Thus the retention holster which slows things down a bit, and A CONCEALED back-up a lot of times. I stopped watching the West Wing as it was a rerun, but it was a church shooting, right? If I were ever in a mass shooting situation I would not want the gunman to know I am armed. I may or may not be able to do something if I am armed. If I happen to be armed, I would try to take steps to protect myself and my family. But I can't do this as well if the gunman knows I am armed. I will be his first target. I want to have a random chance like everybody else until I can see whether I can do something. Also, there is a better chance to stop a mass killing if the killer is taken by surprise. Concealment helps in this regard. I think good deterrence is achieved when criminals know guns are about, but don't know exactly where. They don't know who might have one and don't have easy targets to disarm.

CA - "...His one-note bit of junk science, on which he's built a career,..."

That is an undeservedly harsh ad hominem attack Chris. I havn't read the book but I would be extremely surprised if it turned out to be "junk science". It is obviously controversial and debatable but I doubt it is junk science. The reasons for this are that Lott has published numerous papers in academic journals that must undergo exhaustive peer review before being published and that Lott's academic reputation would be irreparably harmed if he were to publish "junk science".


CA- The Lott book "...never discusses any need to carry a concealed or concealable weapon, much less assault rifles and large magazine semi-automatics, so nothing he says contradicts what I'm saying."


This is absolutely not true. The Lott book explicitely analyzes the effects of concealed handguns. Here is a description of the book from the aforementioned interview:


"Analyzing 18 years of data for more than 3,000 counties, Lott found that violent crime drops significantly when states switch from discretionary permit policies, which give local officials the authority to determine who may carry a gun, to "shall issue" or "right-to-carry" laws, which require that permits be granted to everyone who meets certain objective criteria. "


These gun permits apply to concealable handguns.


CA - Note how he tries to lend credence to his conclusions by emphasizing the sheet bulk of the data ("3,000-plus counties in the U.S. over an 18-year period"), something that a researcher would yawn at but a lay person might find impressive."


I would not consider myself a lay person in this matter as I have an advanced degree in Economics from a top tier University. In discussing his data set Lott explicitely states that the large data set allowed him to control for many factors that could not be controlled for in earlier studies due to an inadequate number of observations (meaning the data set was too small). It's also interesting that two major criticisms of the Lott study are a) he leaves some factors unaccounted for, i.e. community policing, changing gun laws,level of drug trade, etc...; and b) if you make small changes to his data set you come up with a completely different conclusion. With regards to the the first criticism, it may well be valid except that, to my knowledge, no one has bothered to test it. With regards to the second point, the criticism is that if you exclude Florida and counties with populations under 10,000 the study's findings fall apart. Well this Florida/small county exception is certainly an ad hoc way to reduce the data set and is probably the result of Lott critics trying many different permutations of the data until they found one that was suitable for their purposes.


CA - NRA members don't cause handgun violence by pulling triggers, they create the unlimited access to deadly weapons that has mushroomed the population of handguns.


It's my belief that perpetrators of handgun violence will find a way obtain a gun regardless of whatever laws are on the books. As evidence of this I would point out the proliferating black markets in drugs, prostitution, bookmaking, etc... You believe otherwise and I'm not sure there is a reasoned way to resolve the issue. I acknowledge that stricter gun control laws would reduce the amount of accidental shootings and gun suicides. I guess I really don't have much sympathy for people who act like idiots and I don't understand why it should infringe upon my freedoms. Stricter gun control laws would also reduce incidences where people successfully defend from harm life, limb and property by using a handgun.

I'm going to do a little research and talk about Lott in another thread, but my source for the "junk science" claim is a junk science website, where Lott's study hits 5 out of 6 indicia of the term.