Incidence of Defensive Gun Use Far Outweighs Offensive Gun Use

[Diplomat]

I find these types of articles pretty funky. It's not about why the gun was fired; it's about the gun being fired at all. Is it totally necessary to use a gun to defend yourself? Even in this article there are examples where the shooter clearly did not need a firearm to defend themselves.

I think you would see fewer 'defensive' shootings if there were a lot fewer guns in general. (and correspondingly a lot fewer guns in the hands of people you would need a gun to defend yourself from)

Really, isn't the problem that the people you would want a gun to defend yourself against somehow attained guns of their own?

My two bits.

-Diplomat

[MuckJagger]

Howdy, MMMMMM ~~

Speaking as a liberal Democrat who has no problem with gun ownership (I'm originally from Maine, and Maine has many liberal Democrats and many gun owners who apparently have found some sort of way to co-exist peacefully), you should be aware that the man (John Lott) whose article you've cited to has been accused of some rather unsavory practices in the defense/promotion of his work.

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/.../Lott/MaryRosh

and

http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/

For those twoplustwoers not so inclined to "look stuff up," these cites link to articles detailing Mr. Lott's creation of a false identity in order to support and substantiate his work. (Mr. Lott admitted to this early last year.) The weblogs I frequent have had a field day with Mr. Lott's penchant for "making things up."

There also appears to be some evidence that *after* Mr. Lott and, um, "Ms." Rosh were outed, that Mr. Lott created yet another persona in order to post favorable reviews of his own work on Amazon and other sites.

While I believe that Mr. Lott's work shouldn't necessarily be discredited, it should be looked at with at minimum a big ol' bagful of skepticism. Perhaps his research *is* meticulous; you'd have a hard time convincing me of that given this subterfuge.

I find it not surprising in the least that this "scholar" gets a free ride from Fox News. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Muck Jagger

[andyfox]

Yes, to me the argument collapses of its own weight. If we banned or restricted guns, only the criminals would have them. Well, yes, but only if we did a bad job. We managed to land a spacecraft on Mars, getting the guns wouldn't seem impossible to do. Take all the nonviolent drug users out of our prisons and fill them up with gun users. Mandatory jailtime (despite what Mr. Rehnquist says).

[HDPM]

Hmm, yes, speaking of drug crimes and prisoners. Drugs are illegal and people get them. Then we send guys to prison for getting drugs. Then we ban drugs in prison, which is a more secure environment than the outside world is. And guess what? people in prison get drugs. So a gun ban will work. Well, no it won't.


Guns are easy to make. The technology is old. For instance, I think I posted about the recent 9th Circuit case that concerned a home made machine gun. People with tools can make guns. It isn't as hard to make a gun as it is to do a Mars landing. So even if you banned all guns, and destroyed every gun in the country today, there would be guns on the street in no time. There is no chance a ban will work.

The only thing that will work is to have humans develop to the point that violence doesn't occur. As far fetched as that idea might seem, it is probably more likely to work than a gun ban.

[Ray Zee]

and it would be so easy to do andy. just do like hitler did. search every house and beat up the people. then program their children to turn them in. this way you can be pretty sure you will get most of the guns away from the honest people.

the problem isnt the guns it is the courts that let out violent people and repeat offenders. let them first get that in hand then talk about taking away our rights and last line of protection against a violent intruder. i dont care to face him with a broom.

[Diplomat]

Ok. But why is it that the only modern democracy in the world that allows citizens to bear arms via their consititution also has the highest number of firearm deaths per annum per capita?

-Diplomat

[HDPM]

The cynical answer is because a lot of people need shooting. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Clearly when guns are about, those who desire to cause harm will use them. So we will have shooting deaths. I am a little different than a lot of pro-gun people because I don't get caught up in the details of the statistics. Gun crimes and accidents are a natural byproduct of a free society. I don't mind the cost. And if I am murdered by some punk w/ a hi-point I don't much care. What I care about is being able to live as a free human being. I will not be subject to tyranny. The 2d Amendment is not about hunting. It has self defense against criminals as an important byproduct. But it is about having a free citizenry. I think some of my ancestors fought in the American Revolution; they were certainly in the country then. On another side of the family, some people died in camps in a country with successful gun control. A gun control law that was copied later in the US. Well, I won't go to a camp. That's what guns are for. So I don't care if other countries have gun control. Especially certain western European democracies like say Germany.

The exercise of rights causes problems. The First Amendment causes problems. All kinds of things are reported that cause harm. Idiotic religious indoctrination causes harm. But nobody blinks at the social costs. Same should be true about the social costs of guns. The cost of getting rid of guns is much too high.

And no, I don't live in a compound. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Pretty radical views Ray. you must be from montana.

I agree completely tho.

Reminds me of the simpsons episode where homer pays bart $3 for on couch delivery of the mail. he pays bart, then bart says "hey this money isn't real, it's printed by the montana militia!" then homer says "It'll be real soon enough!"

al

[MMMMMM]

"Ok. But why is it that the only modern democracy in the world that allows citizens to bear arms via their consititution also has the highest number of firearm deaths per annum per capita?"

I recall reading that both Russia and Brazil have higher rates of criminal gun violence than does the USA. Interestingly, they both also have more restrictive gun laws.

[Zeno]

I would like to add that I generally echo HDPM’s sentiments. There are costs to liberty and freedom. Morons and hatemongers are free to publish and disseminate trash just as they are free to purchase a firearm and use it. Call it a social freedom tax if you want, but the alternative of less freedom and liberty for all would entail MUCH MORE of a social cost. Thus, I always opt for individual liberties and freedom and the free exercise thereof.

-Zeno