Man executed outside Mormon chapel

[Jeff K.]

You know what is interesting about statistics. What they don't count. A person with a gun can kill. But what is not counted is the number of times a person with a gun dissuades another from killing or attempting to kill.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Except the US still has a far greater homicide rate than Canada.

[ERayR]

Jeff K.:

Except the US still has a far greater homicide rate than Canada.

So? Show the causality connection.

[USU78]

Jeff K.:

Except the US still has a far greater homicide rate than Canada.

Because we're better shots.

[thesometimesaint]

USU78:

That could be.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

More idiots with guns = more deaths by idiots with guns.

For the record I'm neither a Anti-gun nut, nor a Pro-gun nut. But I am against nuts being behind the trigger of one.

[USU78]

More idiots with guns = more deaths by idiots with guns.

For the record I'm neither a Anti-gun nut, nor a Pro-gun nut. But I am against nuts being behind the trigger of one.

Especially nuts who want to do me and mine harm. I want my highly pulchritudinous daughters armed against the foe.

There are really foes out there.

[frankenstein]

Especially nuts who want to do me and mine harm. I want my highly pulchritudinous daughters armed against the foe.

There are really foes out there.

i am sure that is what David Serbeck and Reggie Campos thought too.

*side note: thanks for the vocabulary, i have a better understanding of women in the book of mormon being described as comely.

[USU78]

i am sure that is what David Serbeck and Reggie Campos thought too.

It's Book of Mormon, thenkyewverymuch.

And occasional and mighty rare incompetence and bad judgment are not a basis for bad public policy that would leave bad guys all armed and good guys all unarmed.

[Stargazer]

Lehi:

You are many times more likely to kill a family member with that gun than you are the bad guy.

I agree that the so called "War on Drugs" is nonsensical, counterproductive, and lost. The monies spend on it would be cheaper more sensibly, productively, and winnable if spent of rehab.

With respect to your supposed increased likelihood to kill a family member with a gun than a bad guy, I see this factoid being trotted out from time to time, but you need to know that it is a totally invalid conclusion from a flawed study by Kellerman and Reay that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1986. There was all kinds of things wrong with the paper's conclusions, not least of which was the assumption that only "killings" of bad guys was counted (totally ignoring any bad guys who were merely wounded or were dissuaded from a bad deed by the fear (or knowledge) that their victim was armed). Another thing wrong with it was the inclusion of suicides. It has been proven beyond doubt that persons bent on suicide will carry it out regardless of the presence or absence of firearms (i.e. Japan's suicide rate is twice that of the US, and it is almost impossible to own a firearm in Japan). The Kellerman study based its conclusion on a single US county in Washington state, King county (where Seattle is), a largely urban county that has a substantial gang problem.

Kellerman's original 1986 study could not possibly be considered a "scientific" study. Even a subsequent study by Kellerman coming to roughly similar conclusions has been more than abundantly shown to be fatally flawed:

• The Fallacy of 43 to 1
• What Are the Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home?
• GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?

ERayR:

More idiots with guns = more deaths by idiots with guns.

For the record I'm neither a Anti-gun nut, nor a Pro-gun nut. But I am against nuts being behind the trigger of one.

Well, then, the following is going to scare you to death:

A survey of 200,000+ households nationwide found that 31.7% of them had firearms. The four states with the highest ownership rates were Alaska, Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming -- the highest being Wyoming with 59.7%), and the four lowest were Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Hawaii and the District of Columbia. If 31.7% of US households have guns, that means that there are already quite a few idiots with guns. Be afraid, be very afraid. Or not.

Interestingly, for 2008 the District of Columbia's murder rate was 13 per 100,000, which is far and away the highest murder rate in the country. And in 2008 it was virtually impossible to own a legal firearm there. It will be interesting to see what happens with the murder rate in DC as the recent Supreme Court decision regarding firearms ownership there takes effect. Up or down? I'd bet it goes down as more criminals realize that they can't depend upon their victims being disarmed. But we will see.

[frankenstein]

And occasional and mighty rare incompetence and bad judgment are not a basis for bad public policy that would leave bad guys all armed and good guys all unarmed.

yes, a bad apple should spoil the whole bushel.

However, police shootings provide good insight. A man in the North East was shot reaching for his wallet, he was shot at 40 times, and hit 21 trimes, 4 officers where shooting (so either two officers completly missed or each officers missed several times). Then there is the man who was shot and killed watering his lawn, he was holding a nozzle which the police figured was a firearm. Then there is a man in California who was shot at numerous times, where there were numerous misses, which also killed a police dog. There is the Sheriff Deputy who discharged her weapon thinking it was tazer, same happened in California just recently. Just a few weeks ago I saw video of police officer shooting at suspect, the officer was retreating while shooting and shot out the window of her vehicle.

so what is my point? that even the trained "professionals" are not accurate and even their shootings (that is the police officers discharging their weapons) pose a danger to the public. I trust joe schmo even less to use good judgment or to be accurate in discharging his weapon in an attempt to stop a crime; from what I can tell there seem too many eager beavers ready to shot someone and be a hero.

[USU78]

yes, a bad apple should spoil the whole bushel.

However, police shootings provide good insight. A man in the North East was shot reaching for his wallet, he was shot at 40 times, and hit 21 trimes, 4 officers where shooting (so either two officers completly missed or each officers missed several times). Then there is the man who was shot and killed watering his lawn, he was holding a nozzle which the police figured was a firearm. Then there is a man in California who was shot at numerous times, where there were numerous misses, which also killed a police dog. There is the Sheriff Deputy who discharged her weapon thinking it was tazer, same happened in California just recently. Just a few weeks ago I saw video of police officer shooting at suspect, the officer was retreating while shooting and shot out the window of her vehicle.

so what is my point? that even the trained "professionals" are not accurate and even their shootings (that is the police officers discharging their weapons) pose a danger to the public. I trust joe schmo even less to use good judgment or to be accurate in discharging his weapon in an attempt to stop a crime; from what I can tell there seem too many eager beavers ready to shot someone and be a hero.

That's fine. Ignore the actual numbers on violent crimes in poorly armed cities/states vs. well armed cities/states. Spout the usual drivel because if people were only "better educated" they'd never feel the need to perform that most essential of human duties, self-preservation in the face of predation. Wrap the world in bubblewrap. It'll make us all safer.

[Stargazer]

yes, a bad apple should spoil the whole bushel.

However, police shootings provide good insight. A man in the North East was shot reaching for his wallet, he was shot at 40 times, and hit 21 trimes, 4 officers where shooting (so either two officers completly missed or each officers missed several times). Then there is the man who was shot and killed watering his lawn, he was holding a nozzle which the police figured was a firearm. Then there is a man in California who was shot at numerous times, where there were numerous misses, which also killed a police dog. There is the Sheriff Deputy who discharged her weapon thinking it was tazer, same happened in California just recently. Just a few weeks ago I saw video of police officer shooting at suspect, the officer was retreating while shooting and shot out the window of her vehicle.

so what is my point? that even the trained "professionals" are not accurate and even their shootings (that is the police officers discharging their weapons) pose a danger to the public. I trust joe schmo even less to use good judgment or to be accurate in discharging his weapon in an attempt to stop a crime; from what I can tell there seem too many eager beavers ready to shot someone and be a hero.

Very anecdotal, no numbers to back you up.

Here's the problem. The police are professionals with regards to law enforcement. The are required to become familiar with their firearms, and they may be required to re-qualify from time to time, but many, perhaps most police officers are nowhere near what you would call "professional gunfighters." It is also a fact that the overwhelming majority of police officers in their entire careers never fire their weapons in line of duty, contrary to what you might believe based on television and movie depictions of police work. The only exceptions to this would be the special weapons and tactics people (SWAT), and possibly some officers who take their responsibility with respect to firearms skill more seriously than the average.

Here's my anecdote for you: in situations where deadly force has become necessary, in general civilian shooters tend to be more accurate than police officers.

[Vance]

In my profession it is often instructive to look at the extremes of a given situation. Doing so can increase understanding of the problem.

Suppose that there are two communities;

1) Let's call this one Utopia. In Utopia there is an extremely strict law AGAINST firearm ownership by a private citizen. In fact all firearms have been confiscated.

2) Let's call this one NRAville. In NRAville every adult citizen is required by law to own/possess a firearm, be proficient in handling it. Firearm safety is even taught in elementary school.

(I could go on with these descriptions including attitudes about causes of crime and appropriate punishments, but to do so would require the inclusion of a LOT more politics than this forum is comfortable with. But these descriptions are sufficient for this mental exercise.)

Now, here is where you have to unlock your imagination. Put yourself in the position of a crazed criminal who just broke out of jail by killing a guard and taking his weapon. You must prey upon society to survive. Which of these two communities are you going to head for? Why?

[Stargazer]

In my profession it is often instructive to look at the extremes of a given situation. Doing so can increase understanding of the problem.

Suppose that there are two communities;

1) Let's call this one Utopia. In Utopia there is an extremely strict law AGAINST firearm ownership by a private citizen. In fact all firearms have been confiscated.

2) Let's call this one NRAville. In NRAville every adult citizen is required by law to own/possess a firearm, be proficient in handling it. Firearm safety is even taught in elementary school.

(I could go on with these descriptions including attitudes about causes of crime and appropriate punishments, but to do so would require the inclusion of a LOT more politics than this forum is comfortable with. But these descriptions are sufficient for this mental exercise.)

Now, here is where you have to unlock your imagination. Put yourself in the position of a crazed criminal who just broke out of jail by killing a guard and taking his weapon. You must prey upon society to survive. Which of these two communities are you going to head for? Why?

Depends upon your goal. If you want to commit suicide, go to NRAville. If not, then the other.

But surely you're not assuming Utopia is a society where there will be no guns. One cannot assume that that community is going to disarm its police, so presumably there will be someone to call. Even if the posited criminal would prefer Utopia to NRAville, he is bound to count on some opposition, even if it is uniformed.

Although, in some cases some communities may have disarmed even their police out of some utopian vision. In Washington state, The Evergreen State College at one time would not arm its college police with firearms. If necessary, I suppose that they counted on the county mounties to come to the rescue if push came to shove.

[LeSellers]

You are many times more likely to kill a family member with that gun than you are the bad guy.

CFR.

The point of having a weapon is not necessarily to kill the bad guy, but to dissuade him from killing you (or your family members) or taking your stuff (which is nothing more nor less than that portion of your life spent in acquiring it). There are no records of how often a bad guy was so dissuaded. Understandable because in those cases, there was no crime committed, nor was any official report created.

Besides, if one does kill his family member, there is no guarantee that the family member was not a bad guy. It happens. Oh, and the idiotic "statistic" that claims that children are likely to be killed by a firearm is ludicrous, too. It counts a 19 year old as a child, and it doesn't distinguish between drug running "children" and sleeping infants. Guess which one is more likely to be killed by a firearm (assuming the gun could actually kill anyone in the first place, which it cannot).

Lehi

[Vance]

But surely you're not assuming Utopia is a society where there will be no guns. One cannot assume that that community is going to disarm its police, so presumably there will be someone to call.

I made or declared no such assumption. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[frankenstein]

Very anecdotal, no numbers to back you up.

Amadou Diallo shot at 41 times, wiki or washingtonpost

Douglas Zerby killed by police over water nozzle

Officer

, officer thought she was holding tazer

TN officer

shots out own windshield while wildly shooting at a bankrobber.

Deandre Brunston shot at 81 times, hit 22, i would link the video but there is lots of swearing, and the Officers seem only concerned with having wounded the police dog.

[frankenstein]

That's fine. Ignore the actual numbers on violent crimes in poorly armed cities/states vs. well armed cities/states. Spout the usual drivel because if people were only "better educated" they'd never feel the need to perform that most essential of human duties, self-preservation in the face of predation. Wrap the world in bubblewrap. It'll make us all safer.

while one might asume I am against possession and carrying of firearms, I am not. However, I do have little faith, in the average person stopping a columbine, V-Tech, Trolley Square (though one of the person firing back at trolley square was an off duty officer.) and thank goodness, sort of, that in AZ carrying a firearms is State Constitutional right.

[USU78]

while one might asume I am against possession and carrying of firearms, I am not. However, I do have little faith, in the average person stopping a columbine, V-Tech, Trolley Square (though one of the person firing back at trolley square was an off duty officer.) and thank goodness, sort of, that in AZ carrying a firearms is State Constitutional right.

The essential cowardice necessarily a part of the narcissist who would off others indiscriminately as in Columbine would tend to stop his execution if not his plan. Pretty little liberal communities that ban barbaric humans' means of self-protection open their citizens to predation by narcissistic cowards. An awful lot of mischief follows from childishly ill-thought-out good intentions.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Kellermann, Arthur, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, Vol. 329 No. 15, pp. 1084-91.

[LeSellers]

Kellermann, Arthur, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, Vol. 329 No. 15, pp. 1084-91.

Shown to be a poor study. Got anything else?, because this one stinks.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

Amadou Diallo shot at 41 times, wiki or washingtonpost

Douglas Zerby killed by police over water nozzle

Officer

, officer thought she was holding tazer

TN officer

shots out own windshield while wildly shooting at a bankrobber.

Deandre Brunston shot at 81 times, hit 22, i would link the video but there is lots of swearing, and the Officers seem only concerned with having wounded the police dog.

Isn't that still anecdotal?

[Questing Beast]

Jeff K.:

Except the US still has a far greater homicide rate than Canada.

And what is the overwhelming target of homicide? thugs killing other thugs. What have you got against criminals offing each other?...

[Jeff K.]

I am not big on criminals killing each other. I prefer the state do it

I think the sense comes down to whether or not one can trust a government. The US has a strong cultural history of not trusting large governments. It is something that has generally served our nation well.