The Good Guy With A Gun Theory, Debunked
I already know how this is going to end, but...
The Good Guy with a Gun Theory, Debunked Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Since this is a comprehensive and rigorous study, backed by forty years' worth of crime data, I expect that those members on this forum who have previously repeated the NRA's propaganda that gun ownership reduces crime to change their minds, completely recant this idea, and start arguing for greater gun control, now that we have hard scientific evidence to support it. *beat* Hahaha. Who am I kidding? Of course they won't. |
That's that, then.
Good work! This signature is intended to irradiate people. |
Then we're back to the obvious question, if guns don't help, should cops carry them?
|
Quote:
That's a rather odd conclusion to draw, and an even odder question. How did you arrive at that particular thing from the data? |
Quote:
|
Handing out guns like candy nullifies the Monopoly of Violence that only the state, legitimized by the voters, should have.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I think you are all missing the really obvious question... has the increase in overall wealth of Americans, which has naturally lead to and increase in the number of houses with swimming pools, lead to a decrease in pool drownings?
Arth, its a nice try old chum, but you know that the "I godda hav'muh gunz" crowd will just handwave away any scientific evidence that doesn't support them holding on to things which have no purpose other than to kill people. |
Quote:
|
I think that the NRA's mantra of 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' is being twisted a little. The U.S. has more guns than people, and that genie is irrevocably out of the bottle. The CCW crowd wants to be able to legally defend themselves from a criminal with a usually illegal weapon. I would not expect the ability to respond to violence to necessarily correlate to lowered violence.
|
Only a good guy with a swimming pool can protect you from a bad guy with a swimming pool.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Here is a response (from Lott himself) One excerpt: Quote:
|
Quote:
Police and LEOs excluded, how many times each year does "a good guy with a gun" actually shoot "a bad guy with a gun actually doing something bad", compared with how many times a good guy with a gun 1. Accidentally discharges his gun, killing or injuring someone? 2. Accidentally discharges his gun, killing or injuring himself? 3. Intentionally shoots someone he thought was a bad guy with a gun, only for it turn out that it was actually another good guy with a gun, or someone who didn't even have a gun at all? |
Why exclude law enforcement?
The police deliberately doesn't keep track of shootings, which strongly suggests that we wouldn't like the data if it was available. Also, what about someone accidentally killing a bad guy? To quote a famous policemen: Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
20 Times Bad Guys Were Stopped by Armed Citizens in 2016 They also claim that the list could have been many times longer. Quote:
As far as accidental shootings, I don't know (did you mean only CC permit holders or all accidental shootings?) |
Quote:
In many ways, US law enforcement hasn't. That is why there are cases where using BearCats, tanks and multiple SWAT teams might be appropriate in some places in the US. The logic is not that the police can't have guns - that would be stupid. It is that it must have a clearly superior firepower, which obviously leads to escalation with laxer gun laws. Of course, this is exactly what the gun lobby wants: sell weapons to both sides, just like any gunrunner everywhere. |
Quote:
I'll tell you. According to gunviolencearchive.org (which was merely the first site I found that presented such statistics and I have no idea how reliable it is) there were 58,673 total incidents, which included 15,062 deaths - 671 of them children aged 0-11. 20 "good guy with a gun" incidents is utterly insignificant. Even if it's ten times that number, it's still insignificant, just maybe not utterly so. |
Quote:
|
Most uses of gun in self defense do not include shooting the gun. The attack typically stops when the victim shows he/she has a gun and is willing to use it.
What I see as problematic is this .. is ti acceptable to deny guns to people if state can't provide reasonable security ? |
For many years (since I was a teen, at least) the NRA's publication, The American Rifleman, has published the "Armed Citizen" column monthly.
This consisted of articles culled from local newspapers by subscribers and sent in. Each article had the citations attached. They all concerned the use of weapons by citizens to protect themselves, stop criminals, or dissuade criminals from their activities. The "Rifleman" would publish 20 or so per month. Mind, this was only situations reported to local papers and sent in by Rifleman subscribers, very likely the incidence was actually much higher. This has since, as you might imagine, moved online and here is but one site: https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/ This is constantly updated and there is a considerable archive. So, it's fairly obvious that "good guys with guns" do indeed succeed in protecting themselves or others or in stopping criminal activity, and on a fairly ongoing basis. Now, whether these incidents are frequent enough to have an impact on crime rates on even a local level, that's unlikely. These are isolated incidents and in the overall scheme of things, quite limited. Still, it happens. I don't think that it's particularly arguable that if you do have a "bad guy with a gun" situation, it is in fact the presence of good guys similarly armed (be that police or citizens) that puts a stop to the activity. What else is going to? The so-called "mass shooter" usually continues his activities until the police arrive and then they suicide. That so few of such individuals have been engaged by citizens is primarily a testimony to the fact that the actual percentage of citizens who are doing regular CCW is very small. Back when Missouri was considering allowing CCW, the local papers did a very extensive research article which indicated two things. First (as this notes) the enactment of CCW in states had very little if any effect on crime rates. But on the other hand, it also did not result in the "streets running with blood" scenarios put forth by the "against" folks. And that's pretty much been the case here. We have a LOT of shootings here in St. Louis. Hardly a weekend goes by without a dozen or so people getting shot. These are all gang/drug related and almost all confined to a very small area of the city. These are people to whom violence and turf wars and revenge killings are a way of life and they are indiscriminate and vicious. Legislation will not be effective in controlling this violence, only a sea-change in the social conditions that spawn it. It's my personal belief that those who are concerned with their own safety, and who are willing to invest the time, training, and mental training to accept the attendant responsibility, they should be able to. Missouri just made it the case that if you can legally purchase a handgun, you can carry it. No training or permit required. IMO.... A mistake. We'll see. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/...-carry-states/ Quote:
Ranb |
This is what really happens when CC holders draw their weapons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T41M7cCqsU&t=19s |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Only failed states have no monopoly on violence. It's just a question of how much violence is necessary to establish that fact. |
Quote:
I believe, for myself at least, that it's safer to not own a gun, even if you just weigh the likelihood of an accidental shooting vs. the likelihood of preventing a crime or using it in self defense. For better or worse though it's an American cultural thing. I don't think it's going to change. |
Quote:
And the point was made that there are no numbers so neither side is supported. I just pointed out that one side was left out of the no numbers claim. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.