On Gun Defense
30/5/13 06:00![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. - Barry Goldwater
I had been searching for this for, what seems like, years. When gun debates come up, there is always a reference to self defense. I have Googled, Yahoo!ed and Binged and have never been able to see what a clear cut gun defense looked like until I ran across this story in the Washington Post.
I have always given gun rights advocates the benefit of the doubt and thought that the main stream media was unfairly shying away from gun defense cases because of some code of honor, political leanings or liability reasons. When I read this article, I was astonished at some of the things I discovered from it, such as:
- This was not a personal assault on the street, but a home invasion that required the victim to retrieve a gun from a safe and hide with her children in an area of this house that she hoped would be out of harm's way. There was no concealed carry involved.
- The victim has remained very private about the experience. No talk shows, no interviews, no publicity at all. The only statements made were from the police reports.
- All of the boasting has come from outside sources such as the NRA, Fox News and talking head radio shows.
- It has become apparent that crime will probably be mitigated and reduced in that neighborhood. Not because everybody is packing firearms, but because crime mitigation procedures such as Neighborhood Watches, a larger police force and security measures are being implemented.
- The biggest resulting braggadocio in the neighborhood has been the Walton County Sheriff, Joe Chapman, who was reduced to name calling in court calling the perpetrator a “dirt bag”.
- The perpetrator was shot 5 times in the chest and face with a .38 caliber handgun and still was able to escape in his car until he crashed a few blocks later. He survived, was convicted and sent to prison.
- The perpetrator was a resident of the community where he committed the crime.
- The perpetrator’s wife now possesses a gun to protect herself in what has become an arms race.
A news item like this would be in the best interest of the news media, the gun lobby and the NRA to promote this kind of account. Yet, things like this never seem to make it into any kind of press. Instead, mass shooting tragedies are arrogantly passed off as acceptable losses and any attempts to reduce gun violence are written off as bothersome irritation. It has become dangerously obvious that concern for the security of gun activists' armaments far exceeds their concern for the security of the society in which they live.
The picture that was painted by this incident didn’t follow the Hollywood script types of stories that gun activists like to paint. It is becoming more apparent that the scenarios that gun activists portray are, at best, anecdotal and incredibly rare and the reality invokes images of trauma rather than heroism.
This narrative goes contrary to concealed carry rationalizations. This is a clear cut case of domain protection, and not personal assault. This story reinforces my belief that aside from military or law enforcement professionals, those who arm themselves in public, and mentally and emotionally prepare themselves to take a life suffer from paranoid delusional fantasies. I think it’s worth noting that in the cases of military or law enforcement, their carry is not concealed.
My observations are further supported by the exceedingly zealous views of rabid gun activists who believe that the solution to every conflict is to shoot their way out of it. I am convinced that ordinary citizens that insist on concealed carry for protection are directly parallel to 40 year old male virgins that carry condoms. They will probably never use them, but they entertain a fantasy that their moment can come at any time.
It would seem that the NRA would be better served by representing the vast majority of gun owners who enjoy ownership for hunting, target shooting and domain protection. Instead, they feast on the fringe implementation of paranoid fantasies to justify their cause. The American Civil War is over. It's time we quit treating our nation like a war zone.
(no subject)
Date: 30/5/13 20:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/5/13 20:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/5/13 20:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/5/13 20:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/5/13 20:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/5/13 21:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/5/13 21:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/5/13 21:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/5/13 22:46 (UTC)I wasn't talking about people who used concealed carry.
The OP is pretty specific to concealed carry and not domain protection.
Anyways, this study (http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/smitht1.htm) talks about numerous studies on the subject.
The studies that you site have a 300% variance and they are based on random samplings surveys from people that are trying to rationalize the gun self-defense use. Hardly credible. There are no crime or law enforcement statistics in this.
However there are a few studies that point to concealed carries being less likely to commit crimes (http://concealedguns.procon.org/sourcefiles/sturdevant.pdf)(skip to page 27 for results).
Yes. These people that used to get arrested for gun crimes because they were illegally carrying concealed weapons are no longer being arrested because what was previously a crime is now legal. This isn’t a case crime reduction. It’s an elimination of enforcement.
(no subject)
Date: 31/5/13 04:04 (UTC)And the studies are specific to defensive uses of guns, in which domain protection and concealed carry are both subsets.
The studies that you site have a 300% variance and they are based on random samplings surveys from people that are trying to rationalize the gun self-defense use. Hardly credible. There are no crime or law enforcement statistics in this.
That was the point of the study, addressing the large variance between different methods. That is why I mentioned the very low end of the estimates. And yes, random sampling surveys is how people figure out rates of occurrences without accurate accounting of the real number.
Yes. These people that used to get arrested for gun crimes because they were illegally carrying concealed weapons are no longer being arrested because what was previously a crime is now legal. This isn’t a case crime reduction. It’s an elimination of enforcement.
Ah that's right. I forgot that forcible rape is only a crime if you own a gun illegally. Same with robbery, assault, etc.
(no subject)
Date: 6/6/13 13:13 (UTC)And the studies are specific to defensive uses of guns, in which domain protection and concealed carry are both subsets.
I’m kind of partial to statistics that use actual data (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf).
That was the point of the study, addressing the large variance between different methods. That is why I mentioned the very low end of the estimates. And yes, random sampling surveys is how people figure out rates of occurrences without accurate accounting of the real number.
So the whole point of the study is to illustrate how untrustworthy the study is?
Ah that's right. I forgot that forcible rape is only a crime if you own a gun illegally. Same with robbery, assault, etc.
Yes, forcible rape is also illegal if you propagate gun use throughout the entire society by making gun ownership legal. Forcible rape is even illegal if you use the gun that you just shot yourself in the foot with in that comment.
(no subject)
Date: 6/6/13 15:49 (UTC)That's nice, but this is what is done when data doesn't exist. I'm also not sure why you linked to study that utilizes survey data.
So the whole point of the study is to illustrate how untrustworthy the study is?
So far you have demonstrated that you are ill-equipped to analyze simple data. I'm not going to bother discussing the validity of studies with you.
Yes, forcible rape is also illegal if you propagate gun use throughout the entire society by making gun ownership legal. Forcible rape is even illegal if you use the gun that you just shot yourself in the foot with in that comment.
I'm starting to think you are under the influence of drugs while responding to these comments.
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/13 02:35 (UTC)That's nice, but this is what is done when data doesn't exist. I'm also not sure why you linked to study that utilizes survey data.
So far you have demonstrated that you are ill-equipped to analyze simple data. I'm not going to bother discussing the validity of studies with you.
You’re probably right. If you can’t tell the difference between an experienced agency that collects data based on interviews specifically with victims and their perpetrators vs. highly dubious and inconsistent data, whose sources call each other liars, mashed together by an academic that is writing a targeted paper that has a predetermined conclusion to justify his research grant; then discussing this with you would be ludicrous.
I'm starting to think you are under the influence of drugs while responding to these comments.
Oh, don’t worry about me. I’m fine. How are you? I hear that heavy marijuana use can cause delusional paranoid fantasies, though. Whoa!!! I’m starting to see a pattern here.
What it comes down to is this. All the premises established in the OP have been established to be true to a degree I had not imagined. This whole discussion has renewed my faith in the American society’s ability to deal with crime without resorting to the homicidal summary executions that you promote. DGU statistics are shown to be pathetic and laughable as a method of dealing with attacks and crime.
America is relying on the rule of law and experienced law enforcement professionals for security. Their faith is well placed because it appears to be working. Violent crime is down due to many reasons such as improved communication with the internet and mobile technology, environment awareness after the attack on 9/11, improved law enforcement cooperation, improved forensic methods including but not limited to DNA analysis, quicker processing of data due to computer, etc.
The CCW experiment is a fail. The NRA leadership has been identified as the radical militants that they have become. Sandy Hook has reawakened the discussion and the subject may wane slightly, but is not going away during this administration.
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/13 13:26 (UTC)Like I said, you are very much Ill-equipped. It isn't an assumption, it is fairly obvious upon observation of your extremely flawed analysis. It isn't about political bias hidden in studies. I should also point out that the number I gave you for DGU is lower than that of the study you are continually citing.
All the premises established in the OP have been established to be true to a degree I had not imagined.
Considering all you do is contribute positions to people that they don't hold, I'm sure you think that. For example, I don't own any firearms apart from some that I inherited from a grandfather, but they are stored some 300 miles away and I have never even removed them from their cases (and I think my father sold them all at this point). Nor do I have, or plan on getting, any sort of carry permit. According to you, I'm a gun nut who suffers from some sort of "delusion." This is your problem, anyone who disagrees with you automatically fits into your preconceived and derogatory views of what YOU THINK a gun owner is.
The rest is a whole lot of bloviating, based primarily on very flawed reasoning I pointed out elsewhere.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/13 19:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/5/13 20:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/5/13 20:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/13 18:52 (UTC)