Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 22:51:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
641 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> >
> > This is certainly a valid point, and close to home since a co-worker in the
> > next building over from mine had his son involved in this very incident
> > (thankfully unharmed). But it was the presense of armed guards, not Joe
> > Blow with a concealed handgun that affected the criminal's decision.
>
>
> That is very true. An armed and highly visible guard would have affected his
> decision, but I would contend that once the violence had started, Joe Blow
> could have intervened and prevented further violence (and legal fees, if you
> get my drift).
Or shot more innocents. If the number of handguns were thinned out, it
would be less likely Joe Blow would need his handgun. There is also the
increased number of wackos carrying handguns to contend with ("Hey, you cut
me off, well I'll show you!" Bang!).
In any given scenario, you may find good or bad in handguns being carried.
The scenario you present could well have happened, and is certainly
something to consider.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > As to my experiences with firearms (I live in Miami, need I say more?): Yes,
> > > as a Marine in armed conflict on foreign soil and in law enforcement, I have
> > > been on both ends of a firearm. I happen to have a 1 inch hole under my
> > > right shoulder blade. Does that make my point any more or less valid? I
> > > happen not to think so. We must objectively consider the noumena and not the
> > > phenomena of firearms.
> >
> >
> > I don't think it quite the same thing to compare military activity, or even
> > law enforcement, to Joe Blow walking around with a handgun. Perhaps I'd
> > feel differently if Joe Blow had to go through a training course such as you
> > must have.
>
> You make this point a few more times below and I whole-heartedly agree. With
> something as grave as a firearm, ideally I would hope people would take it
> upon themselves to do the right thing and get proper training - regrettably,
> we both know that ain't gonna happen. I could live with mandated
> safety/training courses - but again, some would take the course the same way
> they take driver improvement courses - just because they must. Nevertheless,
> it is a good idea and would have very likely have tremendous impact.
I'm sorry, perhaps I should be more specific: the would-be gun owner needs
to PASS a strict test in addition. No, it won't be perfect - nothing ever is.
Many others feel that training should not be required, and certainly not
licensing (I'm talking about handguns, not firearms in general, so they can
still have their mystery cache of high-powered rifles to revolt against the
government with).
> > > As I said, if there were more armed, responsible citizens, that number would
> > > greatly decrease.
> >
> > The key word is "responsible". Since no training is required, increasing
> > the armed rate is merely increasing the number of irresponsible owners.
>
> Agreed, but we exist under a framework that gives the benefit of the doubt
> until you remove it. Freedom has its quirks.
Yup. Beats tyranny, though.
> > >
> > > What I find alarming is the cavalier attitude toward life and death in this
> > > country.
> >
> > I'm not sure how to resolve this statement given your 9,266 deaths not even
> > being a blip above. I understand you also said that's 9,266 too many, but
> > simultaneously writing them off as the cost of doing business seems cavalier.
>
> I meant it in the sense that it doesn't warrant radical changes. Other
> aspects of modern life account for higher loss of life than do firearms.
I'll accept that at face value.
>
> I get your point tho'. Sometimes I'm a bit pragmatic in this regard - c'mon,
> I was a Jar-head.
Semper Fi, dude! :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > January 1997 "Journal of Legal Studies" showed that concealed-carry weapons
> > > > > permits reduced crime rates.
> > >
> > > No comment on this one?
> >
> > It's a vague claim. I'd have to see more info to even address it. What
> > does it actually claim? Who was behind the study? Are they trying to
> > interpret information, or shoehorn what is convenient into a preconceived
> > conclusion? It might be legit, but I'm generally wary of statistics mixed
> > with political axe-grinding groups of any persuasion.
>
> I normally don't like to post links to such info - it's too easy. I'm a firm
> believer in finding things out for one's self. If someone really wanted to
> know they could find it quite easily. Just my own philosophy.
>
> Here's an excerpt:
>
> CRIME, DETERRENCE, AND RIGHT-TO-CARRY
> CONCEALED HANDGUNS
>
> JOHN R. LOTT, JR., and DAVID B. MUSTARD*
>
>
> Abstract
>
> Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we
> find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent
> crimes, with-out increasing accidental deaths. If those states without
> right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county-
> and state-level data indicate that ap-proximately 1,500 murders would have
> been avoided yearly. Similarly, we predict that rapes would have declined by
> over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggra-vated assaults by over 60,000.
> We also find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth,
> where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim is
> minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates consistently reduce
> crime. The estimated annual gain from all remaining states adopting these
> laws was
> at least $5.74 billion in 1992. The annual social benefit from an additional
> con-cealed handgun permit is as high as $5,000.
I'll look into this one when I have a chance. I agree that links can be too
easy.
> > No, its malice AND the means. People will murder with swords, and you
> > *can't* walk around with those. People will murder with guns, but you *can*
> > walk around with those? The purpose of swords and handguns is the same:
> > they are there to kill people (you can use them for sport, but that's not
> > why either came into existence).
>
> Granted it makes the malice more easily implemented into actions, but the
> same people would find any means available to accomplish their grim task.
> Still, a weapon in the right hands is invaluable, but then that takes us
> back to human nature and good vs. evil. Don't even want to go there.
It's kind of like locking your car door. You can't stop a determined thief
that way, but you keep out the riff-raff. I agree, you aren't going to stop
the determined, but I'm looking to reduce the damage done by the less
determined.
Anyway, have a good dinner (oh jeez! Well-mentioned! My 13th anniversary
is in 4 days!). I owe you one! :-)
Good comments. I enjoyed them.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) I support the notion that people ought to be competent users of any powerful tool, especially one as powerful as a gun. However... My objection to an apriori training requirement (rather than an aposteriori lawsuit for negligent behaviour) is (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| I'm going to address a few selective points here, please excuse me - tonight is my 9th wedding anniversary - goin out for a nice dinner. (...) That is very true. An armed and highly visible guard would have affected his decision, but I would contend (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
