Summations Only

The data shows that murders and guns are positively correlated. Reduce the number of guns and you end up preventing a number of murders.You, on the other hand, have no hard data showing how many murders were prevented by a gun, but whatever it is it must be very, very few. A criminal whose intended crime is murder is very rare, except for hit men there's no money in it, and he will not call attention to himself ahead of time. The same is true of all of them. Under certain circumstances it is safer to not be wearing a seat belt, such as if you have to exit a vehicle quickly if it catches fire or becomes submerged. And under certain circumstances it is safer to be carrying a gun, such as when the mafia has put a contract out on you.But your focus on the comparison between guns and seatbelts and so forth is distracting attention from your awful logic, that unless it's impossible for a gun to ever increase safety that arguments against guns don't follow. You and ICANT keep trying to personalize the debate by focusing on yourselves while arguing that you're special, that the statistics don't apply to you. But that argument is typical of gun advocates, and obviously you can't all be exceptional or even above average. The key point you're trying to avoid is that the odds of a gun preventing a murder are less than the odds of it causing one. Substantially less. Several times less. Well, I can appreciate that you'd like to change the subject, but that's not how the discussion was framed when you resumed participation. A gun in the home purchased for self defense is more likely to be used against the owner or an acquaintance or a friend or a co-worker or a loved one than against a criminal. What the statistics suggest is that anyone purchasing a gun for self-defense is more likely than not placing themselves in greater rather than lesser danger. I know people like you and ICANT claim special circumstances, but I don't believe ICANT is superhuman, and I've already described why acquiring a gun in a rural area increases the danger by a greater amount than in an urban setting. You and ICANT are typical of the gun-owning breed, all full of bravado and braggadocio about how effective you'd be if threatened by a person with a gun, but you guys are the only ones buying your own advertising.--Percy

Hey, congratulations! I've been telling you this for how many posts now? Glad you finally got the message. Well, that's a rather odd constraint, that the victim has to be the gun's owner. I'll just ignore that you said that.The actual study (whose link you keep failing to provide), Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, only looked at whether there was a gun in the home. The actual gun owner could have lived in Timbuktu for all they cared. They did note in the study, and you quoted it, that it was possible that the gun in the home was not the actual gun used.The excerpts from the study that you provided argue against your position, I can't imagine why you provided them. Actually, the last does appear to support your position, but you took it out of context by leaving out the previous sentence. This gives a better idea of what they were actually trying to convey: In other words, the correlation between guns and homicide is more modest than the strong correlation for guns and suicide. This is a very soft statistic that doesn't even record whether the defensive use was against an armed person. The softness of the statistics is because it is self-reported. You can just see someone answering the survey and thinking, "Let's see. There was that time I saw Hector on the street, and he would have hassled me except he knows I carry a gun, so that's one defensive use. Then there was that other time in the bar when that drunk started screaming at me, but I think he noticed the bulge because he just turned and walked away, so that's another defensive use." And so on. Besides, where criminals are involved the intent is rarely murder. There's no money in it, plus it really gets the attention of law enforcement.You gun advocates have incredibly romantic and idealistic notions of a gun's ability to provide defense. You must imagine a criminal approaching you in full view, then he goes for his gun, but you go for yours, and so he turns and runs.The murders that didn't happen? Who knows, but as I've described, it must be very, very few, for we can safely assume that even a marginally competent criminal bent on murder would have some capacity getting the jump on his victim. But the actual murders? We have pretty good data on that.So here's another study, this one on gun injuries and deaths in the home: Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. From the abstract: --Percy

Let's put what you said in plain English: Saving lives isn't worth giving up our guns. Would you trade a friend or family member getting murdered for an increase in crime? Because that's what we're really talking about, no matter how much you try to avoid it. Refusal to acknowledge the natural consequences of your desires doesn't make them go away.If you've been reading the exchange between ICANT and myself you can see that he was sifting through the FBI statistics and citing how many wives and husbands and sons and daughters and mothers and fathers and friends were killed by a wife, a husband, a son, a daughter, a mother, a father or a friend. When you introduce a gun into a home you increase the chances for another murder of a friend or loved one. Bingo! There are some circumstances where not wearing your seat belt is a good idea, but overall you are better off wearing it. And there are some circumstances where owning a gun is a good idea, but overall you are better off not owning it. You're obviously having trouble following the conversation. You had just a couple paragraphs earlier quoted me saying, "Under certain circumstances it is safer to be carrying a gun," but now you turn around and claim that my position is that guns can only make you less safe. It's usually a good idea to make sure you understand a position before attempting to rebut it, but if you're not willing to do that you should at least make sure to avoid contradictory expressions of that position.You repeat your arguments contrasting urban and rural environs while still failing to recognize that if the justification for a gun is self defense then the further one gets from crime centers the less one needs a gun, and the more the dangers of a gun in the home rise to the fore. Some of us form irrational attachments to things like gods and guns and elevate amendments to the status of commandments. If I were to seek illogic and grasping at straws I would look to that quarter.--Percy

So we agree that the more guns the more murders, but disagree on whether the benefits of guns justify the additional deaths. So what are the benefits of guns? I thought it was self defense, but: So just what are the benefits of guns? Faith's defense against tyranny? Really? I think the problem lies more in your own position. You're trying to promote the position that guns provide some benefit that is more precious than life itself. Naturally this is frustrating.I don't think there's much benefit from dwelling on the seat belt and other examples, but I do find it puzzling that you don't see that there are times when not smoking (think medical marijuana), seat belts, dieting and exercise are contraindicated, just as there are times when one is safer with a gun than without. We can even mix the seat belt example with guns, where a person seated in the driver's seat of a parked car is fired upon from the sidewalk and would have a better chance to escape if he could just open the door and flee, but unfortunately in the panic he can't find the seat belt button...--Percy

Hi CS,Let me try to get a more clear picture of your objection. You agree that the statistics show that the more guns the more murders, but you disagree that they show that introducing a gun into the home increases the risk of death among residents because you believe that whether the home is in the city or the country makes a big difference. Is that correct?If so then look at this chart titled Number of Deaths by Firearms by Intent, Age Group and Rates* of Firearm-Related Fatalities in Urban and Rural Areas, Arizona Residents, 2009: In column 1 the table is divided between Urban, Rural and Total firearm sections. In column 2 the table is divided by age groups. If you look at the totals in the right hand column you'll see that for all age groups except 15-19 that the firearm fatalities per 100,000 people is higher in rural than urban areas.So much for your claim that you're at greater danger of gun death in the crime-ridden cities.--Percy

No, they are good conclusions from goods stats. You disparage them because they show your position false. Even if we go with just the homicide rate and ignore the other categories as you do here: The urban areas have a mere 1.1 more homicides per 100,000 people, contradicting your claim of a meaningful difference in the risk of murder between the urban and rural. Gun deaths are the primary concern, and that includes suicides and murders and accidents and justifiable homicides. The focus will necessarily shift throughout the discussion. We can focus on just murders whenever you like, but first: This is an odd way to put it, but if you're saying what I think you're saying: At least you're consistent about your concern for human life. Ah, yes. Arizona is special, you're special (e.g., criminals come up to you and confess), ICANT is special. Where does it end? And about this: Of course a huge percentage of homicides occur in urban centers. That's where a huge percentage of the population resides. What you need are figures per 100,000 people, which you did provide in Message 1303. But as I said at the time, if a gun were actually effective for personal defense then you would be arguing that your safety increases in a city when you're carrying, while in the country your safety does not increase because there's less threat of crime.But you're not arguing that, and that's because despite all the noise from the gun lobby, guns are not really very effective for personal defense when it comes to murder. The degree to which they increase personal safety because of their deterrent effect is vastly outweighed by their contributions to personal risk from yourself, family and friends.The reasons owning a gun is a threat to safety have very little to do with the threat of crime. Most of the risk comes from yourself and people you know, and that's true whether you live in the city or country.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi ICANT,You're having remarkable difficulty understanding the English language. First you claimed you pointed out how the source of the firearm and murder location could be garnered from the FBI statistics, but then to support that claim you quoted yourself saying you had "no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place."Next you claimed I was the source of the constraint that the victim be the gun owner, but to support that you quoted me saying only that "having a gun in the home makes you less safe" and clearly making no comment about the owner of the gun.If you start making sense again I might reengage, but I've had enough for now.--Percy

Given that the overall statistics say the number of gun deaths correlates with the number of guns, the expectation would be that Chicago has a higher number of guns per 100,000 people than does the rest of the state.If the murders were just gang related then one would expect the Chicago suicide rate to be average, but it's not. The Chicago suicide rate is relatively high, which is what one would expect if there were a higher concentration of guns.Let me comment as an aside that the impulse purchases of guns this year in reaction to Newtown and other similar but smaller incidents should lead to a rise in suicides over the next few years. I assume this will happen, emphasizing the relationship between guns and suicides, as if that were necessary. I have two reactions to this. First, it seems possible I'm debating a more rational CS now, so maybe I'm being too quick to assume your arguments will go off in crazy and unpredictable directions like they did earlier with alien invasions and so forth. Keep in mind that you had just finished saying that you don't thinks guns have any influence on suicides when the data on this is even stronger than the data on guns and homicides, so you have to admit that it can be difficult to know when to take you seriously. But if you are intent on serious discussion now then your objection to the Arizona data should perhaps have been addressed at greater length.Second, reacting now to your comments, your objections to the statistical information are of much the same nature, claims that they aren't necessarily typical. But it would be remarkable if they were not typical. We know that guns and gun deaths go together, and all the statistics we've discussed either show this directly or are consistent with this. Any country as large and varied as the US will have significant departures from the norm, but that's true of any large statistical database no matter what the object of study and cannot be a grounds for questioning validity.So using the Chicago example, the higher homicide rate could be due to a higher concentration of guns, it could be a short term situation due to gang wars that have erupted over the past year or so, it could be both, or there could be other factors. And whatever we're able to ferret out about the causes of Chicago's higher homicide rate, it's still just one city. It won't change the fact that overall, more guns mean more gun deaths. Yes, CS, I do have the data for this. While I totally understand ignoring subthreads where certain people are participating, it does leave you unaware of some of the information.--Percy

This is the abstract from a meta-study (a study that combines the results of many studies) titled Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home: Study after study confirms that guns in the home constitute a danger to the residents, and simple logic argues that it could not be any other way. Once in the home a gun has a small but finite chance of being used, and when you apply that small chance across millions of homes you get thousands of murders and thousands more suicides.--Percy

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you've chosen the wrong analogy, and your point doesn't hold. The data we have says that gun deaths are proportional to guns, which makes perfect sense. I'm only saying the same thing all the studies say, that it doesn't matter where you are, a gun increases the risk of death for those nearby. Certainly there will be variations and certainly there will be other factors that also affect the gun death rate, but the prevalence of guns in a population is the clear overriding factor.You don't seem to realize that statements like these are contradictory: If guns uses were predominately against criminals then they would be in the statistics, but as you keep noting as if it were evidence in your favor, the statistics show no such thing. That's because when guns are used it is predominately against someone the perpetrator knows or loves. I'm referring to the studies I've cited. In your next message you address the one I most recently cited, so let me address that now: If you're going to distort the study's conclusions then you shouldn't quote them just above the distortion. Concerning the benefits of gun ownership the abstract says "there are fewer studies", not "we don't have any data." And about their deterrent and defensive abilities it adds, "there is no credible evidence", something you have repeatedly agreed with when you bemoan the lack of data supporting your views.Effective defensive uses of guns for personal defense would range from the barely apparent to a gun being discharged and all the way up to guns blazing on both sides with multiple deaths. Naturally there will be no record of those near the low end of the range, and we all understand that, but obviously those anywhere near the top end of the range will be recorded in the statistics. Doctors and hospitals are required to notify the police of all gun injuries.The problem for you is that the statistics record extremely few such incidents. Incidents such as that of Samuel Williams shooting robbers in an Internet cafe (Samuel Williams Shoots At Internet Cafe Robbery Suspects Duwayne Henderson, Davis Dawkins (VIDEO)) occur far more rarely than they would were effective defensive uses of guns as common as you keep claiming. For your position to have any possibility of holding true would require the vast majority of defensive uses of guns to end quietly with no one noticing, which by the requirements of any bell shaped curve makes no sense whatsoever. If guns were truly effective for personal defense then the infinite value of a child's life would demand that one keep a gun in the home. That you give the opposite counsel says that at some level you do understand that guns place everyone in the house at greater risk.By the way, you can't keep using personal defense in your arguments for your position on guns and have your protests that your position is not based on their value for personal defense remain credible.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Precisely the point.Popular uprisings succeed not by the citizenry outgunning the standing military but politically through loss of support for the current regime. Armed rebellion simply declares to the world with greatest clarity that a regime has lost the support of the people. For that purpose standing unarmed before a line of tanks has far greater effect than any popguns.--Percy

Faith, welcome back and all that, but you're popping into threads like this one and The Origin of Novelty without taking the time to get the context. In this case you've somehow missed the context of how effectively an armed citizenry can oppose a modern military.Most laws require far more frequent updating than every 200 years, and I think the 2nd amendment is long overdue, especially since there seems to be such a wide variety of interpretation.--Percy

I was ignoring Faith's reference to the revolutionary war since it was out of context, but if we're going to talk about it then it is important to note that the colonists were revolting against an absentee government run from England, not their local governments. The revolt itself was carried out by the elected government of the colonists. The Continental Congress declared that they were at war with Great Britain, negotiated treaties with France for economic and military support, raised a standing army, and appointed General George Washington to lead it.The kind of thing the gun advocates are thinking of is more like the Whiskey Rebellion back in the earliest days of the young US. Which by the way failed.--Percy

Theodoric asked Faith to explain why she was citing the Battle of New Orleans so that he didn't have to sift through a video looking for her point, and I was wondering the same thing and equally didn't want to watch a video, but I was in a different mood today and so I watched the video.It was short and thoroughly enjoyable.It was a photo montage set to the music of "The Battle of New Orleans" by Johnny Horton. Every time they sang "the hounds couldn't catch him" there were pictures of hounds. Every time they sang "the briers and the brambles" there were pictures of briers and brambles. Every time they sang "down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico" there were pictures of the Gulf of Mexico. At one point there was that picture of a squirrel firing a machine gun that Dennis Markuze liked so much.There was one minor inaccuracy - the video's title places the battle in 1814 when it was actually in 1815.But there was no citizenry involved. This battle was between two armies, one British and one American. The American army was attempting to repel, successfully in the end but after the war was officially over, a British invasion. The video's title picture actually shows US General Andrew Jackson in uniform.So this battle supports Faith's position about the need for an armed citizenry to counterbalance the possible rise of tyrannical government so poorly that she must have been making some other point, but I can't imagine what it was. Your Alamo reference doesn't seem to fit as rebuttal, either, so maybe I'm missing something.--Percy

Yes, this was pointed out over a thousand messages ago. Soldiers in those days provided their own weapons. The necessity for a militia is why the 2nd amendment guaranteed a right to keep and bear arms. But today the military provides the weapons and the 2nd amendment is an anachronism.There's nothing in the 2nd amendment about an armed citizenry being necessary to oppose tyranny.--Percy