New gun control push because of Tucson shooting

[Wingates_Hellsing]

That's a good question, unfortunately there's not really any data on it that I've been able to find.

Nevertheless, in lieu of direct info, we do know that armed civilians and LE have exhibited basically equal ability to discern the nature of situations and act under stress elsewhere, so it's therefore likely that the number of civilian over-reactions are on par with the number of LE over-reactions etc. etc.

The only exception is implementation of the Castle Doctrine, which equates less than well with any specific LE situation outside vehicle invasions and the Active Shooter Protocol. In the end there's little reason that any of those scenarios are more common amongst civilians than LE.

Hard data would be better, so if anyone comes across any that would be great.

[Gravekeeper]

*ahem*
That's what you said, right there, so unless you have something to actually refute my conclusion...

And you extrapolated my sarcastic comment ( hence the emoticon ) into "every enemy killed in Iraq and Afghanistan was killed by UAVs". Which is not what I said. If I was to list every possible example of how the military would blow your arse up that didn't involve a firefight with ground troops it would take some time.

So basically you're agreeing with me. okay.

Yes I am. But I was talking to Blaque about her Us vs Them scenario. Not a realistic scenario.

I probably wouldn't sell to people who're shooting at each other either, they're preoccupied and your merchandise ends up with all these holes...

Quite. Also we have one of the largest oil reserves in the world. So we'll be busy securing our border >.>

Actually we are talking about why the government shouldn't attack, most of the power behind a deterrent is the creation of a scenario where the deterred action becomes a bad idea/worse idea than before.

No, we're not. We're talking about Blaque's Us vs Them scenario which she framed as purely a numbers game.

Not really, his conclusions are pretty consistently derived from the data, and unless you can point to an instance in which he exercises a bias this is a non-argument at best.

The contested data you mean? Also, if you can't spot biased in that, look harder. >.> He frames some conclusions that are only technically correct by the barest margin. For example he conluded that the populace would feel less safer without guns around. But the actual numbers he use indicate only by a margin of 9% and don't mention that the majority would feel as safe or safer with without them.

I see no reason why the same study would find anything different now than it did then especially since, as you so helpfully pointed out, actual hard data on this area is pretty hard to find.

If you're going to base a study on statistics, you get the most current statistics you can get. Especially if its something to do with population, crime rates and the like. A fuck of a lot can change in 20-30 years. The populations larger, laws may have changed, crime rates have most certainly changed, gun ownership could have gone up or down, etc etc.

So you take what you can get.

No you don't actually. Because you can't be sure its accurate and thus can't be reliably referred too. If his study was peer reviewed and everyone said "Yep, that all checks out" sure. But it didn't.

Possibly, as with all things. But in the end, all of the data we've got indicates that the idea of gun control is fallacious and the concept of self defense via firearms is very well grounded.

Think you're missing some rather key thoughts in that sentence. Specifically, a "idea of gun control in the US is fallacious" perhaps. Because its working just fine elsewhere.

Unless you have stronger data that demonstrates the opposite we've got no choice but to go by what we do have.

....that's not how this works. If research doesn't hold up, but its the only research we've got it doesn't mean it's right and automatically disproves opposing viewpoints. Besides, like I said earlier, to claim there's no correlation between gun violence and gun culture/availability is staggering ignorant. Even the briefest glance at world wide rates of gun related violence vs gun availbility to its populace will tell you that.

I'm not disputing that you can't successfully use a gun for self defence. Of course you can, it's a weapon. That's what it does. I'm disputing that the availability of such a lethal weapon is somehow a good thing because it works in a cycle of escalation. They have a knife, you get a gun, you have a gun, they get a gun. Or that everyone having such weapons would help avert tragedies such as Arizona, which it wouldn't. Its just introducing yet more dangerous factors into an already chaotic situation.

If anything, a gun owner in such a situation in the crowd with good judgement wouldn't open fire at all because of the risk. Which I believe is what actually with the one gun owner that ran to the scene, wasn't it?

But yet again, I point to the very first thing I said in this thread. Which was that I didn't believe any new policy should be drafted as a reaction to the Arizona shooting. I have at no point made any such call for any new laws. Nor am I now.

Irrelevant to the veracity of this article. You must demonstrate that these studies and these conclusions are fallacious not controversial.

....aren't you listening? >.>

Also, the last time I checked Lotts disagreements with Gary are far from 'bashing' label-worthy, and in academia it's important to remember that disagreement isn't a sin.

Dude, he created fake Amazon accounts so he could leave shitty reviews for books written by his peers and go around Amazon and Usenet telling people how awesome *he* was. He also has none of his data anymore and says it was lost in a hard drive crash. But can't remember the names of any of the students he had do the survey for him. When he repeated his studies, he use a sample size too small to be conclusive and his results conflicted with Gary's research. These two disagree with each other. That's not a sin, no, but it certainly undermines the credibility of the results.

Which means that, while the criminals are armed more than in other countries, there's also fewer of them or at least they're less active.

.....What? Go take a look at US crime rates. >.>

What we really need is a study comparing the number of victims that are injured or lose property when the criminal has a gun to the number of victims that are injured or lose property when the criminal has anything else, just can't seem to find one...

Yes, we *do* need more study and research done. That's sort of my point with the two references Vash gave. But very little has been done on defensive gun usage and what has been done is fiercely contested. Not by others, but between the researchers themselves. ><

Largely unsupported generalizations.

Speak for yourself.

If you can demonstrate any of those things, more power to you, if not, then obviously there's no point listening because it's mighty hard to hear an argument that isn't being made!

....ok. See this is why I went with rooster tits. You're....elsewhere, in your own little echo chamber.

Actually, with a simple google search the data he used is widely available, just takes a little effort.

The 30 year old data? Or the inconclusive sample size data?

As to whether or not the limited follow up was big enough to 'count' I'll leave that up for the experts

It was the "experts" that said his sample size was too small.

So it's definitely not proof against his study's veracity.

Yes it is.

Gah, why am I even bothering. This is still just rooster tits.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

And you extrapolated my sarcastic comment ( hence the emoticon ) into "every enemy killed in Iraq and Afghanistan was killed by UAVs". Which is not what I said. If I was to list every possible example of how the military would blow your arse up that didn't involve a firefight with ground troops it would take some time.

Not really, the grand majority of support strikes require ground units with LOS to call them in which means at the very least they have to get within a certain distance depending on terrain.

The contested data you mean? Also, if you can't spot biased in that, look harder. >.> He frames some conclusions that are only technically correct by the barest margin. For example he conluded that the populace would feel less safer without guns around. But the actual numbers he use indicate only by a margin of 9% and don't mention that the majority would feel as safe or safer with without them.

9% is a hell of a lot of people, over nine times the number of people with CCPs just for some frame of reference. His conclusion that more people feel safer with guns than without them is direct from the data and the people who don't care are irrelevant as they're an argument for neither side. Most people feel as safe or safer with them by a margin of 9% over people who feel as safe or safer without them.

If you're going to base a study on statistics, you get the most current statistics you can get. Especially if its something to do with population, crime rates and the like. A fuck of a lot can change in 20-30 years. The populations larger, laws may have changed, crime rates have most certainly changed, gun ownership could have gone up or down, etc etc.

All indications are that crime rates are down, gun ownership has gone up as well as CCP issuance. In other words, from what we know from more recent data, the trends that he noticed then from the data he had are still trending that way. Fresh data would be better but that doesn't change the fact that this data is basically unopposed. Old or not it's still the best we've got and whether or not any of those things have changed is something that needs to be established by a new study, not just taken for granted because it's old. So far the anti-gunners have utterly failed to provide any. So who's more likely to be right? the ones with some moderately old data? or the people with no data at all?

No you don't actually. Because you can't be sure its accurate and thus can't be reliably referred too. If his study was peer reviewed and everyone said "Yep, that all checks out" sure. But it didn't.

All listing that I came across listed this study as being peer reviewed, I found no proof that it wasn't. If you want to prove that this study is false, or that some dynamic that it found to be true then is no longer true now, feel free to come up with that. Nevertheless, that's not how science works, to disprove their conclusions you need to either find a flaw in their methodology, which no one has, or use the same methodology or improved methodology and come up with a disagreeing result.

Think you're missing some rather key thoughts in that sentence. Specifically, a "idea of gun control in the US is fallacious" perhaps. Because its working just fine elsewhere.

Most countries in the world have gun problems, and so far there's been no indication that gun control has worked in nations that have enacted such measures (incidents of gun violence before legislation in the UK look to be about the same after, with some reports a bit lower, others a bit higher)

Armed civilians are also proving themselves to be quite useful in other areas, such as in Israel where the government actively supports them.

....that's not how this works. If research doesn't hold up, but its the only research we've got it doesn't mean it's right and automatically disproves opposing viewpoints. Besides, like I said earlier, to claim there's no correlation between gun violence and gun culture/availability is staggering ignorant. Even the briefest glance at world wide rates of gun related violence vs gun availbility to its populace will tell you that.

You're staggeringly missing the point here. The research is sound, just old. Old =/= unsound. At the very least it was true then, what makes you think it isn't true now? What significant social shift do you think has occurred that would reverse the situation?

I'm not disputing that you can't successfully use a gun for self defence. Of course you can, it's a weapon.

Every time you harp on about how an armed civilian couldn't help in situations such as Arizona that's exactly what you're saying. Self Defense also applies to defending others.

I'm disputing that the availability of such a lethal weapon is somehow a good thing because it works in a cycle of escalation.

So far all you've done is said that it works in a cycle of escalation, not at all proven it. Ultimately, if the amount of violent crimes goes down either because of deterrence or the fact that they are thwarted, isn't that more important than what the criminal is armed with? Criminals will take anything that's available and law or no law guns are going to be available sooner or later, until then there's still plenty of options that are almost as lethal and therefore just as serious.

<snip, see above>Or that everyone having such weapons would help avert tragedies such as Arizona, which it wouldn't. Its just introducing yet more dangerous factors into an already chaotic situation.

Weapons have on many occasions averted tragedies exactly like the Tuscon shooting, and if adding guns into that situation is a bad thing than I'd hardly think that law enforcement, whom you seem to trust as the sole experts and the only persons to be trusted, actively practice ASP which states that any officer responding to this situation should close with the shooter as fast as possible and engage them until it's over. The professionals have learned that the best way to stop a gunman is to shoot him, and this is far, far more practical than you assume.

If anything, a gun owner in such a situation in the crowd with good judgement wouldn't open fire at all because of the risk. Which I believe is what actually with the one gun owner that ran to the scene, wasn't it?

Incorrect, gun owners who found they did not have a clean shot have behaved exactly as law enforcement officers do, which is to say they "close to engage"

The armed civilian in question arrived late to the party, after the other sheepdogs had taken the shooter down. He saw someone with a gun, noticed that they didn't seem to be the shooter, and investigated this to determine it and once he did: he chipped in as necessary. Is sounds extraordinary to some, but it really isn't.

But yet again, I point to the very first thing I said in this thread. Which was that I didn't believe any new policy should be drafted as a reaction to the Arizona shooting. I have at no point made any such call for any new laws. Nor am I now.

Arguing in criticism of the current system from the direction of an alternative is endorsement of that alternative, endorsement of something is support for it. Therefore you are supporting that alternative.

....aren't you listening? >.>

Are you debating? because the grand majority of what I've heard so far has been "No it's not!, it's like this!" with no actual proof.

Dude, he created fake Amazon accounts so he could leave shitty reviews for books written by his peers and go around Amazon and Usenet telling people how awesome *he* was. He also has none of his data anymore and says it was lost in a hard drive crash. But can't remember the names of any of the students he had do the survey for him. When he repeated his studies, he use a sample size too small to be conclusive and his results conflicted with Gary's research. These two disagree with each other. That's not a sin, no, but it certainly undermines the credibility of the results.

From what I can find, the grand majority of those various incidents were apparently people disagreeing with him trying to undermine him, except one which amounted to a few posts on Usenet and Amazon that were self-aggrandizing. Childish but it really has no bearing on weather or not he's right or wrong.

.....What? Go take a look at US crime rates. >.>

We're back to this again? Academics agree that crime is connected to poverty or more specifically class disparity (real or perceived). If they're wrong, prove it, otherwise: moving on.

Yes, we *do* need more study and research done. That's sort of my point with the two references Vash gave. But very little has been done on defensive gun usage and what has been done is fiercely contested. Not by others, but between the researchers themselves. ><

Most of the contention is going on before anyone does any research in cases where there's anything of significance being attempted, with people nitpicking endlessly before they even have anything to look at. The rest of it is a heap of individual things cherry-picked and erroneously proclaimed to be true 'because of the US crime levels!!!!'

The conclusion that's most readily drawn from this IMO, seeing as how it's the large "bi-partisan" groups that are failing left and right is that in order for a large social study to go through on a controversial topic you really need to have a group that either doesn't care or agrees. Both sides have managed this but while Kleck's study is large scale and derived from sound rational conclusions from the data, the anti gunner's stuff has been incredibly small-scale and poorly constructed.

Speak for yourself.

I've referenced plenty of trends that I've found to be true in practical application. If you'd like I can inundate you with a bunch of links to each and every one but that's a waste of time because all you've come up with so far is how you think it would work on paper. On paper it seems like a civilian would not be able to take down a mass murdered, but they do. On paper it seems like more guns means more crime, but the opposite has happened. Besides, Vash was so kind as to bring all the specific data we need.

....ok. See this is why I went with rooster tits. You're....elsewhere, in your own little echo chamber.

Either that, or you're throwing out a mist of non-arguments and fallacious connections. That you're making an argument in no way makes it a convincing argument.

The 30 year old data? Or the inconclusive sample size data?

From what I can find, the raw data on one of his studies was lost (which is not at all outside the bounds of probability) but the information he sourced for his major publications is still widely available.

It was the "experts" that said his sample size was too small.

From what I can find, they spent a lot of time talking about how it wasn't anywhere close to the strength of the original, but that the fact that it was consistent counts for a little.

Yes it is.

Gah, why am I even bothering. This is still just rooster tits.

In order for something to prove something else false, it kindof has to start by disagreeing with it. The later study doesn't prove anything, for or against the original.

[Vash113]

Ignoring the fact Gary has a pretty blatant agenda, and this study is over a decade old and at points he uses data over 20-30 years old, and thus this entire study is woefully out of date. And that his study, and the entire topic of defensive gun use is a massively conflicted shitstorm between several different studies and universities that squabbled over it for years. And that your second reference, John Lott, can't produce any of the survey data he used, his sample sizes were too small and that he use to write phony reviews on Amazon some of which bash your first reference, Gary... >.>

Actually as far as I can see you are incorrect, there is not a big conflict when it comes to research data on defensive gun use, of the dozen and more surveys and studies only one does not agree with the others. Pretty much all the others match up well within the margin of error for their given sample sizes, around 1.5% or so.

John Lott's original data was lost and his follow up data is too small to re-emphasize his earlier conclusions but really his data is the absolute weakest in our argument and wasn't even something we were rellying on. Even if you could discredit his conclusions, which you haven't so far, it doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming weight of material is still behind us. All you've brought up is that Lott is a somewhat petty academic, hardly a surprise.

Also Gary Kleck has no particular agenda that I can find, his conclusions are purely based on his scientific research and he is one of the most accomplished and respected Crimonologists in the country and his material has been published in peer reviewed publications. He also published findings that the majority of handguns that wind up in criminal possession are stolen from police officers and civilians, clearly not something pro-gun lobbyists like to see and a clear indication that he does not alter his findings based on an agenda. Complain all you want, scientific data doesn't lie, whether you think Kleck is biased or not the data is still there and its conclusively in support of the effectiveness of defensive gun use.

First of all, of course you're going to have a lot of defensive gun use. As I said earlier, if the tools are available, they will be used. And if the culture embraces, even applauds their use, damn straight they're going to be whipped out whenever possible.

This assertion is pure speculation and does not meet up with the facts. The data actually concludes that the grand majority of gun owners only use them when necessary and only a pitifully small percentage actually fire their weapons defensively. Only 8% of the 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year result in shooting and only about 1% actually involve wounding or killing a criminal, and if that weren't small enough only about 17.5% of criminals actually hit are killed. For the record that's .017% of the total defensive gun uses per year. So completely in contrast to your statement gun owners do not whip out firearms whenever possible.

The problem is they will be used by everyone. Again, you have more defensive gun use than criminal use? Ok, but you still have far more criminal use than countries with a lower rate of firearm ownership, availability and/or stricter gun control laws too. Its an escalating cycle.

That does not address crime rates in general. Japan has extraordinarily strict gun control, even criminals do not use guns in that country, but stabbings are through the roof and that's even with a relatively low rate of reported crimes. Restricting guns from law abiding citizens doesn't stop criminals from being able to commit crimes. Call it a self-fulfilling prophecy or escalation if you want but it doesn't change the facts.

I'm not even going to touch his study & summary too be honest. I read it and started writing up a big ass discussion, but there's not much point is there? His study is outdated, criticized, debated, makes leaps of logic to support his view and is just one of many in a larger academic conflict between several universities over the entire topic.

Unfortunately I see absolutely no basis for these claims. His conclusions are well supported and peer reviewed, he makes no leaps of logic beyond what is absolutely necessary for the feild and his data is actually on the low end of what studies have concluded. Far from a huge academic conflict I see very little serious criticism of his work or opposition in the academic field.

Also you have no real proof that the material is outdated. It is the most recent data the field has and comes from all available sources. Sciences doesn't ignore scientific findings because they are old, we still follow Newton's laws do we not but it's been centuries since he had that apple drop on his head. Twenty years is actually not that long as far as society is concerned and the Constitutional laws still protecting our rights are over 250 years old. No data or material has suggested that there has been a significant societal trend change since these surveys collected their data or their conclusions were drawn. You can't ignore the results or findings because they weren't done yesterday.

All told I'm extremely dissapointed, I was hoping for some better opposition than this. No material? No data? No scientific arguments? No reference to the Brady Campaign or other opposition material? I mean really, they have a lot of spurrious claims that I would have loved to prove wrong with science and logic but oh well...

I should also note that I've noticed a lot of sarcastic and personal statements, claims and accusations come from you, things like these:

"....aren't you listening? >.>"

".....What? Go take a look at US crime rates. >.>"

"Speak for yourself."

"....ok. See this is why I went with rooster tits. You're....elsewhere, in your own little echo chamber."

"Gah, why am I even bothering. This is still just rooster tits."

Add to that baseless attempts to undermine or discredit just about everyone brought up, to dismiss every fact, argument and data point with nothing but opinion and assertions that gun rights supporters or gun owners are vigilanties and numerous other unjustified character attacks. All without bringing up really any actual data or scientific evidence of your own, not stastistics, no survey data, not crime rates, shooting rates, nothing.

While you have spent a significant ammount of time trying to argue against our beliefs and our data, not only have you failed to do so but you have not provided evidence for any of your own claims. Perhaps we are biased, but we nevertheless have absolutely no reason or motivation to believe claims, accusations or concerns that have no basis in fact or peer reviewed analysis.

P.S.

With regards to the claim that 9% of the population is nothing I should point out that as of 2010 that 9% of America's 308 Million People is over 27 Million people. More importantly the 41% of the population that would feel less safe without guns ammounts to over 126 Million people.

Like it or not more than 2 out of every 5 people would feel less safe without guns, considerably more than those who would feel more safe. We have a government by the people for the people, whether you trust gun owners or not doesn't matter, they and those who support them outnumber those who are irrationally afraid of guns. Even if that were not so we also have rule of the Majority, rights of the Minority, gun ownership is a right so even if we didn't have the majority its still a protected right.

[Andara Bledin]

I have to agree with that. Take the average gang-land shooting. These assholes simply spray the entire area with bullets.

We've had no less than 5 in the last 3 years in my neighborhood. 4 of those were gang-related (the not-so local Mexican gang keeps shooting up the local black gangers), 2 of those within a block of my apartment. In 4 of those, there were only a few shots fired, with the main targets dying, 1 target surviving, and no non-targets being hit. The 5th case was actually the cops doing the shooting against a crazy dude holed up in a shop. I'm pretty sure he survived, but I do know he never actually fired a shot - I think it was determined that he wasn't actually armed.

To that end though. I dont think I would mind if hand guns were banned altogether as seriously.. they only have one purpose.

Tell that to one of the hundreds of people who wasn't victimized last year because they had one.

Gah, why am I even bothering. This is still just rooster tits.

I'm not sure, really. You appear to have your mind set on your position and have already stated that you don't think it's possible to get anyone to change their mind (despite there being one person in this thread that already did change their mind based on Internet discussions).

^-.-^

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Come to think of it, Vash, you only quoted Lott once and that was his claim that no innocent bystander has ever been injured by an armed civilian during a mass shooting.

For that not to be true all you need to find is one instance where that happened. I've searched high and low Gravekeeper, maybe you'll have better luck.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not sure, really. You appear to have your mind set on your position and have already stated that you don't think it's possible to get anyone to change their mind (despite there being one person in this thread that already did change their mind based on Internet discussions).

Well in all blunt honesty, do you think anyone is going to change their mind in this, or the previous how ever many gun control threads? Its not happening. It's too passionate an issue. Perhaps even more so than religion in some ways. The US has a gun culture, and that's that. Its very difficult for those outside of the US to understand it and conversely its difficult for some in the US to understand those of us without said culture.

Also Gary Kleck has no particular agenda that I can find.

Read what you yourself posted from him? Hell, this is his author's picture. -.-

This assertion is pure speculation and does not meet up with the facts. The data actually concludes that the grand majority of gun owners only use them when necessary and only a pitifully small percentage actually fire their weapons defensively.

Cept thats not what I meant. I didn't mean used as in actually gunning down your attacker willy nilly. I mean used defensively as defined by the very study you brought up. I did read what you copypasta'd. -.-

That does not address crime rates in general. Japan has extraordinarily strict gun control, even criminals do not use guns in that country, but stabbings are through the roof and that's even with a relatively low rate of reported crimes.

Cept I can run from a guy with a knife far more effectively than I can a guy with a gun. There's a bit of a gap in the ease of use. I have a chance of grappling and disarming someone with a knife, and there are techniques taught specifically to do so. No technique in the world is going to help me dodge a bullet though.

Unfortunately I see absolutely no basis for these claims. His conclusions are well supported and peer reviewed, he makes no leaps of logic beyond what is absolutely necessary for the feild and his data is actually on the low end of what studies have concluded.

His study concluded 2.5 mil defensive gun uses, the Dept of Justice study concluded 1.5 mil, NCVS estimated 108k ( which has *got* to be horribly wrong mind you ). Duke University estimated its somewhere in the middle of both extremes.

One guy wrote an paper on it.

Also you have no real proof that the material is outdated.

He dates all his data. That's pretty concrete. Again, you can't really say the data pans out over 20-30 years on an issue that can be so easily affected by various social and political factors.

I mean really, they have a lot of spurrious claims that I would have loved to prove wrong with science and logic but oh well...

I should also note that I've noticed a lot of sarcastic and personal statements, claims and accusations come from you, things like these:

Physician, heal thyself? Also, me and Wingate have been at this for a while, we're frustrated with each other. Like I said before, its fire and water. We don't understand each other and that is sadly that. It's not that I hate him or want drown him in a river. We just disagree and I'm sure he just can't understand why I don't understand just as much as I don't understand why he can't understand.

Like it or not more than 2 out of every 5 people would feel less safe without guns, considerably more than those who would feel more safe. We have a government by the people for the people, whether you trust gun owners or not doesn't matter, they and those who support them outnumber those who are irrationally afraid of guns.

and 3 out of 5 would feel just as safe or more safe. In other words, the majority would not feel less safe. And I think fear of guns is a fairly rational stand point to be honest. They are lethal weapons. That merits a very healthy respect for them, and people without said respect make me wary. And you know what? its not even the rate of gun ownership when you get right down too it. It's how easy it is to get one and how much the laws on it vary from state to state.

Look, let me clearly lay it out for you guys here before any more this. I'm as sick of arguing as anyone else and if we go in a circle any more we may disrupt the Earth's magnetic poles. -.-

If owning a gun meant you were properly trained in its responsibile use and had been vetted for any issues that would cause you to misuse it, great. But you aren't. The laws vary too much. I don't want to take all your guns away and unmake them in fires of Mount Doom. I'm not against gun ownership, I am against everyone being able to own one ( and ones that normally only the military has access too ) regardless of who they are and whether or not they have the training, judgement and responsibility to use it correctly.

Like I said to begin with, if anything the Arizona shooting is a failure of mental health services more than anything else.

[Andara Bledin]

Well in all blunt honesty, do you think anyone is going to change their mind in this, or the previous how ever many gun control threads? Its not happening. It's too passionate an issue. Perhaps even more so than religion in some ways.

First, from the horses mouth:

Fratching has changed my opinions on gun control.

I've been involved in a debate where one member changed sides while on the topic of abortion. Gun control has nothing on the controversy surrounding that one.

^-.-^

[Vash113]

Well in all blunt honesty, do you think anyone is going to change their mind in this, or the previous how ever many gun control threads? Its not happening. It's too passionate an issue. Perhaps even more so than religion in some ways. The US has a gun culture, and that's that. Its very difficult for those outside of the US to understand it and conversely its difficult for some in the US to understand those of us without said culture.

Actually we just recently had someone mention a similar debates' arguments helped change their mind at least somewhat on the issue, not to mention the silent majority of forum users who are lurkers and do not post but read threads. You seem to be the only one who thinks the discussion is useless.

Read what you yourself posted from him? Hell, this is his author's picture. -.-

So because he published findings based on research data results, he must therefore have an agenda? That's a non sequitur if ever I heard one. As for the picture, he's a Crimonologist, I wouldn't be surprised if he had a few shrunken heads floating around his house somewhere. Not to mention that has no bearing on the validity of his findings. Attempting to undermine the individual does not invalidate their peer reviewed, published findings.

Cept thats not what I meant. I didn't mean used as in actually gunning down your attacker willy nilly. I mean used defensively as defined by the very study you brought up. I did read what you copypasta'd. -.-

Except again there is no indication that these defensive uses occur excessively or without cause, quite the opposite as the situation has to exist already for them to be used. Besides the extremely small number of such incidents that result in any actual injury just goes to prove that gun ownership is not nearly as dangerous as you claim.

Cept I can run from a guy with a knife far more effectively than I can a guy with a gun. There's a bit of a gap in the ease of use. I have a chance of grappling and disarming someone with a knife, and there are techniques taught specifically to do so. No technique in the world is going to help me dodge a bullet though.

Actually this is not necessarily true. Knife fighting and knife wounds are far more vicious than gunfights. A knife fight lasting only a few seconds can result in dozens of mortal wounds, a gunfight lasting a few seconds involves only a handful of bullets and even fewer hits or serious injuries.

Not to mention that there are just as many techniques for disarming a gun wielding opponent as a kife wielding opponent and in many respects they are easier and more effective because the very nature and shape of a handgun allows the trigger finger to be broken with great ease among other things and a larger surface area to work with while many knives cannot easily be taken from an attacker. Push knives for instance are almost impossible to be taken from an opponents hand by virtue of their grip design, the same cannot be said for any firearm.

Also there are many techniques for throwing off an attackers aim with a gun, ducking, weaving and zig-zagging while running make a rapidly moving target near impossible for even experienced shooters to hit, add the usual night-time gloom and obstructing objects like cars for instance, and it is actually much easier to escape a gun wielding opponent than a knife wielding opponent. After all the gun wielder has to stop and take aim while a knife wielding opponent has little reason not to chase you down at which point you are entirely relying on your own fitness level.

All of which doesn't mention the simple fact that you can also throw a knife.

Even so all of this is pointless speculation, while anti-gun debaters bring it up all the time the data shows that running is not that effective regardless of the attacker's armament. Fighting back works better in general and the best way to do so is with a gun.

His study concluded 2.5 mil defensive gun uses, the Dept of Justice study concluded 1.5 mil, NCVS estimated 108k ( which has *got* to be horribly wrong mind you ). Duke University estimated its somewhere in the middle of both extremes.

Actually the Police Foundation survey sponsored by the National Institute of Justice concluded 2.73 million. A number of other surveys all conclude much the same. Not to mention that the lower end 2.5 Million estimate from the National Self-Defense Survey was not conducted by Kleck, he simply used their data. Kleck had no influence over the data and even used the low end estimate data from the National Crime Victimization Survey so often used by anti-gun lobbyists. All told 2.5 Million is by no means the upper extreme as you try to indicate.

One guy wrote an paper on it.

Interestingly enough there's a good deal of supporting evidence in there as well. Even so the 2.5 is still well within reasonable bounds.

He dates all his data. That's pretty concrete. Again, you can't really say the data pans out over 20-30 years on an issue that can be so easily affected by various social and political factors.

Actually yes I can, the issue hasn't ultimately changed that much since the 70s or 80s, statistical spreads and societal trends have not changed very much on this issue. Gun ownership has simply slowly risen while crime rates have slowly fallen. Correllation does not equate causation but it can certainly imply it.

Also I should note that most gun laws don't effect existing gun owners thanks to ubiquitous grandfather clauses.

Physician, heal thyself? Also, me and Wingate have been at this for a while, we're frustrated with each other. Like I said before, its fire and water. We don't understand each other and that is sadly that. It's not that I hate him or want drown him in a river. We just disagree and I'm sure he just can't understand why I don't understand just as much as I don't understand why he can't understand.

I don't think Wingates is frustrated with you at all, and neither am I, and actually he does well understand why you disagree.

and 3 out of 5 would feel just as safe or more safe. In other words, the majority would not feel less safe. And I think fear of guns is a fairly rational stand point to be honest. They are lethal weapons. That merits a very healthy respect for them, and people without said respect make me wary. And you know what? its not even the rate of gun ownership when you get right down too it. It's how easy it is to get one and how much the laws on it vary from state to state.

Actually that is an invalid argument as I could simply say that 7/10 feel equally or less safe invalidating the need for any legal change. You cannot apply the middle ground and of those with concerns on the issue those who would feel less safe significantly outnumber those who would feel more safe.

As for fearing guns, well that is irrational by its very deffinition. A healthy respect is always good but that does not equate fear. There is no reason to fear a gun as long as you handle it properly just like anything. Do you fear cars? More people die in automobile accidents every year than from gunshots by a significant margin, yet we don't have attempts to ban cars every time someone is killed by one. Drunk drivers in particular kill a great many people every year but laws proposed in the wake of deaths are about the irresponsible behavior of the individual, not really the car or the booz.

As for the laws, well that is the nature of State's Rights. The availability of firearms is a much debated topic but I should note that no legally owned automatic weapon has ever been used in a crime, despite how much such things are targeted by anti-gun legislation. The majority of handguns used in crimes are acquired from other criminals. While many are initially stolen from homes and police officers they are not being stolen in large numbers all the time, rather each one circulates around the black market for some time, so it really isn't a problem about the ease of acquiring a firearm legally as it is an issue of crime in general.

Look, let me clearly lay it out for you guys here before any more this. I'm as sick of arguing as anyone else and if we go in a circle any more we may disrupt the Earth's magnetic poles. -.-

I'm not sick of debating, Wingates isn't sick of it, clearly others aren't sick of it. As the Boy Scouts say, onward and upward!

If owning a gun meant you were properly trained in its responsibile use and had been vetted for any issues that would cause you to misuse it, great. But you aren't. The laws vary too much. I don't want to take all your guns away and unmake them in fires of Mount Doom. I'm not against gun ownership, I am against everyone being able to own one ( and ones that normally only the military has access too ) regardless of who they are and whether or not they have the training, judgement and responsibility to use it correctly.

This is very much not true. Anyone carying a gun around in public legally must have a concealed carry permit. These permits are not easy to acquire, involve a great deal of expense, background checks, and often training in the weapon's proper use.

Additionally military grade firearms are very rare in civilian ownership, most are collectors pieces. Civilians do not often own M16s, or M4s, they own a derivative semi-automatic rifle variant designated the AR-15. This is not an automatic weapon and is one of the most popular civilian owned rifles. But it is by no means military grade equipment.

Actually owning automatic weapons requires a Title 2 liscense, which comes with the ubiquitous sizeable tax stamps and background checks. However actually purchasing an automatic weapon has been illegal for some time, they must be transferred from one owner to another at significant cost, even getting replacement parts incurs substantial cost.

Not to mention that many gun stores give clients a run down of the firearm's function and use along with gun safety rules. Each firearm also is practically guaranteed to have these rules as well. It isn't as though most people can just walk into a shop, throw down a few hundred bucks and walk out with an assault rifle, that's ludicrous.

Like I said to begin with, if anything the Arizona shooting is a failure of mental health services more than anything else.

So what does this have to do with gun laws? As Chris Rock said: "you can't be crazy no more?"

As NRA supporters often say: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Many mass shootings are a problem with mental health services, the Virginia Tech Shooting was a result of Mental Health Services dropping the ball big time. Heck that shooting was directly responsible for me joining Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

[crashhelmet]

Come to think of it, Vash, you only quoted Lott once and that was his claim that no innocent bystander has ever been injured by an armed civilian during a mass shooting.

For that not to be true all you need to find is one instance where that happened. I've searched high and low Gravekeeper, maybe you'll have better luck.

I keep re-reading this over and over again to make sure I understand what you're trying to say.

I read this as you saying that no innocent bystander has ever been injured by an armed civilian during a mass shooting. An innocent bystander has never been wounded or killed by an armed civilian during a mass shooting?

What about Tucson a few weeks ago?
What about Columbine?
What about the 42 other incidents I posted earlier in this thread?

Please clarify your statement for me please. I'm an ESL kid, so writing it in Spanish might make it easier for me to understand.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Well in all blunt honesty, do you think anyone is going to change their mind in this, or the previous how ever many gun control threads? Its not happening. It's too passionate an issue. Perhaps even more so than religion in some ways. The US has a gun culture, and that's that. Its very difficult for those outside of the US to understand it and conversely its difficult for some in the US to understand those of us without said culture.

Except that we know of people who have done it, one in this very thread has said as much. While it may not happen here not only does it happen elsewhere, but just because minds aren't changed doesn't mean the discussion was pointless.

Read what you yourself posted from him? Hell, this is his author's picture. -.-

An author's picture of him with guns? He's a criminologist publishing documents about guns, of course the author's picture has something to do with that. That he has come to a conclusion in no way proves that he has a bias, demonstrate the bias and how it's effected the numbers.

Cept thats not what I meant. I didn't mean used as in actually gunning down your attacker willy nilly. I mean used defensively as defined by the very study you brought up. I did read what you copypasta'd. -.-

The point of stating this number is most in refute to one of the most common anti-gun arguments: the insistence that defensive use is rare. It isn't, not at all to the degree that they insist.

Cept I can run from a guy with a knife far more effectively than I can a guy with a gun. There's a bit of a gap in the ease of use. I have a chance of grappling and disarming someone with a knife, and there are techniques taught specifically to do so. No technique in the world is going to help me dodge a bullet though.

Here's the problem with this logic: the grand majority of violent crime directed at law-abiding citizens is not violent as an objective but rather a means. If you run away from a criminal with a gun he's most likely not going to shoot you to get $40.

Escaping a knife and escaping a gun are less on different planes than they are just different. With a knife your pursuer is most likely going to be putting all their effort into chasing you and you're basically relying on you're greater physical ability. With a gun, your pursuer must attempt to balance pursuit with seeking an opening to shoot if they're inclined to do so. If they're running after you, it's no different than a knife pursuit, if they stop to shoot (which they most certainly will need to) as long as you break LOS as often as possible (something you should do in either case so as to break off pursuit) you stand a very good chance of getting out of there.

Moreover, there are plenty of techniques for disarming both knife and gun-wielding opponents, most if not all of which in both categories still require that you get within arms-reach or less to disarm anyway.

The primary benefit a criminal gets from using a gun to elicit submission is fear, not lethality. And if they intend to kill you anyway you'd best be prepared to fight for your life gun or no gun.

His study concluded 2.5 mil defensive gun uses, the Dept of Justice study concluded 1.5 mil, NCVS estimated 108k ( which has *got* to be horribly wrong mind you ). Duke University estimated its somewhere in the middle of both extremes.

He also notes that there are numerous reasons why even a hypothetically inflated 2.5 mil figure would be low. The poll counted only one use per person, discounting anyone who's experienced multiples, and did not include young adults-the most often violently victimized group. 2.5 mil is up there but it's not nearly as outlandish as it might seem. As Kleck points out, one must speculate both ways: there's reasons it might be low and reasons it might be high, something the paper you linked also points out.

It's not slam-dunk, nothing can be on it's own. But it's still quite solid and evidence to the opposite is thin on the ground.

He dates all his data. That's pretty concrete. Again, you can't really say the data pans out over 20-30 years on an issue that can be so easily affected by various social and political factors.

Whilst the study in it's entirety uses a range of data gathering dates, for the most part each consideration is based off of data that was gathered in the same few years and he's consistent in taking cross-examination with a grain of salt.

As studies go, Kleck's is a lot less about a large amount of data and sub data that's cross-referenced from the same body like most. Instead, it's more of a collection of individual insights into individual data sets that each paint their own pictures and they are considered as a whole with a grain of salt.

Physician, heal thyself? Also, me and Wingate have been at this for a while, we're frustrated with each other. Like I said before, its fire and water. We don't understand each other and that is sadly that. It's not that I hate him or want drown him in a river. We just disagree and I'm sure he just can't understand why I don't understand just as much as I don't understand why he can't understand.

I can't speak for you, but I do understand where you're coming from and why you're coming from there at least overall. My primary point of interest has mostly to do with the individual points. I don't understand why you don't think civilians could positively effect mass shootings, because, perhaps as a result of being fundamentally interested in preparing myself for such situations I have found that it has happened on a number of occasions and in all of those the 'what if' points of contention brought forth by anti-gunners just haven't come to pass. Basically, we know that they do it and that it works. Either there's something not getting from me to them, they're dismissing what's getting through or there's some other concern that's not getting through to me.

My interest in these debates is the potential for these holes in my understanding of the other side to be filled in, even though they often make little or no sense to me, it's still enormously enlightening to know what they are and it's often very difficult to actually get at them.

and 3 out of 5 would feel just as safe or more safe. In other words, the majority would not feel less safe. And I think fear of guns is a fairly rational stand point to be honest. They are lethal weapons. That merits a very healthy respect for them, and people without said respect make me wary. And you know what? its not even the rate of gun ownership when you get right down too it. It's how easy it is to get one and how much the laws on it vary from state to state.

That's not how statistics work >_< the people who don't feel safer or less safe either way do NOT get lumped in with EITHER side. If we do that, we have to do it for both sides: giving no guns 6/10 and guns 7/10, so we're still ahead, not the other way around.

Look, let me clearly lay it out for you guys here before any more this. I'm as sick of arguing as anyone else and if we go in a circle any more we may disrupt the Earth's magnetic poles. -.-

We may be creeping forward at the rate of one of those NASA shuttle-moving crawlers but damn it! forward is forward! Onward, to glory! AND TACOS!

If owning a gun meant you were properly trained in its responsibile use and had been vetted for any issues that would cause you to misuse it, great. But you aren't. The laws vary too much. I don't want to take all your guns away and unmake them in fires of Mount Doom. I'm not against gun ownership, I am against everyone being able to own one ( and ones that normally only the military has access too ) regardless of who they are and whether or not they have the training, judgement and responsibility to use it correctly.

A couple things here: There are a lot of people who can't have guns under federal law. Convicted felons, the mentally ill*, etc. It's far from *everyone* and while it would be great to do more to keep them out of bad people's hands I have yet to be presented with a potential model for further restriction that successfully targets bad people, after a certain point it's just not feasible to determine who they are.
Second the military does not have a monopoly on Military equipment, much of which is increasingly prevalent among LE and IMO therefore edging into the area of not unfeasible for civilian application. Moreover"Military Style" i.e. semi-auto derivatives and they're differences from "Sporting" comparable items is not about raw lethality so much as it's about ergonomics. Moreover, absent statistically significant threat posed to the public it fails the "Clear and Present Danger" check. My pistol grip and my vertical fore grip don't make me deadlier just more comfortable, and my collapsing stock doesn't make my gun any more insidiously concealable so much as it reduces weight and helps many of the longer weapons fit into manageable gun bags/boxes.

Like I said to begin with, if anything the Arizona shooting is a failure of mental health services more than anything else.

On this we can agree, even though we don't agree that having someone nearby ready to shoot him would be good or bad. Hopefully there will be a decent push on the federal level to improve inter-connectivity between mental-health databases and background check services.

I also think there should be a certain amount federal legislation to provide for things like concealed carry and the like in the same way as requirements for background checks. Some examples of proposals I've heard that sound promising to me, if you're interested:
*Federal law protecting CCP holders and gun owners at large from being convicted of 'overreacting' by virtue of caliber choice alone, it's horseshit.
*Federal law providing that concealed carriers may elect to use hollow point and fragmenting ammunition if they so choose, if illegal in their home jurisdiction, they may have only enough to load the magazines they use in their load-out plus one mag's worth for testing purposes and over-flow during purchasing.
*Federal law requiring prohibition signage to meet certain standards: all entrances, eye level, white background, text of certain size and image of certain size etc.
*Federal requirement for basic safety course and fixed distance range qualification to be administered by the local precinct's range or the range they utilize for their qualifications.

These would all be improvements, but I don't think most of them are necessary so much as an increase in efficiency, and that's never a bad thing.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I keep re-reading this over and over again to make sure I understand what you're trying to say.

I read this as you saying that no innocent bystander has ever been injured by an armed civilian during a mass shooting. An innocent bystander has never been wounded or killed by an armed civilian during a mass shooting?

What about Tucson a few weeks ago?
What about Columbine?
What about the 42 other incidents I posted earlier in this thread?

Please clarify your statement for me please. I'm an ESL kid, so writing it in Spanish might make it easier for me to understand.

Armed civilians being responders to the shooter, the shooter is no longer a civilian, he/she is a criminal/combatant. It addresses the worries about civilians engaging shooters causing stray hits and over-penetrating hits.

This has not yet come to pass and is therefore a strong argument in support of the idea that civilian resistance to mass shooters stands to do much more good than bad.

[crashhelmet]

Armed civilians being responders to the shooter, the shooter is no longer a civilian, he/she is a criminal/combatant. It addresses the worries about civilians engaging shooters causing stray hits and over-penetrating hits.

This has not yet come to pass and is therefore a strong argument in support of the idea that civilian resistance to mass shooters stands to do much more good than bad.

Doesn't the Armed Civilian then become a "Vigilante" which therefore makes them a criminal/combatant?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Doesn't the Armed Civilian then become a "Vigilante" which therefore makes them a criminal/combatant?

NO, NOT EVEN A LITTLE! I'm so tired of hearing this one >_<

*deep breath*
Vigilantees are people who circumvent the justice system to administer justice i.e. vengence against criminals, actively looking to start trouble where none existed and often looking to maim or kill their targets. Their actions are illegal.

CCP holders responding to violent crime against themselves or others or active-shooters are seeking to end violence to save lives, their motivation is to stop bad things from happening, not cause them, and their objective is not to kill merely to stop. Their actions are legal under the provisions for self-defense.

[Vash113]

Doesn't the Armed Civilian then become a "Vigilante" which therefore makes them a criminal/combatant?

No... there's no logical reason that they would. A Vigilante is someone who seeks out "criminals" on their own time outside the Justice System generally intending to kill them.

An armed citizen responding to a violent threat is a brave individual putting their own life on the line to protect others and/or themselves. The objective is to protect, not to kill and they work with not against the Justice System.