arma virumque cano (et alia)
Using force to defend yourself during a violent attack is not vigilante anything. Give me a break.
This happened in Hawaii, a gun-control paradise. You'll have a harder time blaming guns that flow across borders, such as what you claim occurs in New Jersey or California, too. Can you see yet that banning guns only disarms the good guys?
This happened in the gun grabbing paradise of Hawaii. It isn't even like California or New Jersey with long open borders on gun loving states.
Crunchie, resorting to personal violence, expecting and anticipating and DESIRING to use personal violence rather than law enforcement is part of our culture being violent (and therefore uncivilized).The store owner did not have a gun, and no one died. The cameras, as noted by law enforcement, are likely to lead to an arrest. The bad guy didn't get away with anything either. Both a silent alarm and a loud alarm would be additional deterrents.That is all preferable to a shoot out between the bad guy and the store owner. That the pro-gunners would prefer the shootout scenario makes them vigilantes, in that context.Yes, Greg, this happened in Hawaii, where they have relatively few of these events. 1. No one is suggesting entirely banning guns; and 2. the people you designate "good guys" now are not all that damned law abiding.Using the figures from this source:http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-statelet me give you a comparison, taking the two closest states alphabetically.Georgia total murders (2010) 527Hawaii total murders (2010) 24Georgia - handgun murders - 315Hawaii - handgun murders - 6Firearm murders per 100,000 populationGeorgia - 3.79Hawaii - 0.54Firearm robberies per 100,000 populationGeorgia 62.49Hawaii 7.46Firearm assaults per 100,000populationGeorgia 52.08Hawaii 13.08That's a pretty fair comparison of apples to apples, particularly that per 100,000 comparison.So, YES Greg and Crunchie, restricting guns - what you call gun bans - DOES come as close to eliminating this kind of event as is humanly possible, and using OTHER police methods and crime deterrent methods works a HELLUVA a lot better than your solution of guns, guns and more guns.
That's nice dog gone. What other variables affect general violent crime rates and specifically violent crime rates where the criminal used a firearm? How do those variables compare between Georgia and Hawaii?
dog gone:"That the pro-gunners would prefer the shootout scenario makes them vigilantes, in that context."What leads you to believe that pro-gunners would prefer a shootout? I sure don't. I don't want to damage my hearing, I don't want to take on civil liability, I don't want to have to justify my actions before the police or local prosecutor, and I don't want the criminal to shoot me or another citizen.I have heard people state countless times on this forum, on other forums, and in other venues, that they will use their firearms defensively as a tool of last resort. People just want to be left alone. I don't know anyone who has ever expressed how they are out looking for gunfights.
dog gone said..."restricting guns - what you call gun bans - DOES come as close to eliminating this kind of event as is humanly possible,"and citing your same article, DC is top in murder and firearm robberies. DC is just as restrictive as Hawaii.Now, looking at New Hampshire, which allows for open carry and a "shall issue" state (and the law requires the license to be issued within 14 days) has a lower murder rate, 0.38, than Hawaii. So, no, fewer guns do not equal fewer crimes.
If this site would moderate comments in a more timely manner, my apparent double post wouldn't have happened. Of course, on my blog, I don't moderate comments beyond a spam filter. But some of us believe in freedom. . .
Capn Crunch said... That's nice dog gone. What other variables affect general violent crime rates and specifically violent crime rates where the criminal used a firearm? How do those variables compare between Georgia and Hawaii?I have never claimed there was only one factor in effect Crunchie.But it is true that with fewer guns there is less gun violence. What makes Hawaii unique is that it is, as Greg pointed out, less subject to guns crossing the state borders from adjoining lax gun areas.That makes the comparison to DC and New Hampshire from someguy inapplicable.GC writesIf this site would moderate comments in a more timely manner, my apparent double post wouldn't have happened.Too bad. If you don't like it, you have the freedom to leave. Use it. We have the freedom to participate in this blog as WE please. WE do the work, at our pleasure, not yours. Of course, on my blog, I don't moderate comments beyond a spam filter.We don't care how you choose to use your freedom to operate your blog. Clear? But some of us believe in freedom. NO. You don't. You clearly do not respect our freedom to do something differently. You don't respect people's rights to be free of danger from firearms, a danger which does not exist to anything like the same degree of frequency or severity where there are NOT quantities of firearms. You only selectively like freedom, you give it empty lip service, but no real respect.I have the freedom to moderate comments. I intend to use it. Piss me off, and I'm free to delete more of your crap for lack of merit, hypocrisy,or any other basis that meets with my own approval and the consensus of my co-bloggers.
Looking at gun ownership by state, although this is a bit old, I found this site:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.htmlgun ownership by state as a percentageGeorgia 40.3Hawaii 8.7New Hampshire 30.0So apparently that 10% of gun owners in the survey is causing an awful lot of difference in gun violence statistics.You have to figure the border state difference in gun ownership is a big part of that as well.So, since Hawaii has both low gun ownership AND borders secure from guns easily coming into the state, fewer guns is effective in reducing gun violence.You know - just like it is everywhere else on the freaking PLANET.
dog gone said..."That makes the comparison to DC and New Hampshire from someguy inapplicable."Regardless of what types of borders Hawaii or New Hampshire have, the fact remains that New Hampshire has lower firearm related murder rate than Hawaii but yet it is a firearms friendly state."gun ownership by state as a percentageGeorgia 40.3Hawaii 8.7New Hampshire 30.0"By your logic, New Hampshire should have a firearms related murder rate nearly three and half times that of Hawaii, but it's lower so your reasoning doesn't work. Furthermore, looking at Vermont with it's 0.32 firearms related murder rate is interesting. Vermont doesn't require a licence to carry open or concealed. What's more interesting is that the very restrictive Hawaii had almost 3.5 times the murders as Vermont. To save you some time, I looked up the reported gun ownership rate of Vermont, it's 42%.
so how do you explain this site:http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000which shows Hawaii as having the LOWEST rate of firarms death of any state, and which puts Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine further up the list?
or this:http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp Gun Deaths & Injuries Gun Deaths & Race Domestic Violence Costs of Gun Violence Gun Ownership Gun Crimes Youth - Gun Violence & Gun Access Dangers of Gun Use For Self-Defense The Dangers of Handguns Dangers of Permissive CCW Laws International/Comparative Statistics Guns in the Home/Safe Storage Guns in the Workplace Guns in Schools Guns on Campus Gun Trafficking/Private Sales Gun Shows Multiple Sales/Purchases Assault Weapons/Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines Non-Powder Guns Personalized FirearmsLearn More Gun Deaths & InjuriesIn 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.169,863 Americans were treated in hospital emergency department for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2007.2Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007, following motor vehicle accidents and poisoning.3Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.4In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.5HomicideGuns were used in 12,632 homicides in 2007, comprising over 40% of all gun deaths, and nearly 69% of all homicides.6On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2002-2007.7Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.8Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides.9 IntroductionThe United States experiences epidemic levels of gun violence, claiming over 30,000 lives annually, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded. Every year, more than 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones.Gun violence touches every segment of our society. It increases the probability of deaths in incidents of domestic violence, raises the likelihood of fatalities by those who intend to injure others and among those who attempt suicide, places children and young people at special risk, and disproportionately affects communities of color.Mass shooting tragedies like the school shootings at Virginia Tech in April 2007 and Northern Illinois University in February 2008 – or the 1993 office shooting in San Francisco that led to the formation of Legal Community Against Violence – receive significant media attention. However, gun deaths and injuries in the U.S. usually occur quietly, without national press coverage, every day.
Also from the LCAV site:http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp#12 A 1991 study documenting the effectiveness of Washington, D.C.’s law banning handguns (this law was recently repealed following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling finding it unconstitutional in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)) found that following the enactment of the ban in 1976, there was a 25% decline in homicides committed with firearms and a 23% decline in suicides committed with firearms within the District of Columbia.56 No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides or suicides committed by other means, nor were similar reductions found in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia.57As a result of its now-repealed handgun ban, the District of Columbia had the lowest rate of youth suicide in the nation – lower than any state.58For more information about the dangers of handguns, see the Violence Policy Center publication Unintended Consequences: Pro-Handgun Experts Prove that Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense.Dangers of Permissive Carrying Concealed Weapons (CCW) LawsShall-issue laws permitting the carrying of concealed firearms (CCW) (where law enforcement has no discretion in issuing a permit or license) do not appear to reduce crime, and no credible statistical evidence exists that such permissive CCW laws reduce crime. There is evidence permissive CCW laws generally will increase crime.59A National Academy of Sciences report reviewing existing data on the effectiveness of firearm laws, including research purporting to demonstrate that concealed carry (also called “right-to-carry”) laws reduce crime, found that the “evidence to date does not adequately indicate either the sign or the magnitude of a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.”60An analysis of Texas’ CCW law, (a law adopted in 1995 that overturned the state’s 125-year ban on concealed weapons), found that between January 1, 1996 and August 31, 2001, Texas license holders were arrested for 5,314 crimes, including murder, rape, kidnapping and theft.61From 1996 to 2000, Texas CCW holders were arrested for weapons-related crimes at a rate 81% higher than that of the state’s general population age 21 and older.62Since the Texas law took effect, more than 400 criminals – including rapists and armed robbers – had been issued CCW permits, and thousands of the 215,000 permit holders have been arrested for criminal behavior or found to be mentally unstable.63 The “largest category of problem licensees involve[d] those who committed crimes after getting their state” permits.64Florida’s CCW system had, just in the first half of 2006, licensed more than 1,400 individuals who had pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies, 216 individuals with outstanding warrants, 128 people with active domestic violence injunctions against them, and six registered sex offenders.65For additional information about the carrying of concealed weapons, including information on the dangers posed by carrying guns in public, see LCAV’s Report America Caught in the Crossfire: How Concealed Carry Laws Threaten Public Safety and our Carrying Concealed Weapons Policy Summary.
dog gone said..."so how do you explain this site:http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000"data is 10 years old and has changed since then."or this:http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp"This data is from 2007 and has dropped since then."Also from the LCAV site:http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp#12A 1991 study documenting the effectiveness of Washington, D.C.’s law banning handguns "I see your article fails to mention that the homicide rate in DC skyrocketed sometime in the 80's, as I pointed out to you in another post. There is no doubt that the handgun ban correlated with a reduction in homicides and suicides, but that didn't last, did it? With the introduction of crack, also came a new criminal who didn't care about a handgun ban. The only people that were unarmed in DC were the law abiding citizens."....found that the 'evidence to date does not adequately indicate either the sign or the magnitude of a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.'"But what is not disputed is that even though firearm ownership (and carrying) is on the rise, the violent crime is on the decline."For more information about the dangers of handguns, see the Violence Policy Center"Yeah, like I'll trust their "studies".the rest of your quote contains data that is 10 years old or older, again, data has changed since then as evidenced by the FBI UCR that shows violent crime has been on the decline over the past decade and we're experiencing the lowest levels of murder since 1991.You preach that you want to reduce gun violence, well wake up, that's what is happening and at the same time, gun ownership is on the rise. You seem to expect some magic bullet and one day wake up and there are no gun crimes and that's not going to happen.I pointed out two states that are very gun friendly that have a lower gun related murder rate than that of the peaceful, but not so gun friendly state of Hawaii. Why are those two states nearly murder free? Are they a more peaceful people, or more affluent people? Do they lack a crack problem? Is meth not available to them?
dog gone said..."Texas license holders were arrested for 5,314 crimes, including murder, rape, kidnapping and theft.Texas CCW holders were arrested for weapons-related crimes at a rate 81% higher than that of the state’s general population age 21 and older"I dismissed this earlier as being out dated, but it kept bugging me so I had to check your source, and then check your sources source and it seems that this is from VPC.The reason this was bugging me is because I know that those numbers are wrong. Here are the true and current numbers.In 2009 there were 65,561 total convictions in Texas. Of those, 101 were CHL holders (.1541%). Now let's look at rates. 65K convictions equals ~260 convictions/100,000 (pop. 24,782,302) whereas 101 CHL convictions equals ~25/100,000 (pop. 402,914)
Dog Gone,From your own source, the Guardian article on gun crime in the United States, we see that Vermont has one of the lowest rates of firearm murders and firearm assaults in the nation, despite requiring no licensing for carry and despite surveys showing that almost half of the households own a firearm.If gun ownership and carry correlated to gun crime, that shouldn't be the case.
someguy, there are no "true and current numbers." That's why you have to use your head and explain why you think what you do.
Mikeb302000,Someguy is expressing what he thinks and why, just as I have done many times. Concealed carry license holders have a better record of following the law than the general population.
This statistic, even if true, is neither unexpected nor shocking,"From 1996 to 2000, Texas CCW holders were arrested for weapons-related crimes at a rate 81% higher than that of the state’s general population age 21 and older."The author was comparing weapons related crime rates between a sub-population of people where nearly 100% of the group was armed compared to the general population which consists of many people who do not own weapons.The quote above is similar to saying that nurses were convicted of medical negligence four times more often than the rest of the public age 21 and above.That said I highly doubt the validity of the data. Why doesn't dog gone have to meet her own criteria of multiple, reputable, unbiased sources? Citing data from an organization calling themselves "Legal Community Against Violence" hardly seems credible.
Besides, in a post I listed in December, I provided a link to the Michigan State Police annual report on that state's concealed carry licensees. The report lists how many concealed carry licensees they have, how many licenses were revoked, the reason for revocation, and more importantly every crime -- both pending crimes and convictions -- against concealed carry licensees. The report even indicates if the licensees used their pistols during their crimes! I reviewed that report and there were a handful of people that committed crimes with their pistols. And of those, nearly all were brandishing. What you will not find are scores much less hundreds of concealed carry licensees running around illegally discharging their pistols, using them to rob/assault people, or murder people.So in Michigan, the rate of concealed carry licensees using their pistols to commit violent crime is way, way, way below the rate of the general population committing violent crimes with guns. Unless there is some fundamental reason to believe concealed carry licensees in Texas differ radically from licensees in Michigan, I call that data from LCAV bogus.
Capn Crunch said..."This statistic, even if true, is neither unexpected nor shocking,'From 1996 to 2000, Texas CCW holders were arrested for weapons-related crimes at a rate 81% higher than that of the state’s general population age 21 and older.'"It's not true. There were 12,996 weapons related convictions in Texas in 2009, that equals to about 52.44/100,000. 39 CHL holders were convicted which is 0.975/100,000. since the statistic given was for weapons, I included every aggravated crime and weapon specific crimes. I included the one murder for the CHL, but it's unclear if a weapon was involved. I did not include the 500 murders for the general population.
Thank you some guy. Like I said I believed the data was bogus.
This comment thread is a good example of why I don't rely too much on statistics. Both sides can come up with plenty to support their position.I say we have to use our heads. To say that gun owners or concealed carry permit holders are somehow better and more responsible than the general population is absurd. The numbers alone argue against that. These guys number in the millions and suffer from all the same problems as everyone else. Just think about it.
Mikeb,I have been quoting statistics from the FBI and the Michigan State Police ... and it appears that someguy is quoting statistics from the Texas Department of Public Safety. What is unreliable about those sources?But your second statement really misses the mark. I can illustrate my point if I simply change two words in your original statement as follows: "To say that valedictorians are somehow smarter and more responsible than the general population is absurd."I will absolutely assert that concealed carry licensees are better and more responsible than the general population because concealed carry licensees are a vetted sub-population. They:(a) have no criminal record.(b) have sufficient impulse control to save up the roughly $1000 it takes to pay for training, license fees, and a pistol.(c) take personal responsibility for their safety and actions.(d) are the type of person that "follows the rules" since they jumped through all of the hoops to obtain their concealed carry license.A group of people with all four of those characteristics are obviously going to be "better and more responsible than the general population" to use your words.And here is my proof. The Violence Policy Center has only been able to identify about 167 concealed carry licensees over the course of four years who they allege have used their pistols to murder someone. That is an astoundingly low rate of screw ups. To put that in perspective, that means about 1 concealed carry licensee per state is guilty of murder (with a firearm anyway) each year.
Mikeb302000,You ask me to think about it. I have. That's why I have taken the position that I hold.But take what you said. You named gun owners and the subset of concealed carry license holders. You frequently attack the few gun owners who do wrong and then imply that they are part of the license-holder subset, but that's not supported by data. I don't go along with your prejudices, and when I don't, you call me dishonest. The truth is that I just don't agree with you, and begging me to accept your unsupported assertions isn't going to change that.
Greg, here's the problem.You frequently attack the few gun owners who do wrong and then imply that they are part of the license-holder subset, but that's not supported by data.1. it's not "few gun owners who do wrong," unless you have a strange and convenient definition of "few."2. "not supported by data" means what exactly, that you refuse to consider it? Use your head, Greg. The number of CCW permit holders who do wrong and get cought is not ZERO. That means whatever their number, which is debatable, the are part of the subset.
1. There are about a hundred million gun owners in this country. Much less than one percent isn't a strange or convenient definition of few.2. The data that support your position the best, provided by the Violence Policy Center, names three hundred or so licensees who have committed gun crimes in the last five years. Three hundred divided by six or seven million is also a tiny number. Even if the number of licensees is actually twice or three times what the VPC gives, the percentage would still be tiny. The number isn't zero, but there aren't many cases in the real world in which anything is precisely zero. The numbers are so close to zero, though, that they aren't anywhere near being sufficient to justify the gun control measures that you propose.3. You used to wonder whether anyone who commits a gun crime is a concealed carry license holder. I haven't seen you do that lately, thanks, perhaps, to our efforts to explain why that's unlikely.
Greg I stated the number two posts earlier ... the Violence Policy Center alleges that 167 (if I counted correctly in their document) concealed carry licensees have murdered someone with a firearm since 2007. That works out to about 42 per year, or about 1 per state per year.If you want that as a percentage, that means that every year 0.000646% of concealed carry licensees have used a firearm to murder someone. I still think that 1 per state per year number is more impressive.