In many discussions, there comes a point at which someone rejects not only interpretations based on judgements but facts as well. The facts about guns in the United States are mixed, leaving both sides the opportunity to have valid positions derived from their values–freedom or safety–without being compelled to choose one answer or another to be intellectually honest. For example, some 30,000 Americans die each year from gunshots, while something like 80,000 suffer non-fatal injuries. At the same time, hundred of thousands use firearms to defend their lives annually.When describing defensive gun uses, the gun-rights fanatics love to exaggerate in two ways. First they inflate the actual count, then they call that exaggerated count, uses of "firearms to defend their lives."
The truth is, these estimates include shootings at snakes and coyotes. They include innumerable incidents of minor threats that in no way were life threatening. They also include many cases of property crime being thwarted in which no person was in danger at all.
That last link to a Slate dot com article is interesting. Here's a quote:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report.
There are many estimates that come in under that 500,000 figure. Greg knows this, and in fact, has quoted them himself. But in that typical exaggerating way of his, he selected this misleading article to make his point.
I'm afraid old Greg Camp hasn't changed much in these months since he disappeared from this blog. Some believe he's been commenting anonymously, but I'd like to take this opportunity to officially invite him back. Arguing with Greg never fails to make gun control look good.
Greg's assertion is supported by a recent study ordered by the President regarding gun violence,
ReplyDelete"Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15
I also like this part from the Slate article. And lets keep in mind, at least as far as I know, Slate isn't exactly known for being conservative,
" Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
That's the difference between reading something and understanding what it says. The first item you cite to is called "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence". I've done it before where I demonstrated that a title is supposed to clue you to what the text will contain. In this case, the text is about what topics should be studied.
DeleteYes, there are massively wild claims being made for the amount of DGUs which occur. Empirical evidence shows the number is probably much lower than the mentioned 500,000 to more than 3 million DGUs. Which is the correct number? Additionally, which methodology is more likely to produce a reliable number?
Additionally, the Slate article is discussing either the above report or a similar one which has come out lately.
I can say that there have been reported to be 500,000 to more than 3 million DGUs a year, which does not make it a fact--merely that the numbers have been mentioned.
BTW, an addendum to that: when quoting the text of a judicial decision there are two parts:
Delete1) Dicta--the thought processes of the court in reaching the holding
2) the holding--what the court actually said.
You can't rely on something in dicta for making a legal argument--unless you are using their authorities.
E.g., In the case of Blogs v Doggs the court mentioned the decision of Doe v Roe which found in these circumstances that the law should be X.
These studies are all guesses, as you state many times. We don't have to guess how many die from gun shot, we have the dead bodies. Gun loons don't like to count suicides by gun shot, so they don't accept the 30,000 figure. I have never understood that thinking since a suicide by gun shot, is a gun shot death. And they include ridiculous incidents and call them a defensive gun use. As this blog asks all the time, why do gun loons have to lie? Count me as one who believes/knows GC has commented as anon. . His mode of expression is hard to miss. As is mine, which is why I laugh at SS's anon. argument.
Delete"Additionally, the Slate article is discussing either the above report or a similar one which has come out lately."
DeleteSince the article came out in 2013, I'm going to assume it used the older report. Do you have a link for the new study you mentioned by any chance? I'd like to take a look at it.
You do raise a good point, in my opinion regarding the wide variance of numbers of defensive gun uses. However, basing restrictions on whether a method of self defense is available to a citizen based on how often its been used isn't sensible.
It has been proven that those people using guns as a self defense method are causing unnecessary death of innocent people. To ignore that is not only not sensible, but deadly irresponsible.
DeleteThe people who cause death or injury with a firearm are answerable to our justice system. That's the way we do it here.
DeleteYes, but gun loons like you refuse to support laws that would curtail such idiotic behavior, while not infringing on your rights. That's just promoting needless death and ignoring the idea that the law is to promote public safety.
DeleteSarge,
ReplyDeleteUnless a gunman is directly threatening the life of yourself or someone you love, there is never a time when it is a good idea to start a gunfight. When I was a child, this was just considered good common sense. Your wallet, your car... Cars are insured. Never a good idea to shoot another human being, unless under a direct threat.
I mean, isn't that just basic safety that we would all teach our children? It's not worth it. Give the guy your money... Whatever... Prevent bloodshed.
The chances of preventing a home invasion or a rape or murder are very low. But if all of you dumbasses wish to spend an enormous portion of your time, talents and treasure insuring that you are able to prevent such an unlikely attack, more power to you. I like cars and animals and the great outdoors. Art and music. The little woman wishes to travel. Money wasted on guns and ammo and shooting ranges is utterly squandered. Life is more important that wasting money and time on guns.
I miss Greg too. He was a worthy opponent. I guess he just got fed up dealing with all of the bullshit, (tx Laci) that he had to deal with on this blog.
"Never a good idea to shoot another human being, unless under a direct threat."
ReplyDeleteI agree FJ. However, I've noticed a trend over the years in which people who want your money, or your car are becoming less satisfied with the simple taking of property.
I've said before, that if someone enters my house uninvited I will if possible, give him an opportunity to leave. What little stuff I have can be replaced, my children can't.
I too miss Greg here, but can understand why he might want to move on. I've needed to take a break a couple of times.
"I've noticed a trend over the years in which people who want your money, or your car are becoming less satisfied with the simple taking of property. "
DeleteI thought you said the crime rate is going down?
I thought you said the crime rate is going down?
DeleteWhich in no way contradicts a trend of armed robbers deciding they want their victims' lives, too.
Those who demand that we not shoot armed robbers, because "it's only stuff" they want to take, are in turn demanding us to trust the kind of scum who robs people to be too morally good to kill for the hell of it (or to eliminate witnesses).
Screw that.
No surprise you miss GC, you practice the same lies, dishonesty, and deception he does.
Delete