Moontanman Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 Yes. Ta. The Daily Mail is not a very unbiased paper but nevertheless that stuff's within gang culture and quite localised within certain inner city areas... Yes it was that way at one time here as well... A thought. What do you think, as part of allowable home defence policy, only allowing handguns up to a prescribed maximum muzzle velocity and restricted magazine capacity conducive to defending ones home and family as determined by the appropriate experts? To be honest, and I don't think I'm going to get many votes from gun enthusiasts on this, but I think a pump 410 gauge shot gun modified for use indoors would be the best bet, hand guns require too much skill to use effectively.
StringJunky Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Yes it was that way at one time here as well... To be honest, and I don't think I'm going to get many votes from gun enthusiasts on this, but I think a pump 410 gauge shot gun modified for use indoors would be the best bet, hand guns require too much skill to use effectively. I've no experience with handguns but I have used 12 bores quite a bit in the past and I would guess the latter are much more stable to fire given that they are anchored more solidly. In terms of 'aggressive presence' towards an intruder they are much more "impressive" and more likely to un-nerve an intruder more effectively and induce him to make his escape, possibly, than a handgun. Don't worry about what other people think...you are much more pragmatic and sensible, it seems, than the general US consensus. The Second Amendment does decree "A well-regulated milita..."; it's long since time the government started to bring that bit to reality. Edited December 18, 2012 by StringJunky
swansont Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 Apparently, there have been some recent mass-stabbings in China. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-14/world/35813173_1_knife-attack-primary-school-middle-school It's interesting that this knife attacker didn't cause serious injury to anyone. My explanation is that it's less emotionally stressful for someone to kill with a gun rather than a knife, but that's just one hypothesis. You also can't stab 10-100 times per second (or more) at more than arm's length. You also have a much better chance of fighting back.
John Cuthber Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 Some of you might find this informative http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182 in précis "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." 1
ParanoiA Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 Great post, mate. Here's where my head is on the question you've posed, and I'd be curious to read your response. Universal healthcare, with particular focus on access to mental health facilities and support. Don't make it something one must pay for. Don't make it hard for people to just walk in for assistance. Make it as easy as possible. Give the folks with mental hardship a place to get support, and a place and process for their families to get them into support without calling the police or involving jail cells. Universal healthcare with an emphasis on mental health coverage. The guns and the shootings are the symptoms. This idea IMO treats the root causes. It won't stop every tragedy... Nothing will, but our approach should be to take smart steps to minimize the number of them. What do you think? Would you support universal care to help reduce the numbers of these issues? I'm not sure I could get on board with total Universal healthcare. I'm not directly opposed to it either, at least not conceptually. (Not very libertarian of me, I know, but who's perfect?) I would like to see a brand new, refreshing idea on allocating healthcare resources to the public without the assymetry with market forces, without the notions of "rights" to other's labor, without the middle man insurance coverage model for maintenance and routines, and etc. Perhaps that's another conversation... I would absolutely support tax payer paid access to mental health - evaluation, treatment, brick and mortar, all of it. But I have to be honest, I have a very real dog in this fight. The day of the Sandy Hook tragedy there was a psychiatrist sitting in the news studio at our local radio station. He said something that I have personal experience with. He shared that he couldn't count the number of times - just this year alone - that he referred someone as a danger to themselves or others only to receive a call a short while later, from someone usually in the ER, or County/City Health facilitiy "He said what? That he was going to hurt somebody? Well, he isn't saying that now. We have to discharge him. We can't hold him." And he was beside himself trying to explain, essentially....'well duh! He wants to leave! Of course he isn't saying that!' This is exactly what happened with my older son. The terrible reality is...he shares some disturbing attributes with Adam Lanza, and other murderers of that type. He is quiet and withdrawn. He is alone, and fights to be so, despite our attempts to engage with him and motivate him. He has heard voices telling him that I want to kill the family, and he has gone so far as to set up a bow and arrow next to his bed to intercept me if I were to begin a rampage. We can't get mental health services to act. Why? Because he isn't saying it now. We got him in a pschiatric facility for about a week, voluntarily - just enough time to "stabilize" him with meds, and then back home because the voices are quieter and no longer saying disturbing things. And he never threatens me; he actually cried about it and was shocked that we would think he wanted to kill his father. And now he's off those psychotic meds because he cannot function. It makes him slow. He's an adult, and he has bills to pay and needs to work. These bills are not utilities and food - he lives with us. No, these bills are the result of criminal fines and punishment. And he can hardly manage to even look for a job, let alone find one, let alone actually work there. These meds will gaurantee he never gets hired. He clearly has mental issues, but there is no "official" status of such mental problems. None of it is even remotely interesting to a judge or court system. He has to be a resident, or else he is fully functional. That's our choices. They will not keep him as a resident, they will only keep him long enough to "stabilize" his meds and then send him back out into the world. These forces are working against him, not with him. He is getting no support. We do all we can. And it's not enough. I have insurance, and have offered to cover any costs, all he has to do is set the appointments (they won't let me do it). He won't do it. He doesn't want to talk about his issues. This is dangerous. Luckily his old job needs people so bad they actually called him to come back, and hope is beginning to creep across his face. Being productive is therapeutic. Otherwise, he wouldn't be working and would be waiting for bench warrants to be issued, and eventually land in jail. So, yes, I agree with a renewed approach to mental health. I'll take anything at this point. There has to be at least some bit of common sense applied. Such as: People who want to do harm to themselves or others, will lie about it. I didn't realize that point alluded anyone at all, but apparently it is a major problem with holding people against their will. If you don't want to be held against your will, just stop saying stuff and presto! You're free. And I won't even get into the dysfunctional relationship between facilities. One doctor at facility A refers patient to facility B, a danger to himself and others. Facility B processes the patient as if they know nothing at all. 'Uh, didn't doctor so-and-so send any information about him?' 'They just said he was having problems at home'. 'Uh...seriously?' And then the brick wall starts being built...."We will evaluate him and the doctor will determine if he needs to stay here".....2 hours later...."The doctor has determined he can go home, we don't feel we can treat him here"..."Uh...do you remember that he was sent here because he was trying to leave facility A after making dangerous statements about hurting himself and others?" "Oh, he didn't make any dangerous statements to us, he isn't saying anything like that now". It goes something like that....just imagine how many more are out there. We haven't given up on ours, but it sure is a lonely, frustrating battle. 3
Moontanman Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 Some of you might find this informative http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182 in précis "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." I provided this link earlier http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html It would appear that there is a different school of thought as to how why and when guns are used and how effective they are.
CharonY Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) I would have to read through the website (despite the hideous color scheme), but are there peer-reviewed studies supporting the assertion of that website (especially as they do not present references in a convenient format), It should be noted that the Kellerman et al. paper is based on a regional sampling, a nationwide (comparative) study could probably provide more global insights. Edit: found a paper (Armed resistance to crime: The prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun Kleck, G; Gertz, M: JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Volume: 86 Issue: 1 Pages: 150-187 DOI: 10.2307/1144004 1995) The findings are apparently somewhat controversial. Kleck and Gertz estimated a number of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year between 1988-1993 based on a telephone survey (with n=5000). This number was faced with scepticism as estimates of crimes committed firearms were estimated to be around 1.3 million per year. Hemenway and others have looked into this, and it appears that these kind of surveys may result in an overestimation of effects. They have, for instance, conducted a similar survey which yielded slightly lower but still roughly the same results. However, with follow-up questions they also estimated how many attackers were wounded or killed during these defensive actions The surprising result was that the the number was roughly the same as the total amount of gunshots (fatal or not) reported. Yet almost all of the reported number were due to accidents, suicide or criminal assault (i.e. not a defensive gun shot). Likewise, based on the survey data the authors estimated that 322,000 of the defensive cases were to thwart rape attempts. Again, a number higher than the total number of recorded rapes and rape attempts. A reason is that the survey tries to identify a rare event (defensive gun shot) and thus even small false positives can massively distort the estimates. (see Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 16, No. 3, 463-469 (1997)) Edited December 18, 2012 by CharonY
Moontanman Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 I would have to read through the website (despite the hideous color scheme), but are there peer-reviewed studies supporting the assertion of that website (especially as they do not present references in a convenient format), It should be noted that the Kellerman et al. paper is based on a regional sampling, a nationwide (comparative) study could probably provide more global insights. Edit: found a paper (Armed resistance to crime: The prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun Kleck, G; Gertz, M: JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Volume: 86 Issue: 1 Pages: 150-187 DOI: 10.2307/1144004 1995) The author is somewhat less than objective http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck More on this http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html This seems to be a finger pointing problem... I'm right/your wrong with the statistics being manipulated to support both sides http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/peer.html This is a quagmire of opinions and different representations of data... http://rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2009winter/cover01_a.asp
CharonY Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) I am not quite sure what you mean. I assumed you initially provided the link from the Kleck study? But as I mentioned, it appears to be a statistical error due to the low numbers problem. There are further studies that apparently look at specific relationships and also may have corrected for this error (it does not appear to be a finger pointing issue or manipulated data at this level). But I would have to read a bit more, when I got some more time (there a lot of them around, judging from abstracts the effects seems to have vanished in newer studies). I should add that many of these studies may suffer from certain issues in the estimation methodologies and models. That is also addressed in a number of studies. Edited December 18, 2012 by CharonY
Moontanman Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 I am not quite sure what you mean. I assumed you initially provided the link from the Kleck study? But as I mentioned, it appears to be a statistical error due to the low numbers problem. There are further studies that apparently look at specific relationships and also may have corrected for this error (it does not appear to be a finger pointing issue or manipulated data at this level). But I would have to read a bit more, when I got some more time (there a lot of them around, judging from abstracts the effects seems to have vanished in newer studies). It looks like a lot of ideology and statistical manipulation to me from both sides. I'm not sure there is a clear cut conclusion from what I've found so far. But the guy I quoted is clearly not objective... It seems to be an emotionally charged issue, pro gun people would rather die than admit that guns aren't the savior they want guns to be and anti gun people would rather die than admit that guns might not be the evil they want them to be. When i get the time I'll look for more information...
CharonY Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Ah, well maybe on the website. The studies (papers) themselves are a bit better and usually the conclusions are also formulated in a much more careful way. To me it does not actually mean that the authors were biased towards the outcome, but they would rather not acknowledge a faulty methodology in their study. There are a few correlation studies that looked into whether right-to-carry laws have any influence on crime rates. The consensus appears to be that the data does not support any correlation between RTC laws and crime (in some cases an inverse correlation was observed). (Aneja et al AMERICAN LAW AND ECONOMICS REVIEW Volume: 13 Issue: 2 Pages: 565-632 DOI: 10.1093/aler/ahr009 Published: FAL 2011) Edited December 18, 2012 by CharonY
ParanoiA Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 It looks like a lot of ideology and statistical manipulation to me from both sides. I'm not sure there is a clear cut conclusion from what I've found so far. But the guy I quoted is clearly not objective... It seems to be an emotionally charged issue, pro gun people would rather die than admit that guns aren't the savior they want guns to be and anti gun people would rather die than admit that guns might not be the evil they want them to be. When i get the time I'll look for more information... How many studies are objective anyway? A study is usually trying to prove something, or disprove something, and their intentions are not generally objective. They try to conduct the test objectively, which is what Kleck is attempting to do, but I don't think you're going to find any study pro or con that is "objective" on the gun issue. The point that Kleck makes is that his National Defense survey data is well within the margin of error by at least 20 other surveys, whereas the National Crime Victimization Survey data doesn't come close to a single other survey. This is also mid 90's data, and his survey comprised of phone calls to 5000 households. You're right, problems on all sides. But I think Kleck as been quite scientific about the criticisms. I can't get enough data on the methodology of the NCVS survey to have an opinion on it myself. I suspect Kleck is closer to the truth about defensive gun use, particularly the frequency of discharge. Too many studies depend on actual shootings, which is going to be extremely low for defensive gun use. Police pull their weapons and use them for defense far more often than they shoot people with them. Same with civilian defense. 1
CharonY Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Actually no. A properly constructed study looks at relationship and does not set out to find a particular one. As such studies are not supposed to have intentions. Of course there may be researchers biased towards a particular outcome, but the idea of a good design is to prevent any influence in that regard. I think Hemenway made a good point about the overestimation of the effects, especially as they managed to reproduce the results but added a control to demonstrate that there is likely a severe flaw in it. Police pull their weapons and use them for defense far more often than they shoot people with them. Same with civilian defense. This is a point that Hemenway specifically addressed by asking whether the assailant was wounded. The resulting numbers were a clear overestimation. Edited December 18, 2012 by CharonY
swansont Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 I provided this link earlier http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html It would appear that there is a different school of thought as to how why and when guns are used and how effective they are. Except there can't be a different set of facts underlying the different school of thought. This article has a couple of red flags. It starts with saying that every 13 seconds a gun owner uses a firearm against a criminal, based on the ~2.5 million instances quoted in the article. But that 2.5 million includes just saying, "I've got a gun", which is NOT using a firearm. Further, it is implied that the survey broke these different actions down, but the author doesn't mention the individual stats. In quoting the survey, the author insists that it is both an undercounting of actual incidents and also that it's right because it agrees with another survey. It also makes the claim that the real number of defensive gun uses is higher because of all the adolescents who use guns for self-defense. (WTF?) Later on, it says a statistic involving 213 cases should be discounted because of the small sample size (even though it eventually concludes that the number is plausible), yet later on cites a statistic with a sample size of 231 with no reservations. That's in just the first screen or so of reading. There are also some statistical arguments as to why the article is bunk. http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf This starts off with showing that if the 2.5 million number is correct, guns have to be used defensively in more than 100% of burglaries where the burglar could have been confronted. They argue that the number is inflated by a factor of ~10.
Moontanman Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 Except there can't be a different set of facts underlying the different school of thought. This article has a couple of red flags. It starts with saying that every 13 seconds a gun owner uses a firearm against a criminal, based on the ~2.5 million instances quoted in the article. But that 2.5 million includes just saying, "I've got a gun", which is NOT using a firearm. Further, it is implied that the survey broke these different actions down, but the author doesn't mention the individual stats. In quoting the survey, the author insists that it is both an undercounting of actual incidents and also that it's right because it agrees with another survey. It also makes the claim that the real number of defensive gun uses is higher because of all the adolescents who use guns for self-defense. (WTF?) Later on, it says a statistic involving 213 cases should be discounted because of the small sample size (even though it eventually concludes that the number is plausible), yet later on cites a statistic with a sample size of 231 with no reservations. That's in just the first screen or so of reading. There are also some statistical arguments as to why the article is bunk. http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf This starts off with showing that if the 2.5 million number is correct, guns have to be used defensively in more than 100% of burglaries where the burglar could have been confronted. They argue that the number is inflated by a factor of ~10. As I said in another post I looked into it further and found the study to be less than objective. But I do know that anti gun people are less than objective as well. This entire thread pretty much shows that to be true, emotions run high on this issue, real proof of either point of view will have to be over whelming and take into account various "beliefs" "I've got a gun", which is NOT using a firearm. I disagree, in fact I would point out that this is obviously mistaken. I've got a gun is indeed the first step a reasonable person uses before actually using his gun if at all possible. Simply stating I have a gun can defuse a situation, the next step of course is to show your gun, then draw it, then fire it. The steps may not always be so clear cut but the threat of a gun is indeed using a gun...
John Cuthber Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) There's still an overestimation of the "benefits" of guns. We don't know what the criminal would have done in the absence of the gun. About 10 years ago someone threatened me with a knife and demanded that i gave him my wallet. I told him to fuck off and he did; he ran away. If I had had a gun I'd probably have drawn it and the guy would, presumably, have fled in that scenario too. But the pro gun lobby would say that the gun saved the day even though what actually saved the day was that the thief knew that it's easy enough to find another potential victim, and very dangerous to actually get into a fight, even if you are the one with the knife. Many, if not most, attackers are cowards. They run off if you pull a gun on them- but they would possibly run off if you hit them with a rolled up newspaper. So, counting instances where a criminal ran away when someone pulled a gun is an overestimate of the benefit of guns. Also, the page Moontanman cited says "Although gun ownership costs more money than simple measures such as locking doors, having neighbors watch one's house, or avoidance behaviors such as not going out at night, it costs less than buying and maintaining a dog, paying a security guard, buying a burglar alarm system, or relocating one's residence to an area with less crime." which misrepresents the effect of guns. A guy who is thinking of breaking into your house will look at it first. If he sees a bell-box or hears a dog he will probably choose another house. Those things are real deterrents. But, until he breaks in and you confront him, he doesn't know whether you have a gun or not- so it's not a deterrent. To compare a guard dog with a gun is so inappropriate that I wonder if he's doing it dishonestly. At best, he's doing it unwisely. He also says "Another way of approaching this issue is to ask people how they would feel if guns were eliminated. If widespread gun ownership was currently making people feel less safe, then eliminating guns should make them feel more safe. An August, 1994 Gallup poll asked: "Suppose a law were passed which you were certain would remove all handguns from the possession of all citizens other than the police. Would you feel more safe, less safe, or wouldn't it make any difference?" While 32% said they would feel more safe, 41% said they would feel less safe, and the remainder felt it would make no difference. Since there are more who would feel less safe than who would feel more safe, the net effect on the population as a whole of eliminating guns would be to make the population feel less safe." Hang on- we are not talking about feelings here. The kids in Newtown don't just feel dead. So talking about how a bunch of people think they would feel (which is a guess anyway because they have never been in that situation) doesn't really tell you anything. Questions like "Does having a gun in your house make you feel more safe from crime, less safe, or doesn't it make any difference?" are no better. (Though it would have been interesting to repeat the survey but ask the question "Given that a gun in your house is much more likely to kill a member of your family than a criminal, Does having a gun in your house make you feel more safe from crime, less safe, or doesn't it make any difference?") I really don't think that a poorly produced web page carries the same weight as a peer reviewed research paper. Edited December 18, 2012 by John Cuthber
swansont Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 I disagree, in fact I would point out that this is obviously mistaken. I've got a gun is indeed the first step a reasonable person uses before actually using his gun if at all possible. Simply stating I have a gun can defuse a situation, the next step of course is to show your gun, then draw it, then fire it. The steps may not always be so clear cut but the threat of a gun is indeed using a gun... You must then agree that the US has used nuclear weapons thousands of times. You don't have to actually have a gun to say "I have a gun" and if someone ever asks you "Have you ever used a gun?" and your entire experience with them is having uttered that phrase, I think you'd get laughed out of the room. 1
Moontanman Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) You must then agree that the US has used nuclear weapons thousands of times. Yes, I will state that the USA has used it's nuclear arsenal to deter attack by other nations many many times over, why is this difficult to understand? You don't have to actually have a gun to say "I have a gun" and if someone ever asks you "Have you ever used a gun?" and your entire experience with them is having uttered that phrase, I think you'd get laughed out of the room. I might get laughed out of the room if I threatened a gun and didn't have one. You don't pull a gun until you have no other choice, once you pull a gun a sequence of events is set in play that can be unstoppable... I wouldn't laugh at someone who used the threat of a gun to prevent the necessity of pulling one out, it's the mark of a cautious man... I have very little patience for John Wayne wannabes who want to wave their piece around at the slightest provocation... John, real guard dogs are difficult to raise, keep, and can be dangerous, my dogs are not guard dogs, they are pets, but they can and will intimidate strangers just because they bark so boisterously when they see strangers... and friends too for that matter but I can tell from the tone of their bark who or what they are barking at. I think of my dogs as pets first and warning dogs second... Again i would like to state that I do not keep automatic military style weapons, i see no reason to have one and I think hand guns, if allowed at all should be very difficult to get and carry. So, counting instances where a criminal ran away when someone pulled a gun is an overestimate of the benefit of guns. Since this is a totally subjective statement I have no problem disagreeing with you on this and this does point to the root of the problem, it is a totally subjective subject. When you pick up your kids in the family car after school they are literally many orders of magnitude in more danger than they are from a lone crazy shooting them at school. If someone suggested that eliminating personal vehicles would save the lives of hundreds if not thousands of children every year would you give up your car? Hell i can't do anything to ya as long as your outside... so come on in! Edited December 18, 2012 by Moontanman
MonDie Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) You also can't stab 10-100 times per second (or more) at more than arm's length. You also have a much better chance of fighting back. In that particular instance, the attacker was knifing children. what actually saved the day was that the thief knew that it's easy enough to find another potential victim, and very dangerous to actually get into a fight, even if you are the one with the knife. A guy who is thinking of breaking into your house will look at it first. If he sees a bell-box or hears a dog he will probably choose another house. Those things are real deterrents.But, until he breaks in and you confront him, he doesn't know whether you have a gun or not- so it's not a deterrent. The availability of other victims played a role in both situations (the street thug example and the burglar example). So why do you only attribute the deterence to that factor for the first situation? I had an idea to justify the double standard, and it involved the time spent searching for a victim versus the time spent committing the crime. However, looking back, I don't know why it was supposed to justify the double standard. caffeine deficient tonight, will probably update post tomorrow morning Edited December 19, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die 1
A Tripolation Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 If this is a semi-real situation, perhaps you could scare the coyotes off with an amplified blow torch. That's quite possibly one of the worst suggestions I've ever heard in my life. 1
iNow Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 Guns aren't going anywhere. We can take steps to minimize deaths, though. There are about 85 gun deaths in the US every single day. About 52 of them are suicides, leaving about 33 people shot dead by someone else... every 24 hours. That's more people killed by guns than in the Newtown, CT massacre... each time the earth rotates. Guns aren't going anywhere. We can take steps to minimize the unnecessary deaths they cause, though. What are those steps?
StringJunky Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 Are guns, outside the boundaries of ones property necessary with respect to personal protection? If the the answer is 'no' then there's a start.
John Cuthber Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 The availability of other victims played a role in both situations (the street thug example and the burglar example). So why do you only attribute the deterence to that factor for the first situation? Because he can see the bell-box before he approaches the house, but he doesn't know that I'm going to fight back (rather than just hand over my money) until he starts the attack. It's only a deterrent if it's obvious before the attack is initiated. A warning notice on the door saying "break in if you like- but I have a gun" is a deterrent (even if you have no gun) but the gun itself isn't because the intruder can't know about it until it's too late. John, real guard dogs are difficult to raise, keep, and can be dangerous, my dogs are not guard dogs, they are pets, but they can and will intimidate strangers just because they bark so boisterously when they see strangers... and friends too for that matter but I can tell from the tone of their bark who or what they are barking at. I think of my dogs as pets first and warning dogs second... Again i would like to state that I do not keep automatic military style weapons, i see no reason to have one and I think hand guns, if allowed at all should be very difficult to get and carry. Since this is a totally subjective statement I have no problem disagreeing with you on this and this does point to the root of the problem, it is a totally subjective subject. If someone suggested that eliminating personal vehicles would save the lives of hundreds if not thousands of children every year would you give up your car? Real guard dogs do, as you say, need a lot of training, but even a pet is a deterrent in a way that a gun isn't. Even if the burglar just sees some tiny little miniature poodle pup he is likely to think "that dog will bark and warn the owner of my presence if I break in here so I will go next door". Whether or not a mugger would be scared off by some set of conditions is not subjective. He would or he wouldn't; in principle, you could ask him. We don't know how likely the two outcomes are but my personal experience shows that you don't need a gun to frighten off a mugger. Attributing all cases where the attacker backed off when shown a gun, to the presence of that gun is inaccurate even if it's only to the extent of one experimental observation. I'd be happy to give up my car if it saved a single life- or even a reasonable fraction of a single life; say a millionth of one. Of course, I'd have to get one first. I never learned to drive.
MonDie Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) Because he can see the bell-box before he approaches the house, but he doesn't know that I'm going to fight back (rather than just hand over my money) until he starts the attack. It's only a deterrent if it's obvious before the attack is initiated. A warning notice on the door saying "break in if you like- but I have a gun" is a deterrent (even if you have no gun) but the gun itself isn't because the intruder can't know about it until it's too late. I was considering that burglars probably only rob one house, then stop robbing for the night. The dogs don't really prevent the crimes from occurring, unless everyone's got a dog. On the other hand, even if you let a mugger mug you, they'll probably go on to mug more people, but they will have to spend more time looking for their next victim. Thus deterring a mugging really is one less crime. From this perspective, the dog doesn't do much of anything at all. Actually, it could be argued that the presence of guns does more to prevent house robbings for that very reason, i.e. the robber doesn't know who has a gun and who doesn't. Edited December 19, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die
Recommended Posts