John Cuthber Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 If the burglar or mugger moves on to another victim (and they probably will, because they need the money) then neither the gun nor the alarm system actually reduces the number of muggings or burglaries. But only one increases the death toll.
Moontanman Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 If the burglar or mugger moves on to another victim (and they probably will, because they need the money) then neither the gun nor the alarm system actually reduces the number of muggings or burglaries. But only one increases the death toll. John, do you really think your experience with one mugger is significant?
John Cuthber Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 John, do you really think your experience with one mugger is significant? Yes. Obviously, it would be better (from a scientific point of view) to have more data, but we haven't. One case is sufficient to show that, in at least one case, you don't need a gun to fend off a mugger. It's bizarre to think there's anything special about me or my mugger, so it's reasonable to assume that the same thing would happen in other cases. So if you count all cases where a mugger is frightened off by a gun as being due to the gun you are wrong. In some cases they are the "victim" fighting back. What I'm relying on here is that there's nothing odd about my case. If you can show why it's unique and that no other mugger would ever be frightened off by anything other than a gun then that will invalidate my point. If, on the other hand, you accept that other muggers may be scared off by someone standing up for themselves then it's wrong to attribute that to the gun per se.
Moontanman Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 Yes. Obviously, it would be better (from a scientific point of view) to have more data, but we haven't. One case is sufficient to show that, in at least one case, you don't need a gun to fend off a mugger. It's bizarre to think there's anything special about me or my mugger, so it's reasonable to assume that the same thing would happen in other cases. So if you count all cases where a mugger is frightened off by a gun as being due to the gun you are wrong. In some cases they are the "victim" fighting back. What I'm relying on here is that there's nothing odd about my case. If you can show why it's unique and that no other mugger would ever be frightened off by anything other than a gun then that will invalidate my point. If, on the other hand, you accept that other muggers may be scared off by someone standing up for themselves then it's wrong to attribute that to the gun per se. John I sincerely hope you never have to add another point to your running a mugger way curve but while some muggers may scare off easily rest assured that most are hardened criminals and they are dangerous. Your dismissal of muggers due to one anomalous experience is not justified...
MonDie Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) If the burglar or mugger moves on to another victim (and they probably will, because they need the money) then neither the gun nor the alarm system actually reduces the number of muggings or burglaries. But only one increases the death toll. You might have a point. Even if they stop robbing houses because they don't want to get shot, they might just commit a different sort of crime instead. This could be the case if they are someone who can't get/hold a legitimate job, maybe because they have a criminal record, are mentally ill, or are addicted to drugs. Edited December 19, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die
John Cuthber Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 John I sincerely hope you never have to add another point to your running a mugger way curve but while some muggers may scare off easily rest assured that most are hardened criminals and they are dangerous. Your dismissal of muggers due to one anomalous experience is not justified... http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/odd/news/a322364/89-year-old-woman-fights-off-mugger.html http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/3655062._Feisty__woman__87__fights_off_mugger/ http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/3636259.Woman_fights_off_mugger_twice/ http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/37411_woman_fights_off_mugger http://mobile.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/9729986.Woman_stabbed_during_failed_mugging/ Given the chance I will run off, but- if I have to I will defend myself.
Moontanman Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/odd/news/a322364/89-year-old-woman-fights-off-mugger.html http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/3655062._Feisty__woman__87__fights_off_mugger/ http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/3636259.Woman_fights_off_mugger_twice/ http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/37411_woman_fights_off_mugger http://mobile.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/9729986.Woman_stabbed_during_failed_mugging/ Given the chance I will run off, but- if I have to I will defend myself. Come on John, are going to play dueling links now? I can match yours tit for tat almost certainly... http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/023472.html During WW2 at least two people fell out of airplanes with no parachutes from 25,000 feet and survived... does that make you want to jump from an airplane with no parachute? I am sure that some muggers are wusses, cowards looking for little old ladies, but most are not. I've been mugged three times in my life, i fought back all three times and got my ass kicked all three times. only intervention from by standers keep me from being seriously injured... all muggers are not wusses... 1
Arete 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. Being in posession of gun when you are assualted significantly increases the likelihood you will be shot during that assualt. "...After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ 1
John Cuthber Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) Come on John, are going to play dueling links now? I can match yours tit for tat almost certainly... http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/023472.html During WW2 at least two people fell out of airplanes with no parachutes from 25,000 feet and survived... does that make you want to jump from an airplane with no parachute? I am sure that some muggers are wusses, cowards looking for little old ladies, but most are not. I've been mugged three times in my life, i fought back all three times and got my ass kicked all three times. only intervention from by standers keep me from being seriously injured... all muggers are not wusses... No. What I was saying was (I thought) quite clear. It is not accurate to count all cases where a gun was drawn as a "success" for the gun. It may be that if the guy had just raised his fist the attacker would have given up. we know that there is a bias. We don't know how big that bias is so we can't correct for it. All we can say is that the calculation used on that page overestimates the benefit of carrying (and drawing) a gun. It's just another of those things which that web page got wrong. There are other issues along similar lines- for example a man carrying a gun may walk more confidently down the street in a rough neighbourhood than an unarmed man. The mugger may well notice this difference and attack the unarmed man. From society's point of view there is little difference- it's a mugging- maybe the mugger gets shot; maybe the other guy does, maybe both. None of those outcomes is a "win". It's society who pays the price for incidents like Newtown and from society's point of view the gun just moved the problem from one guy to another: it didn't stop the attack. So the cost is dead schoolkids and the "benefit" is that a different person was attacked. The whole subject is complicated, but it doesn't help when you start asking me about jumping out of a plane. Asking that after I already said "Given the chance I will run off," makes it particularly stupid. BTW, you cited a case where a man was killed by a group of 6 assailants. Even with a revolver/ automatic, you would need to be a good shot to get all of them. Edited December 19, 2012 by John Cuthber
Moontanman Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 No. What I was saying was (I thought) quite clear. It is not accurate to count all cases where a gun was drawn as a "success" for the gun. It may be that if the guy had just raised his fist the attacker would have given up. we know that there is a bias. We don't know how big that bias is so we can't correct for it. All we can say is that the calculation used on that page overestimates the benefit of carrying (and drawing) a gun. Ok, I can accept that... It's just another of those things which that web page got wrong. There are other issues along similar lines- for example a man carrying a gun may walk more confidently down the street in a rough neighbourhood than an unarmed man. The mugger may well notice this difference and attack the unarmed man. From society's point of view there is little difference- it's a mugging- maybe the mugger gets shot; maybe the other guy does, maybe both. None of those outcomes is a "win". I can also accept that, in fact being confidant can indeed get you through some tough spots where being timid marks you as a target, something i taught both my sons.. It's society who pays the price for incidents like Newtown and from society's point of view the gun just moved the problem from one guy to another: it didn't stop the attack. So the cost is dead schoolkids and the "benefit" is that a different person was attacked. The whole subject is complicated, but it doesn't help when you start asking me about jumping out of a plane. Asking that after I already said "Given the chance I will run off," makes it particularly stupid. BTW, you cited a case where a man was killed by a group of 6 assailants. Even with a revolver/ automatic, you would need to be a good shot to get all of them. I find myself the position of defending something I do not agree with here, I really do think that guns should be more tightly controlled, I'm not sure as to how and to what extent but I cannot support free access to guns by just anyone...
Iggy Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) It's society who pays the price for incidents like Newtown and from society's point of view the gun just moved the problem from one guy to another: it didn't stop the attack. So the cost is dead schoolkids and the "benefit" is that a different person was attacked. I don't think you're looking at it in the same way people from the US look at it. The bill of rights aren't about determining what benefits public safety or anything like that. By analogy, I know in the UK you have a law making it illegal to "insult someone thereby causing them distress". Parliament doesn't have a constitution so it can make laws like that. It may be that insults and distress are bad for society. Banning insults may even prevent murders. But, the US congress couldn't make that law even if the majority supported it and believed it would benefit society and make it safer. It's about the right of the individual. So, even if there were only one person to whom a gun was a benefit (I should have to give an example) Most people in the US see the second amendment as something that protects her right as an individual. If she thinks it is a success story and she wants the gun then the statistics don't matter the way they might in the UK. When she argues for her second amendment right and someone from the UK argues that gun accidents in the home are more likely than uses for protection you're having two different arguments. The one is assuming that liberty outweighs public safety and the other makes the opposite assumption. Edited December 19, 2012 by Iggy
Moontanman Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) Now they are blaming it on violent video games... http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-renews-argument-over-video-game-violence-162448882--finance.html Edited December 19, 2012 by Moontanman
MonDie Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) That's quite possibly one of the worst suggestions I've ever heard in my life. The amplified blow torch could be used safely when the grass is wet or covered in snow. Nonetheless, my point is that there must be alternatives for scaring off coyotes. Do you also use your gun to open cans, break up old concrete, and rouse the cattle? Most likely, you have alternative things that can perform those same functions, and those alternative things are probably designed for their respective uses. Guns are designed to kill things. Just as natural selection adapts the bird beak to perform the function that is most beneficial to survival, we adapt the tools that benefit our ways of life. The gun is slowly becoming obselete, and it's being made obselete by the inventiveness of man-kind. Edited December 19, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die
John Cuthber Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 By analogy, I know in the UK you have a law making it illegal to "insult someone thereby causing them distress". What law? Anyway " But, the US congress couldn't make that law even if the majority supported it and believed it would benefit society and make it safer." Why not? I guess it's a breach of the constitution but that's not set in stone: it can be amended. "So, even if there were only one person to whom a gun was a benefit (I should have to give an example)" There are many things that would be of benefit to some individuals which are banned in the US. Many drugs for example or bombs. " The one is assuming that liberty outweighs public safety and the other makes the opposite assumption." False dichotomy. I have the liberty not to get shot at.
A Tripolation Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 The amplified blow torch could be used safely when the grass is wet or covered in snow. Nonetheless, my point is that there must be alternatives for scaring off coyotes. Do you also use your gun to open cans, break up old concrete, and rouse the cattle? Most likely, you have alternative things that can perform those same functions, and those alternative things are probably designed for their respective uses. Guns are designed to kill things. Just as natural selection adapts the bird beak to perform the function that is most beneficial to survival, we adapt the tools that benefit our ways of life. The gun is slowly becoming obselete, and it's being made obselete by the inventiveness of man-kind. ...we WANT to kill the coyotes. We want them dead. 1
MonDie Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) I guess your need for the gun is reasonable. Edited December 19, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die 1
A Tripolation Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 I guess your need for the gun is reasonable. Yes, it is. Thank you. Though I give credit to this forum because most members here have made explicit exceptions for farmers/ranchers that need to protect their livestock. This is why the argument to ban guns outright is stupid, but the discussion on assault weapons merits looking at. 1
StringJunky Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Yes, it is. Thank you. Though I give credit to this forum because most members here have made explicit exceptions for farmers/ranchers that need to protect their livestock. This is why the argument to ban guns outright is stupid, but the discussion on assault weapons merits looking at.Farmers Farmers and ranchers are easily justifiable owners of guns imo. I would hazard that most farmers in the UK own at least one...it's an integral part of that life.
Moontanman Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Farmers and ranchers are easily justifiable owners of guns imo. I would hazard that most farmers in the UK own at least one...it's an integral part of that life. I was under the impression that all guns had been banned in the UK
StringJunky Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) LOL! Noooo! Scroll down to Licensing and Legislation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom Subject to meeting standard criteria, I think it's straightforward to own shotguns but you have to meet stringent rules to own a firearm: .To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, firearms licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defencehas not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where firearms will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a license be issued, which must be renewed every 5 years. I wonder how much of this could be applied in the US? Edited December 20, 2012 by StringJunky
MonDie Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) I'm just reading through the first several pages that I skipped. The discussion on security measures can have something added to it. Most public buildings only have pretend security measures to ward off criminals. As has been said, it's porbably the case that such deterents only send the criminals to places without obvious security measures. For this reason, the government should give tax breaks to public places with discrete security measures designed to catch criminals, not ward them off. This is why the argument to ban guns outright is stupid, but the discussion on assault weapons merits looking at. I hope you realize that I was not one of the people arguing that, I only suggested that a reason for owning the gun should be prerequisite. Edited December 20, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die
Moontanman Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 LOL! Noooo! Scroll down to Licensing and Legislation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom Subject to meeting standard criteria, I think it's straightforward to own shotguns but you have to meet stringent rules to own a firearm: .To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, firearms licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defencehas not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where firearms will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a license be issued, which must be renewed every 5 years. I wonder how much of this could be applied in the US? Depends on how reasonable Americans will be when you tell them they cannot defend themselves with a gun... not many I am betting... guns are seriously part of our culture, to ignore that means you ignore a large number of the population... I'm not saying it's right or wrong it's just the reality of the situation...
StringJunky Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Depends on how reasonable Americans will be when you tell them they cannot defend themselves with a gun... not many I am betting... guns are seriously part of our culture, to ignore that means you ignore a large number of the population... I'm not saying it's right or wrong it's just the reality of the situation... How about restricting it to 'home defence' ie within the boundaries of ones property?
Moontanman Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) How about restricting it to 'home defence' ie within the boundaries of ones property? I could live with that to a great extent, but I am rather more reasonable than most... Edited December 20, 2012 by Moontanman
StringJunky Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) I could live with that to a great extent, but I am rather more reasonable than most. You are indeed. I would say what you do and what with (a 410) regarding home security your end is probably sensible and could be safely replicated across your country in most cases. There are many facets to gun-ownership types, of which personal security is only one but the law should have specific requirements for who can use what weapons, where and when. It can't be described in a paragraph! IIRC the UK Home Office advisory book for the police to consult is over 200 pages. Realistically, it will take years to implement positive and meaningful change because what the law starts takes a long time to be embodied within the psych of the populace but I think it would be good for the long-term peace of mind of America to make a start soon. Edited December 20, 2012 by StringJunky
Recommended Posts