Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Someone took the quiz at 6:25.50 PM today. As a reading comprehension test, and I specified it as a reading comprehension test, that person flunked the first three key questions. Zero for three.

Oooh.. Boomer-BURN!

By the way, Bob. That last question... I'm thinking it's the one with the president in it. is that right?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Someone took the quiz at 6:25.50 PM today. As a reading comprehension test, and I specified it as a reading comprehension test, that person flunked the first three key questions. Zero for three.

Which is pretty much par for the course, and not just for Mr. 6:25:50. The majority of the people responding to the quiz cannot seem to take it as a reading comprehension test, but answer with what they wished it said.

Which is part of why the discussion is, as I believe Rani put it, a perpetual motion machine. No one can listen. No one wants to open their mind sufficiently to understand.

Oh I see, yes I didn't read the first sentence. I took it as an opinion poll. Yes we do sometimes jump the gun, preferring our opinions.

Oh, did you like my pun, jump the gun? Hey, that rhymes!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Oh I see, yes I didn't read the first sentence.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it also may make you look like a jackass.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Ignorance may be bliss, but it also may make you look like a jackass.

Unlike you, at least I admit making a mistake.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

If we could provide a reasonable way to "fast track" background checks for people who suddenly find themselves getting death threats, for women (hell, and men for that matter) being stalked, for people who report to the police some threats or incidents that started occurring suddenly enough that they can't wait seven days for protection, I might be inclined to agree with you.

But (as a random example) if a woman breaks up with her husband or boyfriend and he starts stalking her and cops an "if I can't have you, no one will" attitude, I don't want to tell her she has to wait seven days to bolster her self-defense. Especially since the courts have ruled that law enforcement has no liability for their failure to protect you even if you report you are in clear and present danger of being victimized.

that is a good reason and it took me the hour drive home to come up with a possible alternative to the gun: Tasers perhaps? I think that would be preferable to shooting and possibly killing someone, maybe yourself if they were able to get to the gun first. In the situation that you described a woman who breaks it off with her husband just wants to protect herself not take her ex's life no matter how much she hates him. (I'm sure there are people who would disagree with that last one but if they were to be completely honest with themselves they wouldn't want blood on their hands)
You can get tasers pretty quick can't you?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You can't use a law meant to restrict firearms, to ban firearms.

Given how you ignore the plain meaning of the Second Amendment I think that you have made my point for me.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is not worded strongly. It says the purpose of people being allowed to own guns, is that a militia is needed. That need is long since outdated.

You might want to ask the Swiss about that one since they are still operating with such a system to this day. It is quite a peaceful nation as I understand the situation.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's crazy to allow people to carry concealed weapons, unless I suppose they have some reason by virtue of their law enforcement occupation. Even then I am not really in favor. Allowing concealed weapons is a perversion of laws allowing people to have guns. It is certainly not an example of how reasonable requirements for gun ownership result in a ban.

No, it isn't since it turned mugging and car-jacking into a large scale game of Russian roulette for the criminals. Violent crime decreased after 1992 and the large scale scale bloodbath that the gun control people were predicting never happened. Unless you count the car-jackers who suddenly started getting dead which no one considered to be a great loss.

This example shows that government officials can and will misuse a law to get what they see as a desirable goal. I forget that you consider government officials, provided they are Democrats, to be angels.

Originally Posted by Yorick's Skull

that is a good reason and it took me the hour drive home to come up with a possible alternative to the gun: Tasers perhaps? I think that would be preferable to shooting and possibly killing someone, maybe yourself if they were able to get to the gun first. In the situation that you described a woman who breaks it off with her husband just wants to protect herself not take her ex's life no matter how much she hates him. (I'm sure there are people who would disagree with that last one but if they were to be completely honest with themselves they wouldn't want blood on their hands)
You can get tasers pretty quick can't you?

Sadly not at all in some states. In many of the same states with tighter gun control regimes, handguns are legal while tasers are not. Tasers are not really non-lethal, they are way less lethal than a gun. However, because they are thought of as non-lethal, there have been problems with people using them for pranks. They also suffer from some serious disadvantages as a self defense weapon. They require much more training to use effectively than one would think. They generally only get one shot, if you miss... Also, sufficiently thick clothing can defeat a taser.

That being said, I like the taser, combined with a dog and/or alarm system, as a compromise for people whose risk analysis indicates they are "unlikely to" or "may in time" be required to engage in self defense. You avoid the higher risk of accidental firearm injuries/fatalities. However, if your risk analysis indicates you "will over time" or simply "will" have to engage in self defense, a firearm, again combined with a dog and/or alarm system, is probably your best option.

As an aside, outside of a person's domestic situation, one of the best indicators of your risk to have to engage in self defense can be derived from the amount of your time where you are in close proximity to white/black men aged 14-24 with low socio-economic opportunities and weak civic institutions. If you think you might be living or working in these types of conditions, talk to your local police and/or get a police scanner and listen in on the typical radio dispatches to confirm your analysis.

Naturally, if you own firearms for other purposes, most of the above doesn't apply.

It may not be the permissive concealed carry environment starting in the early 1990s that led to lowering crime levels.

There is an interesting correlation between homicide rates and offenders between the ages of 14-24. Starting in the mid-1980s, these rates start to rise and peak in the mid-90s before starting to fall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homoffendersbyage.svg

This time-frame also correlates fairly well to when Gen Xers are passing through those age groups. The earliest Gen Xer was 14 in 1975, when the homicide trend starts to rise, and the latest Gen Xer was 24 in 2005 when homicide rates for 14-24 year old group come back to their mid-1980s levels. It is also interesting to note that the homicide rates for all ages older than 24 are falling, for the most part, across that time frame.

This would fit well with S and H 3T hypothesis.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

It may not be the permissive concealed carry environment starting in the early 1990s that led to lowering crime levels.

There is an interesting correlation between homicide rates and offenders between the ages of 14-24. Starting in the mid-1980s, these rates start to rise and peak in the mid-90s before starting to fall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homoffendersbyage.svg

This time-frame also correlates fairly well to when Gen Xers are passing through those age groups. The earliest Gen Xer was 14 in 1975, when the homicide trend starts to rise, and the latest Gen Xer was 24 in 2005 when homicide rates for 14-24 year old group come back to their mid-1980s levels. It is also interesting to note that the homicide rates for all ages older than 24 are falling, for the most part, across that time frame.

This would fit well with S and H 3T hypothesis.

In this case the fall off was rather dramatic in the space of a couple of years. Car-Jacking became much less common in about six months. This is much faster than your theory would allow for. You might want to compare the rates between states that don't have the must issue permits.

Originally Posted by Galen

In this case the fall off was rather dramatic in the space of a couple of years. Car-Jacking became much less common in about six months. This is much faster than your theory would allow for. You might want to compare the rates between states that don't have the must issue permits.

Point taken. Do you have a good source of state by state car jacking stats for say 1980 forward?

Also, I see several hypothesis that might include concealed carry effectiveness re car jacking and still link overall levels of violence to Gen Xers passing through the ages of 14-24.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

Point taken. Do you have a good source of state by state car jacking stats for say 1980 forward?

Also, I see several hypothesis that might include concealed carry effectiveness re car jacking and still link overall levels of violence to Gen Xers passing through the ages of 14-24.

I am speaking of the State of Oregon since this is where I live so I don't have access to such numbers for all states. Look up John Lott who did a quite good study on the matter. When looking into this you have to remember that there are many people like Eric who will stack the deck to make the numbers say what they want. I am aware of some of the controversy surrounding him after about 2003 which is long after his initial study which was published long before this.

The only other thing that you can do is pull the violent crime numbers from the FBI since they keep crime statistics.

I don't doubt that S&H are describing a real effect that operates over a long term.

Originally Posted by Galen

I am speaking of the State of Oregon since this is where I live so I don't have access to such numbers for all states. Look up John Lott who did a quite good study on the matter. When looking into this you have to remember that there are many people like Eric who will stack the deck to make the numbers say what they want. I am aware of some of the controversy surrounding him after about 2003 which is long after his initial study which was published long before this.

The only other thing that you can do is pull the violent crime numbers from the FBI since they keep crime statistics.

I don't doubt that S&H are describing a real effect that operates over a long term.

Two sentences you find congruent. Amazing. I can't think of a more biased source of data and analysis on the entire issue of guns that John Lott.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Oooh.. Boomer-BURN!

By the way, Bob. That last question... I'm thinking it's the one with the president in it. is that right?

Nope. That one isn't just reading comprehension though. To find the answer, look here.

But, again, if you had really been reading my posts over the last few weeks, you'd know the answer.

This thread has completely turned into the sort of repeated dialog you could plug into a bot, namely:

"Guns are nasty and horrible and should be abolished."
"Guns are necessary and our right to them should be protected."
"No, NO! Guns are nasty and horrible and should be abolished."
"No, you idiot, Guns are necessary and our right to them should be protected!"
"What? You want a Mad Max world, you barbarian? Guns are nasty and horrible and should be abolished!"
"What? You want your wife and daughter and grandmother viciously assaulted by the bad guys? Guns are necessary and our right to them should be protected!"

Repeat lines 1-6 ad infinitum. Or ad nauseum. Have fun.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Repeat lines 1-6 ad infinitum. Or ad nauseum. Have fun.

Mmmmm... Nausea infinitum.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

This thread has completely turned into the sort of repeated dialog you could plug into a bot, namely:

"Guns are nasty and horrible and should be abolished."
"Guns are necessary and our right to them should be protected."
"No, NO! Guns are nasty and horrible and should be abolished."
"No, you idiot, Guns are necessary and our right to them should be protected!"
"What? You want a Mad Max world, you barbarian? Guns are nasty and horrible and should be abolished!"
"What? You want your wife and daughter and grandmother viciously assaulted by the bad guys? Guns are necessary and our right to them should be protected!"

Repeat lines 1-6 ad infinitum. Or ad nauseum. Have fun.

Gotta love ya, Pat. I think you just pretty much described what's going in this country with most topics that have debated till we are blue in the face. Do I hear "standstill, gridlock". That pretty much sums it up.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

This thread has completely turned into the sort of repeated dialog you could plug into a bot, namely:

"Guns are nasty and horrible and should be abolished."
"Guns are necessary and our right to them should be protected."
"No, NO! Guns are nasty and horrible and should be abolished."
"No, you idiot, Guns are necessary and our right to them should be protected!"
"What? You want a Mad Max world, you barbarian? Guns are nasty and horrible and should be abolished!"
"What? You want your wife and daughter and grandmother viciously assaulted by the bad guys? Guns are necessary and our right to them should be protected!"

Repeat lines 1-6 ad infinitum. Or ad nauseum. Have fun.

That's why I've mostly stopped participating in it unless someone posts something original and interesting. Chas and I agreed to quit trying to reason with Eric on the gun issue.

Originally Posted by Odin

That's why I've mostly stopped participating in it unless someone posts something original and interesting. Chas and I agreed to quit trying to reason with Eric on the gun issue.

Which doesn't indicate that either myself or you are the more reasonable one; but that we are BOTH locked on one side or the other on this issue, according to Grey Badger's model.

It may be a case of which principle is right, non-violence, or violence. It is an ethical or moral choice. I choose non-violence.

But I recognize that in the real world there are limits to non-violence. Laws need to be enforced. Occasionally, though less often than Americans think, a nation needs to defend itself or its vital interests from attack by another nation or terrorists and criminals. So then, what about private use of weapons? And laws regarding this?

Most gun advocates think violence is justified in order to kill animals. I don't see that as a necessary reason for violence.

Others think violence is justified for self-protection, so that the private level is equally justified as the national level. People might trot out statistics to defend their position either way. I wonder how relevant it is which statistic is stronger than the other. It is clear that self-defense by guns will work sometimes, and it is equally clear that guns purchased for self-protection might also be purchased or stolen by criminals, that self-defense by guns doesn't work sometimes, and that guns purchased for self-protection will be used by their law-abiding owners to commit crimes or allow accidents sometimes. So it is an ethical choice of which circumstances trump which. I come down on the side of a gun ban as the better choice, all things considered.

More next post. Long posts are too hard to read.

Using guns for self-defense is in most cases not viable. If you shoot a burglar who is unarmed, you are committing murder, pure and simple. If someone attacks you with a knife or blunt instrument, and is stronger than you, I can see that a gun might work. If the intruder has a gun, then it's a shootout and also a gamble. It might be better to let the intruder steal something, hold your hands up, and hope he leaves you alone. A gun used as a threat, is not viable unless you are willing to shoot it. That is violence. And then there's the problem that keeping the gun safe, may make it useless for self-protection.

There are better ways of self-defense. No one has proven this not to be the case, although some people might prefer guns. Live in a safe neighborhood. Get a dog. Use mace or a taser. Install alarms and locks. Learn karate. Call 9-11 and hope they get there in time. Put up a sign that says you have a gun, or at least that there's neighborhood watch. There are many ways for people who prefer non-violence to murder. A society that relies on guns for protection is ultimately a barbaric society.

But why do I say a gun ban? I qualify this (as I have said before). Since a ban would have to be enforced by violence, I say we should expect a ban on guns when it is easily enforceable; when people have been convinced non-violently, and by persuasion, that non-violence is better. I admit that might take a while. Meanwhile, a compromise in which gun control is strict in urban areas and more lax in rural ones would be better and help defuse the endless controversy. If that's what people really want. If people prefer to be less locked in debates and gridlock, as they claim, they would favor such compromises. Why, for example, doesn't the morning after pill take the abortion controversy off the table? If Americans can get smarter, they can get along fine and move the country forward.

Gun control opponents think any gun control law will inevitably lead to a ban. This is like saying requiring drivers to get a license will lead to a ban on cars. If people like Galen think that government officials can't be trusted to carry out the law as written, and will use it to be more restrictive than the law allows, then once again they are defending anarchy and throwing out the constitution-- the 2nd amendment of which they claim to be protecting.

Bob Butler is also a boomer. His quiz is intended to defend his ideological position. He admits the questions are loaded. He knows perfectly well that many judges have interpreted the 2nd Amendment as I do, as well as the way he does, and that even the most right-wing Supreme Court since Dred Scott has upheld gun control even as it struck down a ban.

My bliss is not from ignorance, remember; it is because I know ALL!
Cynics like Rani can never hope to experience such bliss as I do.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It may be a case of which principle is right, non-violence, or violence. It is an ethical or moral choice. I choose non-violence.

This seems somewhat disingenuous. First, it may be a case of which principle is right. Then it is an ethical or moral choice, one of two very limited choices between one clearly positive moral and one clearly negative moral. This fails to acknowledge the ethical dilemma between a moral choice of maximum possible individual freedom consistent with the public good and the sanctity of human life. We also see this dilemma played out in the abortion and death penalty debates. Not so oddly, these are also areas where people take sides based on ideological faith rather than reason. For what its worth, I also choose non-violence except when non-violence doesn't work. I also come down on the side of using available evidence to support rational decisions.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But I recognize that in the real world there are limits to non-violence. Laws need to be enforced. Occasionally, though less often than Americans think, a nation needs to defend itself or its vital interests from attack by another nation or terrorists and criminals.

Concur.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So then, what about private use of weapons? And laws regarding this?

Most gun advocates think violence is justified in order to kill animals. I don't see that as a necessary reason for violence.

This argument might make sense on two counts, neither of which I concede.

First, you must establish that guns cause violence. From our previous discussions, I concede that gun prevalence is causal to accidental firearms injuries/fatalities. However, the preponderance of evidence supports the hypothesis that firearms are NOT causal to suicides. Additionally, even from liberal sources of statistical data there is insufficient evidence to establish that costs of guns in terms of lives lost versus lives saved to support banning guns. Therefore, gun safety regulations make sense, just like auto safety regulations but beyond that you have failed to persuade me of your point.

Second, you don't see violence as justified to kill animals. Hmmm, I have to assume that either you do not support the killing of animals or that you think there is a non-violent way to kill animals (short of old age). Either way, your statement seems to imply that violence equals guns. Weapons do not make violence. Taking weapons away from violent people does not make them non-violent.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Others think violence is justified for self-protection, so that the private level is equally justified as the national level. People might trot out statistics to defend their position either way. I wonder how relevant it is which statistic is stronger than the other. It is clear that self-defense by guns will work sometimes, and it is equally clear that guns purchased for self-protection might also be purchased or stolen by criminals, that self-defense by guns doesn't work sometimes, and that guns purchased for self-protection will be used by their law-abiding owners to commit crimes or allow accidents sometimes.

Eric, I submit there is evidence (one can look at the preponderance of evidence in peer reviewed professional and academic journals) that can inform this decision based on rational risk analysis. Please see the previous thread you, Marx & Lennon and I were discussing.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So it is an ethical choice of which circumstances trump which. I come down on the side of a gun ban as the better choice, all things considered.

I repeat it may also be a rational choice based off risk analysis and I come down on the side of using available evidence to support rational decisions.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

More next post. Long posts are too hard to read.

Can't wait.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Gotta love ya, Pat. I think you just pretty much described what's going in this country with most topics that have debated till we are blue in the face. Do I hear "standstill, gridlock". That pretty much sums it up.

I concur. Time to leave this to the bots.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

This seems somewhat disingenuous. First, it may be a case of which principle is right. Then it is an ethical or moral choice, one of two very limited choices between one clearly positive moral and one clearly negative moral. This fails to acknowledge the ethical dilemma between a moral choice of maximum possible individual freedom consistent with the public good and the sanctity of human life. We also see this dilemma played out in the abortion and death penalty debates. Not so oddly, these are also areas where people take sides based on ideological faith rather than reason. For what its worth, I also choose non-violence except when non-violence doesn't work. I also come down on the side of using available evidence to support rational decisions.

You are talking about individual freedom to commit violence. I don't see it as amplifying the choice.

This argument might make sense on two counts, neither of which I concede.

First, you must establish that guns cause violence. From our previous discussions, I concede that gun prevalence is causal to accidental firearms injuries/fatalities. However, the preponderance of evidence supports the hypothesis that firearms are NOT causal to suicides. Additionally, even from liberal sources of statistical data there is insufficient evidence to establish that costs of guns in terms of lives lost versus lives saved to support banning guns. Therefore, gun safety regulations make sense, just like auto safety regulations but beyond that you have failed to persuade me of your point.

I didn't mention suicides, but it's hard to deny that guns can be and are used for suicide. No stats seem necessary; we have heard news reports all our lives that guns are used for that purpose, over and over again.


Relative stats on "Lives lost" is a curious idea to me. If self-defense was not effectively used in an attack, for example, that could mean that a gun was not used; it could also mean that the dozens of other methods available were not used. All these kinds of stats seem to me to be used to confuse things. I have posted stats that show societies with more guns and less control equals more murders.

Second, you don't see violence as justified to kill animals. Hmmm, I have to assume that either you do not support the killing of animals or that you think there is a non-violent way to kill animals (short of old age). Either way, your statement seems to imply that violence equals guns. Weapons do not make violence. Taking weapons away from violent people does not make them non-violent.

Guns are used for violence, and for no other purpose. Possession of guns is a threat to use them. There is no other reason to have a workable firearm than to use it, or to practice using it for a future occasion-- which again means, to use it. To use it, is violence. That other means of violence also exist, is irrelevant. Our bodies are possible weapons; we can't ban our bodies. Guns are not necessary; our bodies are. So are knives. Taking away weapons from people doesn't make them non-violent. But giving people easy access to weapons that make violence easier to do, causes violence. Labeling people as "violent" or "not violent", or "law-abiding" or not, is nonsense. The same person may be violent one time and non-violent the next.

I repeat it may also be a rational choice based off risk analysis and I come down on the side of using available evidence to support rational decisions.

Given that stats are so often used to support one side or the other, and can be interpreted in many ways, and can fail to take many other factors into account, I say stats are useful, but are not a substitute for also having a clear ability to observe and to have good ethical principles rationally-developed. You are using rational risk analysis to support use of violence. I am skeptical of this. The stats I posted are different than the ones you posted. Yours are no better, and only showed lack of conclusive evidence iirc.

I think the answer is to minimize violence in all possible ways. It is clear that use of guns results in all the things I stated. Just which things are more common than which, seems irrelevant to me, when it is clear that they are all common, and which things happen most commonly changes from time to time.

I like that at least your discussion is "rational" rather than based on fear and prejudice, and you at least say you are open-minded. On the other hand, reason is not our only tool to determine truth and goodness.

Originally Posted by radind

I concur. Time to leave this to the bots.

There is no option but to keep advocating for the truth, and to keep searching for the truth. To "leave it to the bots," is to say OK, let problems get worse, I don't care.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Using guns for self-defense is in most cases not viable.

This statement is too broad to either agree or disagree. The vast majority or altercations invoking self-defense occurs absent firearms. Thus, this statement is true but irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If you shoot a burglar who is unarmed, you are committing murder, pure and simple.

False and False. Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of another person. If you kill an unarmed burglar with a firearm it might be murder, depending on the state and the presence of a clear imminent threat to yours or another's life. An unarmed burglar can still present a clear imminent threat to your life. In some states the mere presence of an unarmed burglar in your house may consist of a clear imminent threat. Much like most of our laws, this is not clear and simple, hence the reason there are lawyers.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If someone attacks you with a knife or blunt instrument, and is stronger than you, I can see that a gun might work.

I can accept your concession but I would change "and is stronger" to "or is stronger." The challenges presented by a opponent with a baseball bat are significantly harder to deal with then the challenges posed by an opponent with a knife. Mass and strength are significant factors either way.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If the intruder has a gun, then it's a shootout and also a gamble. It might be better to let the intruder steal something, hold your hands up, and hope he leaves you alone.

It might be better to not resist but some evidence supports the hypothesis that in general resistance is a better course of action. I recognize that you do not acknowledge either the work of Gary Kleck or of John Lott, so I won't cite them here. Lets use a study that I think you would find very interesting. On page 222 of this report, Resistance and Injury in Non-Fatal Violence, the authors state "Offering nonforceful resistance was linked to a lower likelihood of actually being attacked. Those who did not were attacked in 54% of assualts, while those who resisted nonforcefully were attacked only 25% of the time...

On the other hand, attempting either form of forceful resistance detailed in the survey was strongly related to a higher likelihood of attack. Thirty-four percent of those who did not respond violently to their predicament were assaulted, but 71% of those who did so were assaulted."

The conclusions on page 224 and 225 are well worth the read. Combining this study and similar studies with FBI data on resisting violent assault with a firearm yields some interesting observations that are consistent with all of the martial arts training I have received.

Tiered Approach to Self Defense

First - Avoid violent prone areas and situations and people.
Second - Avoid making yourself a target through deterrence (stay in large groups, a dog, alarm systems, ect.) or non-attractors (don't show cash, etc.).
Third - Failing avoidance, use nonforceful resistance. Flee / attract attention / attempt to reason or use other non-forceful forms of resistance.
Fourth - Failing non-forceful resistance, resist with a firearm, if available.
Fifth - Make a determination on no resistance or violent resistance without a firearm. If faced with multiple young men with weapons of opportunity or knives, bats, etc you are likely to be attacked. If you decide to resist without a firearm, even if you are a black belt in karate, expect a trip to the ER at a minimum.

Note that these are only general guidelines from amassed statistical data. Any situation you find yourself in will be unique and must be evaluated on its own merits.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A gun used as a threat, is not viable unless you are willing to shoot it. That is violence.

First sentence false and second sentence true but irrelevant.

On page 224 of the study cited above, the authors state "Controlling for other factors, the presence of a gun was consistently linked to a lessened risk of injury (short of death), and knife cases fell at about average. It was the least lethal weapons - those rocks, clubs and bottles which often were actually used..." Clearly the gun was a viable deterrent in these non-fatal assaults.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And then there's the problem that keeping the gun safe, may make it useless for self-protection.

True but irrelevant. It is not an argument for or against a position to state that maybe something won't work as planned.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There are better ways of self-defense. No one has proven this not to be the case, although some people might prefer guns. Live in a safe neighborhood. Get a dog. Use mace or a taser. Install alarms and locks. Learn karate. Call 9-11 and hope they get there in time. Put up a sign that says you have a gun, or at least that there's neighborhood watch. There are many ways for people who prefer non-violence to murder.

The evidence supports the hypothesis that tiered resistance, as described above, yields the most effective results. While I accept the premise that no one has proven this not to be the case in the most absolute terms, the evidence supporting a tiered resistance approach described above currently outweighs counter evidence by a wide margin and is consistent with my personal experience.

Mace and karate are not more viable than a gun - they will yield a higher injury / fatality result than non-violent resistance or resisting with a firearm. Data supports this and so does my personal experience. I have been tear gassed and maced for training on several occasions and I can still press an attack. I hold a black belt in karate / tae kwon do and have additional experience in judo and hapkido. Martial arts will give you an edge but unless you are currently in shape, in practice with at least two to three years of dedicated training, or attack via surprise or get lucky you will have a higher probability of getting hurt or worse if things go physical than if you used a firearm for self defense.

However, if your personal safety risk analysis determines that self defense "may be required over time" and you decide the chances of accidental firearms injury is higher, then a taser combined with a dog make a good hedge against a single opponent. Against multiple opponents, there is insufficient evidence to make that determination.

Calling 911 and hoping is not a plan - all the real (non-training) altercations I have been involved in (three personal ones and several I responded to when I interned as an EMT for a summer) usually had the EMTs on scene before the police and always after the violence was over.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A society that relies on guns for protection is ultimately a barbaric society.

Even if true, removing the guns does not make the society any less barbaric. Thus the statement is interesting but irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But why do I say a gun ban? I qualify this (as I have said before). Since a ban would have to be enforced by violence, I say we should expect a ban on guns when it is easily enforceable; when people have been convinced non-violently, and by persuasion, that non-violence is better. I admit that might take a while. Meanwhile, a compromise in which gun control is strict in urban areas and more lax in rural ones would be better and help defuse the endless controversy. If that's what people really want.

We do ban guns were it is easily enforceable. Prisons, airports, and other places where we have put the resource to ensure that we verify gun ban compliance. Without putting the requisite amount of resources in place you are unlikely to get young violent criminals to willingly disarm themselves. Law abiding citizens will, but they are not your problem demographic. So, what does an unenforceable gun ban accomplish other than make the population more susceptible to the problem demographic?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If people prefer to be less locked in debates and gridlock, as they claim, they would favor such compromises. Why, for example, doesn't the morning after pill take the abortion controversy off the table? If Americans can get smarter, they can get along fine and move the country forward.

Ideological faith often trumps reason, even among the "smartest" of our people.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Gun control opponents think any gun control law will inevitably lead to a ban. This is like saying requiring drivers to get a license will lead to a ban on cars.

I would prefer you said, "Many gun control opponents..." I am for smart gun control, similar to the requirements we have to operate large dangerous machinery in close proximity to other people. Safety regulations, required training for people wanting to use firearms in the public domain, waiting periods for handguns and background checks all have sufficient evidence for positive benefit to the public good that I am willing to accept these as limitations on personal freedom. Beyond that, insufficient or contrary evidence prevents me from supporting additional regulations or bans.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If people like Galen think that government officials can't be trusted to carry out the law as written, and will use it to be more restrictive than the law allows, then once again they are defending anarchy and throwing out the constitution-- the 2nd amendment of which they claim to be protecting.

Bob Butler is also a boomer. His quiz is intended to defend his ideological position. He admits the questions are loaded. He knows perfectly well that many judges have interpreted the 2nd Amendment as I do, as well as the way he does, and that even the most right-wing Supreme Court since Dred Scott has upheld gun control even as it struck down a ban.

I'll let Bob and Galen offer their own thoughts to this.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

My bliss is not from ignorance, remember; it is because I know ALL!
Cynics like Rani can never hope to experience such bliss as I do.

My background and knowledge of astrology could be painlessly engraved in size 36 font on my thumbnail, so I can't make a claim to know all but I have an opinion on everything anyway.

I won't reply to most of your arguments; the part about the unarmed burglar is a good correction, but I covered that in the part about someone stronger who attacks you; yes "or" is fine. But your statements of false or irrelevant I just disagree and let my statements stand.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

Tiered Approach to Self Defense

First - Avoid violent prone areas and situations and people.
Second - Avoid making yourself a target through deterrence (stay in large groups, a dog, alarm systems, ect.) or non-attractors (don't show cash, etc.).
Third - Failing avoidance, use nonforceful resistance. Flee / attract attention / attempt to reason or use other non-forceful forms of resistance.
Fourth - Failing non-forceful resistance, resist with a firearm, if available.
Fifth - Make a determination on no resistance or violent resistance without a firearm. If faced with multiple young men with weapons of opportunity or knives, bats, etc you are likely to be attacked. If you decide to resist without a firearm, even if you are a black belt in karate, expect a trip to the ER at a minimum.

Note that these are only general guidelines from amassed statistical data. Any situation you find yourself in will be unique and must be evaluated on its own merits.

I mentioned many more possibilities than these. Murder or attempted murder (of whatever degree or justification, meaning use of a firearm) should be the last resort, not the 4th.

Mace and karate are not more viable than a gun - they will yield a higher injury / fatality result than non-violent resistance or resisting with a firearm.

Your comments indicate that you mean higher injury to yourself. But firearms will always mean a higher injury rate to the attacker, so they are the most violent and last resort.

Calling 911 and hoping is not a plan - all the real (non-training) altercations I have been involved in (three personal ones and several I responded to when I interned as an EMT for a summer) usually had the EMTs on scene before the police and always after the violence was over.

But I had an occasion where the call was the right solution. It depends on the situation.

Even if true, removing the guns does not make the society any less barbaric. Thus the statement is interesting but irrelevant.

Giving people easy means to be violent, and making it easier for people to rely on for protection instead of on civilization, is to make a more barbaric society. Which is what America is.

We do ban guns were it is easily enforceable. Prisons, airports, and other places where we have put the resource to ensure that we verify gun ban compliance. Without putting the requisite amount of resources in place you are unlikely to get young violent criminals to willingly disarm themselves. Law abiding citizens will, but they are not your problem demographic. So, what does an unenforceable gun ban accomplish other than make the population more susceptible to the problem demographic?

You are misinterpreting my comment. Of course a ban would be enforced. My point is that it would be easier to enforce is there is a broad consensus in favor of a ban; unlike today where you have folks like some here who say they would resist if someone tries to take their gun away.

I would prefer you said, "Many gun control opponents..." I am for smart gun control, similar to the requirements we have to operate large dangerous machinery in close proximity to other people. Safety regulations, required training for people wanting to use firearms in the public domain, waiting periods for handguns and background checks all have sufficient evidence for positive benefit to the public good that I am willing to accept these as limitations on personal freedom.

We agree that far. But that means you are not a "gun control opponent" as I would define it.

Discussion about a "ban," in my opinion now, is discussion about the ethical question of should I possess and rely on guns. I say no.