I get all that, but I think it's dumb just because it's unnecessarily provocative (and that's often the intent from what I've seen). It's also stupid from a self-defense standpoint, since someone who wants to start stuff is going to target the open-carrier first.
OK, I'll bite. I have no dog in this fight. I don't have a position on the gun debate. I'm just participating because I'm finding this line of debate annoying on both sides. It looks like this. "Inflammatory statement" Side A - Show me yours and I'll show you mine Side B - lol, I don't care enough. Insult. johnnyfive, I'm going to try to force your hand. Maybe I will learn something in this "debate". Hopefully, it might even be about the gun debate. Cite (several studies hosted on the Harvard website) Claims from that cite. Each of these claims are backed by a study. "Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal" "Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense" "Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime" "Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense" " Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens" "Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions" I'll go out on a limb and put those studies together to say that owning a gun for self-defense gives more rise to harm than defense. I'm interested to see your studies that show that gun owners who use their guns for self-defense are safer than those who do not. Edit: This was simulposted with cgod's "Part Two" response.
I linked to this study (also from Harvard) elsewhere in this thread. as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative. It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so. Next, they discuss rates of gun ownership and murder in various other countries. The Soviet Union (and then Russia) had virtually no civilian gun ownership, but much higher murder rates than even the United States. For example, Russia's murder rate in 2002 was 20.54 per 100,000. Luxembourg, which has virtually non-existent gun ownership, had a homicide rate of 9 per 100,000 in 2002, which was almost double the U.S.'s rate for that year. They also look within countries, and find that, for example, gun ownership rates correlate negatively with homicide rates across constabularies in England. Quoting research on the efficacy of British gun control measures: strict gun laws. When it had no firearms restrictions [nineteenth and early twentieth century] England had little violent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence. The authors go on to point out that many studies look at gun laws and how they prevent gun violence but not violence overall. In other words, if a study shows that gun deaths go down after more restrictive laws are put in place but not murder rates as a whole, that shouldn't be used to prove that gun laws are effective in reducing murder rates (but often are). As for the idea that self-defense uses are rare: the United States, “in fact, more defensive gun uses [by victims] than crimes committed with firearms." And find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes. “[T]he felons most frightened ‘about confronting an armed victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative number of privately owned firearms.” Conversely, robbery is highest in states that most restrict gun ownership.International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of
Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold.
Recent analysis reveals “a great deal of self‐defensive use of firearms” in
National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates
Yes, I saw your points on the other issue in this thread. They didn't touch on this issue at that time. I looked at the 46 page pdf and did a search on the word "defensive" to see where you got your argument from. The first search find was this: following observations: while there is a great deal of controversy about the subject, it is a misleading controversy in which anti‐gun advocatesʹ deep ethical or moral objections to civilian self‐defense are presented in the guise of empirical argument. The empirical evidence unquestionably establishes that gun ownership by prospective victims not only allows them to resist criminal attack, but also deters violent criminals from attacking them in the first place. From the same note: and deters criminal violence, but how extensive and important these benefits are. That's the question posed here in this piece of the thread. The paper you linked did not directly answer the question except to pose the same question in the notes. Back to your quote. I'm interested in where this statistic came from, (it's in the footnote 87) which states that it's a collection of studies. Note 89 states: of critics and criticisms. Your quote is slightly out of context and not consistent with the notes and the broader theme of the paper. As to your point about comparing other countries' relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates, the author of the article you linked notes in summary: low violence rates in high gun ownership nations other than the United States, one wonders why that deterrent effect would be amplified there. Even with the drop in United States murder rates that Lott and Mustard attribute to the massive increase in gun carry licensing, the United States murder rate is still eight times higher than Norway’s—even though the U.S. has an almost 300% higher rate of gun ownership. That is consistent with the points made above. Murder rates are determined by socio‐economic and cultural factors. In the United States, those factors include that the number of civilian‐owned guns nearly equals the population— triple the ownership rate in even the highest European gunownership nations—and that vast numbers of guns are kept for personal defense. That is not a factor in other nations with comparatively high firearm ownership. High gun ownership may well be a factor in the recent drastic decline in American homicide. But even so, American homicide is driven by socio‐economic and cultural factors that keep it far higher than the comparable rate of homicide in most European nations. In sum, though many nations with widespread gun ownership have much lower murder rates than nations that severely restrict gun ownership, it would be simplistic to assume that at all times and in all places widespread gun ownership depresses violence by deterring many criminals into nonconfrontation crime. There is evidence that it does so in the United States, where defensive gun ownership is a substantial socio‐cultural phenomenon. But the more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact severe anti‐gun laws. my bolding added The author of the article you linked is clear to point out that the relationship of one country's gun policies and the link to its homicide rate may not translate to another country rates due to socio-economic factors and its cultural history. That's a point you neglected to mention. The author notes that it may be impossible to find the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates because of the complexity of socio-economic factors and the cultural reasons for gun ownership. many factors other than guns may promote or reduce the number of murders in any given place or time or among particular groups. And it may be impossible even to identify these factors, much less to take account of them all. Thus any conclusions drawn from the kinds of evidence presented earlier in this paper must necessarily be tentative. The author then goes on to discuss the burden of proof and where it lies. The author asserts that the burden lies with those who want gun control. If there's no proof on either side, what's the reason that the burden of proof should lie on the side of the people who want gun control?I linked to this study (also from Harvard) elsewhere in this thread.
83. This Article will not discuss the defensive use of firearms beyond making the
The legitimate question is not whether victim gun possession allows for selfdefense
Recent analysis reveals “a great deal of self‐defensive use of firearms” in the United States, “in fact, more defensive gun uses [by victims] than crimes committed with firearms."
These studies are highly controversial. See Kates, supra note 29, at 70–71, for discussion
Moreover, if the deterrent effect of gun ownership accounts for
Of course, all other things may not be equal. Obviously,
Hasn't stopped you from doing so, it seems. What's the reason it should be on the other side? You've just kind of declared that it should be and left it at that.The author notes that it may be impossible to find the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates because of the complexity of socio-economic factors and the cultural reasons for gun ownership.
what's the reason that the burden of proof should lie on the side of the people who want gun control?
That's a curious response. I don't have a stance on this issue. I was using your source to point out that your own source doesn't say what you're purporting it to say in the unequivocal way you're stating it. Fivesplaining (or ELI5) is when someone takes a really complicated issue and objectively explains it without the jargon so the average person can understand it. I've now read your OP multiple times to try to understand what you're supposedly fivesplaining. Are you just fivesplaining how a gun works? If so, it's confusing since you're mentioning politics. The functioning of a gun doesn't include politics. Are you fivesplaining the complex debate surrounding the proliferation of guns and the debate surrounding gun control? If that's the case, so far you've presented a very biased one-sided view with cherry-picked "facts" from your own sources that contradicts your own source in places, and you're using rhetorical tactics to obfuscate the issues. If someone is offering to fivesplain the very complex gun control debate, I'd be interested to learn more in a fair and balanced presentation. Based on your responses in this thread, you're not offering that. I don't have a stance on this issue. But just based on looking at the resource you cited, an argument could be made that if there are ethical and moral concerns about gun ownership from a certain segment of the population, and it can't be proven that gun ownership is beneficial to society, then the burden of proof should fall on those who want less gun regulation.The author notes that it may be impossible to find the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates because of the complexity of socio-economic factors and the cultural reasons for gun ownership.
Hasn't stopped you from doing so, it seems.
what's the reason that the burden of proof should lie on the side of the people who want gun control?
What's the reason it should be on the other side? You've just kind of declared that it should be and left it at that.
Lol, not my problem, I really couldn't give a shit if you want to pretend your dangerous hobby isn't. If you wanted to know the consequences of owning a gun you would know it by now, no citation needed. Every gun owner I know is the Donald Trump of gun ownership until the day they aren't. Too many people in my family have got a little sad or a little mad one day and that was that. If we were a morose clan we'd have 3 empty seats each thanksgiving.
You're right, it's not. But thanks for clarifying that you're just interested in self-righteousness rather than actually talking about the issue. Will save me some time.
Hmmmm... Part two I really come off as an insufferable prick there. As if I haven't engaged in risky behaviors (mostly unprotected sex and drug use). It's absolutely fine to engage in risky behaviors and I sincerely hope most gun owners enjoy their guns. I'm an old married guy now and unprotected sex isn't' really a big issue. It's going to be no issue at all after Tuesday when I'm going to get my business snipped but I still occasionally do some heavy drugs. I enjoy them, rarely, but I also acknowledged that their use entails some degree of risk. Many gun owners say they want guns for protection but in now way acknowledge that owning guns also carries a degree of danger. I'm not against people owning guns or engaging in behavior that increases their risk, I just loath the Rambo bullshit that pretends owning a gun is safer than not owning one. Only seeing one side of the story, or engaging one sided cost benefit analysis is a fucking disease in America. For every crime that is prevented with a gun they are several avoidable tragedies. To maintain otherwise is to be full of shit.
Hmmm... In what way am I being self-righteous? I honestly don't know how. Maybe self-righteous doesn't mean what you think it does? I'm probably just a nudge left of the NRA in my opinions on gun laws but I'll stick to my guns that most gun owners aren't making any kind of accurate assessment on the dangers of gun ownership. They are like people who own pools who refuse to acknowledge that the ownership of such pools increases the likelihood of someone they intimately know drowning. Like ecib said, feeling safe and being safe are two different things. Forgive me if I'm going to blow off Hubski's resident gunsplainer for citations of information that is a google search away if he gave a shit. I don't expect a reasonable cost benefit analysis of a guy who's analysis of risk is I've known two maybe three gun owners who wouldn't have made the situation more dangerous last time I was the victim of a gun crime. They go to the range once a month, get special training one to two times a year and have a mind and skill set that has primed them to unhesitatingly shoot a man to death. Most gun owners are jerking off in gun grease imagining the day they are going to save the day but are in now real way prepared to do so. Maybe your the kind of guy who goes to the range and gets training, keeps the key to the gun safe out of harms reach, will never blow your head off during a dark night of the soul, isn't going to get spooked and blow away his wife or kid when they go bump in the night and has an even enough demeanor that he would never pull his gun out for another reason than to kill someone who presented a direct threat to his life. If so good on you. Most people think they are that guy, and enough gun owners aren't that owning a gun can be a dangerous proposition.It's also stupid from a self-defense standpoint, since someone who wants to start stuff is going to target the open-carrier first,
otherwise known as the gun owners wet dream, or an event so unlikely it's asymptotic with zero.