Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
I concede readily that owning a firearm is not the be-all and end-all answer to self defense. A multi-layered defense, both passive and active, is strictly superior to a single-layer defense, consisting of only lethal force. However, an argument advocating a multi-layered defense is an argument FOR a firearm, not against it. If you are going to expend the thousands of dollars of resources to fortify your house, presumably in an effort to go out of your way to defend yourself and family, it would be irresponsible not to account for as many scenarios as possible.
|
I disagree. As demonstrated with my statistics, having a gun around makes one less safe than not having one around. Having a security door does not increase the rate of suicide by 5 times or increase the odds of killing a family member or friend. It is because of the collateral danger that guns do not belong on a list of defensive measures. Of the things I listed—security doors, locks, stronger windows, security systems, tasers, pepper spray, and mace—none of them pose any kind of serious threat the way a gun does. It's that collateral danger that leads me to conclude that guns simply aren't worth the trouble. This was my main argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
Also, we live in a world of finite and limited resources, both in terms of what you can buy and what it is reasonable to carry at any given time. Since you have to start somewhere, I would advocate that you should first give yourself the option of an armed response, and then fill in less lethal and expensive passive fortification options as your resources allow. If you encounter a situation with a violent criminal where a Taser or pepper spray might possibly have been enough force to stop the attack, but only have a pistol, the worst case is your attacker is seriously injured or dies. If you encounter a violent criminal where your pepper spray is NOT sufficient, but you do not have a handgun to escalate to, the worst case is YOU are seriously injured or die. I do not have so much sympathy for people who wish to do me harm that I would weight these two scenarios even close to equally.
|
So you're argument is that it's better to have lethal force and not need it than to need it and not have it? Respectfully, I think you may be overlooking a few things. First off, if we assume the criminal is a rational actor, we can suppose a few things:
1) If he or she is armed, he or she will not necessarily pose a fatal risk
2) If he or she is armed and you are not, they have less reason to open fire on you as they are in less danger, thus
3) If he or she is armed and you are, too, their level of risk has risen significantly and they have more reason to open fire on you.
While the argument for deterrence could theoretically be applied, there's also a significant risk of escalation. I don't know about you, but that's not something I see as a safe risk at all.
Moreover, there are legitimate questions to be raised about killing someone for what could have been a minor offense. Hypothetically, if someone robs me at knifepoint on the street for the money and cards in my wallet, is that offense deserving of the death penalty? Certainly the knife represents a possible mortal risk, but if it's just there for incentive for me instead of with the intent to kill, I may not be in any danger at all. Don't forget: the vast majority of armed robberies in the United States involve no injuries or fatalities. The place where you see the most fatalities is in personal vendettas.
In 2005, 417,122 robbery offenses took place in the United States alone, and of them nearly 41% involved firearms. In that same year,
only 16,692 murders took place. Even if we were to assume a full quarter of murders in the United States were related to robbery (a rather outlandish assumption), that's still only a 1 in 100 chance. The truth is, the likelihood of fatality in a robbery is negligible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
The purpose of a handgun in a defense situation is not to kill attackers. It is to stop attackers. Sometimes that results in their death. Other times it results in sufficient injuries to end the encounter, and frequently no shots even need be fired--do not underestimate the persuasive power of "Stop or I'll shoot!"
|
The first thing you learn in gun school is you don't pull your gun unless you intend to use it, and you shoot to kill. This would tell me drawing a weapon is not a deterrent and is an active response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
I would say two things to this graph and your analysis: First, you know as well as I do that correlation does not equal causation, so it may be just as plausibly argued that more homes are arming themselves in response to increased firearms violence.
|
It doesn't have to be a causal link, the correlative link demonstrates a consistent link. As I said, a few nations following that trend can be dismissed as coincidence, but all 19 are too hard to ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
Second, national statistics of this type may be useful for policymakers, but not for personal defense decisions, except possibly to draw the exact opposite conclusion that you are advocating--I would suggest that residents of a countries with higher than average intentional firearm deaths may be even more inclined likely to arm themselves--there is significantly more chance it will be needed!
|
And those higher arming rates have done nothing to put a dent in the gun violence rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
I find your '43 times' statistic to be overly-broad and slightly disingenuous for two reasons. First, your sourced article was very narrow in scope... according to the abstract, A five year sample from the late seventies of a specific county in Washington is hardly enough to make broad sweeping generalizations about the effects of owning a firearm. |
It's the only data available. Some data is better than colored data or no data. I stand by the results, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
Second, and more seriously, the abstract continues:
If I am reading that correctly, your statistic did not mention that 37 out of those 43 were suicides. This ties into your third point. People do not commit suicide without a history of depression, and gun ownership has little or nothing to do with that. A person who wants to commit suicide will do so, gun or no gun.
|
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Suicidal individuals who have access to guns are at the greatest risk of impulsive, unpredictable suicide. All methods most certainly are not equal. Having a gun significantly increases the odds of suicide.
57% of all suicides are committed with a gun. Think about that. It's not pills or hanging or cutting, but a gun that accounts for a strong majority of suicides. Most suicides are impulsive, in fact 24% took less than 5 minutes between deciding to commit suicide and the actual attempt. 70% took less than 1 hour.* This means suicidal people need immediate access to a method guaranteed to get the job done. Pills and cutting are messy and, should the paramedics get there in time, could result in a failed attempts. Hanging is incredibly painful and violent. A gun presents a somewhat unique option, where all you need to do is press the gun against your head or mouth and pull a trigger. Remember when I said 57% of all suicides were committed with a gun? That's successful suicides.
90% of all attempts involve drugs or cutting. Think about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
You are right: a one-time purchase of gun and ammo is not the solution to keeping your family safe. Gun owners need to be responsible, and by 'responsible' I mean have and use proper safety equipment (like locks and safes), have familiarity with their weapons, and train enough to be able to effectively use them.
I agree with your multi-layer defense proposal, but do not understand why that should not include firearms for when a lethal response is required.
|
It is because firearms come with serious and unnecessary risk not seen in other methods of defense. What's the worst thing that can happen when putting in thicker windows or a security system? What risk is there if you decide to avoid a bad part of town? Virtually nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
Since owning and carrying a firearm is really worst-case-scenario prepardness, I would propose that the existance of any scenario where firearms were the only suitable resolution is sufficient to make their ownership reasonable. One such perfect example was earlier this month, in Florida, reported in an article which begins, relevantly, "John Lee says he's convinced they would have killed him if he hadn't had his gun." The details of the encounter are that the aforementioned John Lee was ambushed getting out of his car at his apartment by three armed attackers, who demanded he 'give it up' but opened fire without giving him on opportunity to do so. It wasn't until he had already been shot that he had a chance to draw his own weapon and returned fire. He fired multiple shots, and the assailants fled. |
How likely are such situations? Now compare that to the likelihood of an accidental shootings, suicides, etc. That's my position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
This is the perfect case study for a defense situation which required a handgun and only a handgun. The firearm couldn't have escalated the situation, since he didn't draw until he had already been shot. Less-than-lethal methods, such as Taser and Mace, are generally unsuitable for multiple assailants, particularly those who have already opened fire, and he was at home, not blundering aimlessly through 'the bad part of town', although after this incident I think his home de facto becomes 'the bad part'.
|
You may need to explain to me how mace can't be used against multiple assailants.
*Simon OR, Swann AC, Powell KE, Potter LB, Kresnow MJ, O'Carroll PW. Characteristics of impulsive suicide attempts and attempters. Suicide Life Threat Behav 2001;32:Suppl:49-59.