flstf

I usually only carry when my wife and I are on long motorcycle trips across the country. There are times on the back country roads where I may not see another vehicle or house for several hours at a time. I just feel a little safer with some self protection on me. I am probably illegal sometimes though. I am licensed in my state but I am not sure if all other states recognize it.

I recently moved to Ohio and they require you to go through a 12 hour training course before giving you a permit here. What a waste of time for those of us who have been using firearms for years. The good thing is that now that I'm out in the country and own some land, I can target practice right off my deck.

Stick

I live in the outer western suburbs of Sydney where there are a few naughty boys getting around. I have a S&W .357mag that I use for target matches, but it can easily put local rowdies in a body bag, which it will do if the situation arises. It's illegal to carry in Australia, anyway. But you do have to transport the firearm to the range, and who's to say that's not where you were going?

__________________
ominous adj.
Menacing; threatening. Of or being an omen, especially an evil one.

The_Dunedan

Stick:
I applaud you for having the sand to stand up to the hopolophobic nightmare that is the Australian Gov't. It saddens me every day to think that the brave nation that gave 50,000 of its' men at Gallipoli and Suvla Bay has been disarmed: you have brightened my day!

GMontag

You might want to do some more research on that book (and it's by John Lott, not Locke). The study he and David Mustard published was horrendously flawed. Here is a link that goes over the major mistakes he made when conducting the study.

Lebell

John Lott also answered those criticisms.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

GMontag

I'm not sure how you can "answer" the fact that he made mistakes in indentifying when states changed their gun laws. That is kind of basic data you have to have right.

If you have a link to these "answers", I'd love to see it.

Lebell

Here you go.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...p/t-24052.html

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Lebell

Here's another website with a bunch of links on the subject:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v...ntroversy.html


This study (linked there) was also interesting:

http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/%7Efplass/gun.pdf

I haven't had time to dig into much more.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

The_Dunedan

http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/guncontrol.htm
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v..._to_Teret.html
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v...o_Webster.html
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v...Lott_v_HCI.htm
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v...to_Lambert.htm

GMontag

As I don't have a copy of the book, and most of those responses are one-liner "see my book on page blah", I can't verify them. But I did notice that he doesn't even *try* to refute the fact that he misidentified basic data such as when laws were changed. Mistakes at that level throw the whole study into suspicion

Mephisto2

The idea that I may be talking to someone who has a concealed weapon gives me the shits. I hate it.

But then again, I come from Europe where gun laws are much more strict. And from Ireland, which by European standards is even more strict. I can't understand why Americans feel it's their right to bear arms. I think it's complete nonesense. People don't need guns. Obviously it's too late to turn back the clock and change the US now. It's an armed republic and will stay that way.

Isn't it wierd how one's background can result in totally different opinions on things such as gun control?


Mr Mephisto

The_Dunedan

Mr. Mephisto:
I wonder what Padraic Pearse, Mick Collins, and James Connolly would have to say about the current state ot Irish gun laws? Considering that their response to English laws of a much less restrictive nature was to purchase 20,000 rifles, 500 machineguns, and 10 75-mm howitzers from Germany in 1916 ( in one shipment alone; the one that went to the bottom with the Aud and got Roger Casement arrested ), I think I can guess.

Lebell

On a slightly different note, I usually don't care to go into depth when reading legal opinions as I find them dry and overly verbose (I already have plenty of that when reading computer texts), so I usually skip to the conclusion or executive summary.

But this scholarly paper was actually a good read.

http://www.saf.org/journal/11McClurg.pdf

In it, the author, Andrew J. McClurg tackles the myths and fallacies on both sides of the debate.

For anyone interested in an honest attempt at digging into the issues that keep both sides of the gun debate issue appart, I recommend it.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Mephisto2

What kind of nonesense is that?

Pearce, Collins and Connolly were leaders in the Irish War of Independence.
Comparing military leaders who are embarked upon a war of independence (or "rebels" if you will) with our current societal opinions towards an armed citizenry more than 80 years later is completely ridiculous.

Ireland remains one of the few countries in Europe with no armed police (except for Detectives and special armed units) and Irish society is strongly against personal ownership of weapons.

What would they say? Well, their actions speak louder than words. When the Irish Free State was created, the Government specifically decided to create a gun-free society and chose to have an unarmed police force.

What's your point?

Mr Mephisto

EDIT: By the way, the Aud carried 10 or 20 thousand rifles (depending upon your source) and "several machine guns" (not 500). There were no howitzers

Lebell

As you "don't have a copy of the book", I'm not sure then why you sieze upon the first thing you saw on the HCI website (which was not even substantiated) to discredit the work without even making an effort to read any of the critiques and responses.

If you want to discredit it, you might at least go to the last link I provided. There seems to be some interesting points against it even if I don't agree with them.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

sob

I read this thread at warp speed, so I apologize if I'm repeating something that was said earlier.

That disclaimer over with, hasn't anyone posted Gary Kleck's research from 12 years ago? I thought things had been so clearly documented that this wasn't even being argued anymore.

Anyway, "Gary Kleck is a Liberal. He is, by his own admission, a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is a life-long registered Democrat, as well as a regular contributor to Democratic Party candidates."

He also said that Americans, using firearms, defend themselves from crime between 800,000 to 2.5 million times a YEAR.

I'm not sure if he's still there, but he was a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee.

Isn't criminology the field in which Smooth is pursuing a PhD?

Oh yeah. I've defended myself with a pistol twice. I didn't have to fire it, but I would have.

Mephisto2

Interesting statistics. I should like to read more about this if you have references.

What does this prove though? Not arguing, just asking. How often do firearms prevent crime should the question, no?

What's this got to do with anything? I don't think you'll see smooth around as much as beforehand. Real life beckons.

Mr Mephisto

The_Dunedan

Mr. Mephisto:
My response did not directly deal with the issue of defensive carry, it was a thrust towards the heart of our Second Amendment: the guarantee that we Americans would always be able to do what your countrymen so nobly did in 1916 and 1920-21. Ireland has no violent-crime problem to speak of outside Dublin, so the Defensive-Carry arguement does not much apply to your country. However, it was observation while I was there that a similar sort of citizen-based deterrance is practiced in most areas: car-theives have an inconveniant tendancy to end up with both legs broken, for instance. That seems to work admirably for your country; keep it up!

I greatly admire the Gardai for their unarmed position: when I was in Ireland several years ago it was one of the things that most impressed me about your country, which in many aspects is freer than my own. However, it was my observation that a great many "pikes in the thatch" were still around, and that many an "old Fenian gun" was still to be found if one knew who to talk to. One old gentleman on the train from Limerick to Dublin quite proudly told me that the old Mauser in his bedroom wall was staying right where it was, "just in case." Perhaps he was taking the micky out on me, but I doubt it. This old fellow had a look in his eyes that said that he was all steel behind his wrinkles and checked cap.

As I've said, your countrymen have a far less crime-prone society than we do: in large part due to cultural homogenity, small population, and a tightly-knit system of informal social controls which results in swift community-based punishments ( like car-theives getting their legs broken. ) You have an entirely different set of day-to-day realities than we do here in the States. That being said, however, my original point was that you also have a much more recent history of armed struggle than we do, and that it is for such events that we Americans maintain our right to keep arms.

Mephisto2

Dunedan,

Thanks for your well thought out response.

First let me preface my response with the fact that I was simply stating an opinion on the fact that I don't believe ordinary citizens need to carry guns. I appreciate your country is different from mine, so I know the "right to bear arms" will almost certainly never be rescinded. That doesn't obviate the fact that I don't believe such a right is "inalienable" or fundamental.

With regards to the specifics of Ireland and your example of car thieves, I think you are mistaken. In some highcrime areas of Ireland, Sinn Fein (the political wing of the Provisional IRA), have been known to organize vigilante "punishment beatings" or "punishment shootings". The vast majority of these are very localized in one or two suburbs and almost all aimed at drug dealers. I have never heard of a car thief being dealt "hard justice" in Dublin by the PIRA or at the behest of Sinn Fein. In the late 80's and 90's there were some exceptions, which were again aimed at drug dealers, and the authorities very quickly stepped in to deal with this. To consider it common or typical would be akin to me thinking that all Americans go to the Mafia Don and ask for justice, a la the scene in the famous film the Godfather. It might make a good story, but it's not indicative of fact.

With regards to the Old Man and His Mauser, you can rest assured you were almost certainly told a tall tale; something the Irish are famous for. Undoubtedly there are still some old rifles lying about, the same way there are some old Civil War muskets in American attics. Again, it's a bit naive to consider this as typical of Irish society. I warrant a guess that these old Mausers number less than 100 in all the Republic.

We do have a problem with arms in the hands of paramilitaries. Indeed, the failure to publicly dispose of these, with photographic verification, was resulted in the failure of the latest develoments in Ireland's Peace Process. That along with the IRA's recent multi-million dollar bank robbery in Northern Ireland.

Dublin, and some parts of Ireland, does have a problem with organized crime. You may have heard of Veronica Guerin, a famous Irish journalist who was murdered due to her ongoing revelations of their drug dealing activities. It was recently made into a Hollywood film staring Cate Blanchett. Again, the fact that we have a few career criminals (who sometimes resort to gun-related violence) does not make Ireland any different from any other nation on Earth. In 1999 we had a grand total of 12 homicides with fire-arms. Not that high a number.

So, in summary, the opinions I posted were (by definition) personal. I don't expect to change the minds of any gun-lovers. I simply commented on the way people's backgrounds cause them to believe different things. A rather obvious statement I agree, but one made none the less. Car thieves do not get their legs broken in Ireland, or Dublin for that matter, any more than the Mafia runs the justice system of the United States. And old men on trains who tell you they have a Mauser from the Irish War of Independence are probably spinning a yarn. They would have to have been in their 90's for starters.


Mr Mephisto

The_Dunedan

Mr. Mephisto,
I had gotten the distinct impression that vigilante beatings in the RoI had dramatically decreased, but that they were still practiced in many place, just not very often. I appear to have been misinformed; thank you for correcting me in this.

I also know that the man I spoke to on the train was no Easter-16 vet: he was old, but nothing like that old! I got the impression that he was the son of an Official IRA fighter who had been brought up in the shadow of his father's struggle, and had kept the rifle as a result. I'm well-acquainted with the Irish propensity for tale-telling, being mostly Irish myself and having numerous friends and family still living there. I didn't, however, get the impression that this gentleman was pulling my chain.

I also know from my friends and cousins in the North that it's widely thought ( up there, anyway; or at least by them ) that the PIRA had nothing to do with the recent bank-robbery, given that they didn't claim credit for it, which they'd always done in the past. Most of my contacts seem to think the CIRA, RIRA, or one of the Loyalist groups such as the Red Hand Defenders or UDA was responsible.

Seaver

I oppose gun control. I dont carry weapons myself outside of hunting. I dont even have a pistol.

But someone telling me that I am safer without a gun... sorry but I'm crying bull.

I read every week about some guy either A) breaking into someone's house at night and killing X number of people sleeping there; B) X number of rapes have occured in such-and-such place with no suspects; or C) X number of people were killed when (fill in scenario here) because of (insert excuse here).

Really, any of those could be solved REAL quick by someone who was armed and well trained. You can site statistics all day long on how many people are shot by themselves or by their own gun being taken from them, but those people probably were sleeping during their concealed gun class or are just retarded.

Fine, guns arent for everyone, and yes, many people shouldnt be armed. But taking away from those who ARE responsible takes the pressure valve off of crime. Yes, whether or not the person is armed probably is VERY high on the assailants mind. If no one was able to carry what does he really have to worry about?

Mephisto2

That sounds much more likely!

And entirely possible. However, not every old man in the Republic has a gun under the bed!

The PIRA has never, to my knowledge, ever claimed "credit" for its criminal actions. It is heavily involved in money laundering and armed robbery (though to a lesser degree than before). These are the "dirty laundry" that the PIRA and Sinn Fein try to hide. They used to claim "credit" for their murders, assassinations, bombings and attacks, but never their grubby handed robberies.

Both the British Government and the Irish Government (who I'm much more likely to believe) have both stated that they believe the PIRA were involved. I think time will tell.

The Loyalists couldn't organize that robbery in a million years. They're too busy peddling drugs and killing each other in criminal feuds. The RIRA and CIRA are extremely small and effectively disfunctional splinter groups that also would not have the logistical ability to launder this amount of money, let alone carry out the raid in such military precision. By the way, the van used came from the Republic, and not the North.

But as I said, I guess time will tell. I would be extremely surprised if it was proven to be someone else.

Mr Mephisto

PS - We need a seperate Irish politics thread!

daswig

Unless, of course, he already has two strikes against him, so a third conviction means life in prison for him...

Most DGUs don't involve a shot being fired by either side, much less somebody being killed.

Do you really want to trust your life to the good nature of somebody who would commit a major felony by robbing you for crack or whatever?

daswig

There's also the DoJ BJS's survey of the NCVS, which states that a person who resists an attack with a gun has a 1 in 5 chance of being injured, a person who doesn't resist at all has a 1 in 3 chance of being injured, and a person who resists without a weapon or with a weapon other than a gun has a 1 in 2 chance of being injured. Which odds of being injured in an attack do you prefer? 20%, 33%, or 50%? I'll opt for the 20% every time...

daswig

That's very true, IF AND ONLY IF you allow your fear of criminals to dictate literally every move you make. After all, if you hide in your house 24/7, your odds of being mugged on the street are zero, since you're never on the street.

daswig

According to the NCVS, that's not true. Joe Handgun Carrier is 13% less likely (20% as opposed to 33%) to be injured in an attack if he uses the gun for self defense than if he just gives the attacker whatever he wants, and 30% (2.5 TIMES!!!) (20% as opposed to 50%) less likely to be injured if he defends himself with a gun than if he resists by any other means. Now before you say "that's just the Bushies controlling what BJS says", the report was released in 1994, during the Clinton years.

Even Kellermann, a notoriously anti-gun "researcher" has publicly stated that if his wife were to be attacked, he'd want her to meet the attack with a gun in her hand.

daswig

Don't forget Luby's, where one of the survivors left her handgun in her car because it wasn't legal to take it into the restaurant. She watched her mother and father get murdered, and couldn't do anything to prevent it. IIRC, she's in congress now.

daswig

This is a common misperception based upon Kellermann's infamous "43X" statistic. What Kellermann actually found (you have to read the endnote, and most people who quote it don't read that far) was that if you own or have access to a gun, your chances of committing SUICIDE by gun go up dramatically. Your chances of being shot accidentally go up a tiny bit, but almost all of the "43X is related to suicide. And it's not that guns cause suicide, it's just that guns are a popular choice for people contemplating suicide, and people who don't have guns but are contemplating suicide often BUY guns to kill themselves with. As for the "accidentally shot and killed with their own gun" bit, for the last year that figures are available, there were fewer than 1,000 accidental gun deaths of all kinds in the US for that year. There are 300 million guns. You do the math, and tell us if 1,000 out of 300,000,000 is something you're overly worried about.

daswig

I think a lot of people would find your dismissive attitude towards the effects of forcible rape to be offensive.

/just sayin...

daswig

You do realize that mace is often completely ineffective against people who have been doing drugs, or who have repeatedly been exposed to it in the past, right? Mace no longer fazes me. Yeah, it hurts, and it degrades my physical performance by 5-10%, but it certainly doesn't incapacitate me or a lot of other people who have been through the various kinds of training (military/LEO) that I've been through. For that matter, it loses its effectiveness against serial attackers who have been hit repeatedly with it.

As for a study that shows that people who defend themselves with guns are more likely to make it home OK than people who don't, I direct your attention to :

US. Dept of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Crime Data Brief
Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft
April 1994
NCJ 147003
Guns and Crime
By Michael R. Rand, BJS Statistician.

In particular, the statement "A fifth of the victims themselves armed with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon."

daswig

Two main reasons, really. First, if there are people legally carrying concealed weapons, the criminals don't know which potential victim is packing, so they tend to commit safer "property crimes" instead of crimes that involve face to face confrontation. The people who don't carry are free riders. They get the benefit of decreased person to person crime without having to do anything to earn it. You're welcome.

The second reason is because seeing somebody walking around with an unconcealed weapon tends to freak other people out, who then call the cops, who then come and harass you in an effort to discourage such behavior even though it's legal. It's a lot less of a hassle to not let people know you have it.

daswig

Not to pick nits, but it's John Lott. Locke has been dead for hundreds of years.

daswig

Bowling for Columbine is an amusing film, but it doesn't have much basis in reality. Basing your political argument on BFC is kind of like basing your political argument on the original Star Wars.

You seem to have the misconception that people who carry guns walk around with their sweaty little hands on the gun, looking around crazily for their soon to be arriving attacker. Nothing can be farther from the truth. When I go out, I carry my wallet, which contains among other things my various insurance cards (vehicle, medical, et cetera). This doesn't mean that I go out terrified that I'm going to be in a car wreck or have a heart attack. In my car, I have a fire extinguisher. That doesn't mean I live in mortal fear of fire. Just as my carrying a gun, all it means is that if something bad happens, I have the appropriate resources on hand to deal with it.

i just think, maybe all this fear, may start to become counterproductive to the way we live our lives in hopefully a free society.[/QUOTE]

you don't need a helmet to prevent bricks from falling on your head unless you happen to be going through a construction "hard hat" zone. If you're going to be riding a motorcycle or a bicycle, a helmet is also a really, really good idea, too.

The idea is to evaluate the risks, and plan accordingly.

daswig

That's like saying David Duke is pro-minorities because he sent in his annual membership check to the NAACP.

Moore's actions speak much louder than words.

daswig

You DO realize that people with CCW permits almost never get involved with illegal shootings, right? In fact, statistically, a police officer is more likely to be involved in an illegal shooting than a CCW holder. That's not saying that police officers often get involved in illegal shootings, it's just that the numbers of CCW holders who illegally shoot their guns is so very tiny.

daswig

I think you might want to redefine your "violent crime" bit some. For example, Engalnd has far fewer gun crimes per capita, but much higher rates in most if not all other forms of violent crime.

daswig

Ah, yes. We'd expect the Brady Campaign to say that a study that shoots huge holes in their argument is brilliant. How long did they continue to pimp Bellesiles? Hell, they STILL are, even after an independent academic commission found that he had fraudulently falsified data and he was forced to resign from Emory in disgrace.

James Brady is living proof that a Democrat is just a Republican with a hole in his head.

daswig

It's interesting to note that Kellermann STILL hasn't released his data sets to other researchers....

sob

There's no shortage if you Google "Gary Kleck." Here's one:

Kleck

And here's one for DGUs

DGU


I don't think I understand your question. Since the thread name is "why carry," my answer is, "to prevent crime against yourself, your friends, and your family." Let me know if that's not what you were asking.

There's a lot of that going around. I just thought that he'd weigh in, considering that this should be his area of expertise.

This is brief because I think Daswig pretty much finished the discussion.

Lebell

Got the typing bug, Daswig?

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!