Once more for those that ignored my earlier post.

In 1986 Kellerman did a study on the use of firearms kept in the home. He found that for every self-defense/justified shoot, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 murders, and 37 suicides.

Can we draw conclusions from this? Nope, because there is nothing to correlate against. All this ratio measures is a breakdown of self-defense/justified homicide against every other firearm related death. Like I said before, none of the categories actually correlate against one another, but it sounds better to say "You're 43 times more likely to kill a family member." Then HCI comes along and bumps the number to 500 and thank you Miss Brady.

(I spelled it right this time Kadath)

Source:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Just out of curiousity, what constitutes a "justified shoot"? I mean, if as kid trespasses onto my property to steal a couple apples from my tree and I shoot him, is that part of the justified shooting category?




SLM3

A justified shoot occurs when the victim was definitely in fear for their life or the life of a loved one. Some states consider a shoot to be justified if the shooter stops a felony from being committed. Petty theft almost never justifies a shooting.

It differs from state to state. General rule of thumb is if you are in fear of you life or serious bodily injury, you may shoot. However, deadly force is the last option. In most states you must retreat if available without exposing yourself to harm. On your own property is usually an exception; some states have a "castle doctrine" clause. You don't have to retreat; if somone is in your house and seems to be a threat, you are justified to end the threat.

This is not legal advice. All this information is from my own research.

www.packing.org

The message board is a good starting point for more information if you are interested.

Thanks for the revised statistics supermidget. Still, '43 times more likely to kill a family member' is super scary, and in my opinon is a telling statistic about the prevalence of guns in society. Do you think more guns will make a safer America?

As long as we're reposting ignored information:
Further, from here(Stats are 2001 US): http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/...options_10.html
11,000 DEATHS with guns...only 9,000 non-firearm homicides. So maybe there are more attacks with knives/axes/etc, but the gun attacks are, unsurprisingly, more fatal.

HA! I originally misspelled homicides in that post myself! Aren't I quite the arse?

Bad guys get guns illegally...

Kadath, you are comparing ALL (caps for emphasis only) firearm related deaths versus only homicides. If you were to take out AD's and Suicides, that numbers would be much more in line.

Not a criticism for you Kadath, but this tactic is quite common with groups such as HCI and MM. They like to compare two very dissimilar sets of statistics and make people believe they are the same.

These are not revised. They are taken from the exact same paper that the Anti's (for lack of a better term) get the 500x number. All I did was point out the real number and clarify the meaning. I see I got the number corrected, but I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) I cleared up the meaning.

All the 43 means is that for every justified homicide/self-defense shoot, there are 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 Suicides.

There is nothing in it that means you are 43x more likely to shoot a family member. All it is is a breakdown of the deaths compared to justified homicide.

Plainly, for every justified homicide/self-defense shoot, there are 43 OTHER firearm related deaths. No correlation.

Forgive me if this point was previously understood, but the way I read your post almostaugust, it seems you didn't get the intent behind my explanation. As always feel free to rebut/request clarification.

Edit: This study was done in 1986. About the time the first states were begining to go to Shall-issue CCW. It was meant to scare people.

HAH! Nope. There are 26,000 deaths(including legal intervention and suicides). 11,000 homicides! I am aware of the tactic. Thank you for allowing me to clarify my point.
However, I have realized you can't deep link into that page. Here is a link to the top.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm

Selecting Homicide ONLY (not "violence-related" which WOULD lump all that stuff in) and then firearm versus non-firearm, I got those numbers. :p

I work in the film/theatre/opera industry, sometimes as the props person. Part of my job is procuring, preparing and maintaining weapons for use in the shows. I have to train actors in the proper use of all kinds of weapons (mostly, to train them that a gun is ALWAYS dangerous and never to point it at their own friggin' head!).

Twenty years of experience in the safe use of handguns has taught me to not keep firearms in my house - first, because I do not want to ever point a gun at someone else, and second, I cannot imagine living with the knowledge that someone got posession of a weapon of mine and hurt themselves or another.

Do I think Canada's gun laws make sense? Of course not. Do I think the owners of firearms ought to be trained in their safe use/storage and that the police ought to be able to know if there might be a weapon in the house? Of course I do.

My father hunted - heck, my whole family does. Not one of us has a handgun in the house. My father, a policeman, kept his revolver in his locker at the police station. He knew curious children and weapons were a recipe for a lifetime of regret.

Burglars can be discouraged long before they get to your house. Good lighting, decent locks, an alarm system, and cutting back hedges from your basement windows will go a very long way to deter criminals from your home.

And if all else fails, hopefully they will only be after your property and not the lives or genitalia of your wife/daughter. Besides, it usually ONLY takes 15-30 minutes for the police to respond in most areas, assuming that you can even call them to begin with.:hmm:

Maybe it's just me, but I seem to find that many of our brothers and sisters in Europe (and probably Canada too) tend to have a "victimistic" attitude. It seems as though they would rather be beaten/raped/killed before they could ever consider defending themselves from violent criminals. Almost like a flock of sheep?

Ah, now I remember why my ancestors came to the United States!

Kadath, thanks for clarifying your point. This is kind of off topic, but I found an article you should read. It fits in really well with timalkin's post above. (damn near the same idea)

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

Yes it's from one of my right-wing, redneck, gun-totin message boards. It, however, makes a lot of sense if you read it with an open mind.

Kind Timalkin:

A victimistic attitude? Flock of sheep? Hardly. Ad homenium attacks? Hardly good rhetoric.

To recapitilate my point: if you do not want burglars/rapists/straw men to attack your posessions or persons, keep them out of your house in the first place. That is only logic. If they skip your house, they are not in your house to attack you. Do you not agree that is the best possible outcome? The alternative is to long for a confrontation.

Once they are in your home, reducing the chance of harm to yourself (I would suggest) is the prudent course.

Police, security agencies, almost everybody except the gun industry says that without a doubt, not being found is the best course of action. Once found, not giving the bad folks a reason to shoot you becomes the safest course. Best way to get shot during a burglary? Produce a gun.

If the only way to prevent harm is to inflict harm, I will. To that end, I have taken self-defense training (at my parents - both police officers - suggestion) and I maintain my abilities through periodic re-training. There are objects scattered around my house that would make formidable weapons indeed.

If research demonstrated that I was safer with a firearm in my house than without, I would not hesitate to get one. This is not ideology, it is science. Nor is this the result of some "sheepish" "victimistic" attitude. I make a habit of trying to think for myself and not following a herd - whether pro- or anti- gun.

I applaud you for making your own decisions. My question for you is do you still respect the right of others to own/carry firearms. Or do you vote to strip others of the right. Think about this the next time you say you do not follow a crowd. Even for those who try to find their own choices can still be swayed by illogical and wrong arguements.

Next point (no offense to your parents) Of course police are going to say you are safe to hide and call 911. If people start defending themselves, the police will be out of a job. Not to mention they really don't care what happens to an individual. Police have no right to protect anyone. Courts have ruled this way time and again. Self-protection is up to the individual.

Please read the link I provided above. Read it with an open mind. Whether you agree with the statements put forth in it, it is a good social commentary for this day and age.

Edit: I agree about hiding. However, I feel that most interior doors are no block to a determined attacker. So if they do find me it will be them looking down the barrel of a 12 ga.

I believe you mean that police have no legal obligation to protect people, and that, unfortunately has been ruled true.

Also, police will tell you that they are not there to prevent crimes, but only to solve them.

Right, thank you Lebell, that is what I meant.

SuperMidget:

Oh, I think whatever anyone does (well, pretty much anything) inside the walls of their home is their own business. What I do want is for the presence of weapons to be declared for those who might be innocently put in harm's way of them. For example:

If a neighbour's child is invited to come over to play with the firearm owner's child, the parent of the visiting child has the right to know if there are guns in the house. That person should not have to ask; they should be told.

A meter reader/telephone repair person/whoever else might have a legitimate reason to be on the firearm owner's property.

Paramedics, firefighters and police all have the right to know about the presence of firearms.

If I am a guest at a party, and I do not know everybody, and there is drinking, you bet I look for evidence of firearms. If I see them, and they are not safely locked up, I leave. If I have reason to worry for the safety of others, I talk to the owner of the firearms. Strongly.

You want guns? Have guns. Get training. Tell those who might be innocently hurt by them that they are there. Take responsibility.

Please do not think I am suggesting anyone here is unsafe. I have no idea if my fellow posters are or are not. Nobody here can argue, however, that there are many, many accidents every day because some asshole left firearms and ammunition where it should not be.

Why should a milkman die because he was on some armed guy's stoop at five in the morning right after the homeowner's car was stolen? We know worse has happened.

Regarding police (even my old ma & pa) talking the doctrine of harm reduction: police, more than anyone else, have no fear of a lack of job security. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of the police. They lie, cheat and serve themselves just like the rest of humanity. But in this case, they have experience and cold, hard research on their side.

Do whatever you have to to not get hurt. First this means not being a target. Second, it means not being found. Third, it means co-operating. Fourth, and last, it means fighting back with everything you have, killing them if necessary.

The focus isn't harming or not harming the bad people. Nor is it stopping them. The focus is NOT GETTING HURT OR KILLED. You cannot enjoy your right to self-defense (or any other right) if you are dead.

Sorry for the strident capitals, but that is the only point I am trying to make here. If a gun would keep me from being hurt or killed, and not hurt or kill those I care for, I would keep one at home. Research suggests otherwise.

Ideology does not keep me alive. Prudent decision-making does.

I've written far too much already. Time for others. Love the chat, folks.

Bravo Candide, that was perhaps the most well thought out and eloquent reply I have heard yet for not wanting/owning firearms. Now, if everyone who was against firearms would think like this, a solution would be possible.

I have to disagree on a couple of points, but those are just opinion/bad experieces.

First, no one, unless I trust them with my life (there are about five people in that category) knows where my firearms are. I keep it that way for a reason. I know too many people who have had firearms stolen because people thought the same way you do, and some jackass takes advantage of that. Most people know I have firearms and they know I do not lock them up. If they are uncomfortable with that they can leave. If I absolutely do not trust someone that is around, I will field strip my firearms and keep a piece of it on me.

Right now, I don't have to worry about children, but if/when the time comes I'll have to do what's right by me and safe for them. I'll probably do the same thing my father did for me. I will not hide my firearms. I will introduce the child to them so there is no doubt. If children are exposed to them, they become tools, that are not to be messed with.

I have had a firearm since I was 3 years old. I was always taught respect for them and I have had safety drilled into my head (and sometimes from the other end if I screwed up) for years. Will I never have an accident, I don't know. If it is in my power to stop it, I will not.

In the end, I guess I just feel safer with a firearm. To each his own I guess. Until you start infringing on my rights.

Not a criticism for you SuperMidget, but this tactic is quite common with groups such as NRA. They like to swing the topic away from the weaker points of their argument and resort to calling people cowards and elitist when they find themselves stymied. Thanks for the article. Let me sum up:
We need guns to protect ourselves. Those who try to take them away from us are infringing on our basic rights as laid out in the Constitution.

Did I get it pretty close?

Pretty much Kadath. I used that article to illustrate a point. Why should I depend on another person to protect me? Especially when that other person (i.e. The Police) has no obligation to protect anyone. All the police are for is to draw the chalk outline around the dead BG.

Me, I'll take responsibilty for my own protection. I will not depend on others for something that is my responsibility. If I prefer a firearm, so be it. Owning a firearm is a right, not a privledge. If others don't like them, to each his own, but please do not infringe on my rights.

I don't think we should ban guns outright, I'm just for better gun safety and gun control. We should have better background checks for firearm purchases, crack down on illegal sales (personally, i'd much rather see a "war on guns"- illegal assault weapons and legal but unlicensed handguns on the black market - than the "war on drugs"). There is new technology being worked on where a gun will only fire for its true owner; steps like these look very promising.

A gun, in the right hands, can be a good thing. If a person uses and stores it responsibly, it can save lives.

Your stance that you won't depend on others to provide something that is your responsibility is very inspiring, but entirely hollow rhetoric. I'm sure you never let others provide something for you.
Maybe you don't understand the police motto "To Protect and Serve." See if you can find in those four words something about protecting you. Oh, there it is, the second word!
Anyway, my point was just that guns are used in homicides more than all other weapons combined. Do you dispute that?

Unfortunately, that is just a motto.

Several courts have ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect citizens.

I respectfully request more information, Lebell.

This was my google search:

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...ted+to+protect

Just a few tidbits:

---------------------------------------------
"Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to beg for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, (1975) 46 Cal.App. 3d 6. The year after winning the Hartzler case, the San Jose government appointed Joseph McNamara Police Chief. Chief McNamara has since become the leading police spokesman for Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI)." Excerpt from "The Law Abiding Individual and Personal Protection", by John Brophy.
-------------------------------------------

"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968).
------------------------------------------------------

This one is especially good

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989). Frequently these cases are based on an alleged ``special relationship'' between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had ``specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,'' but failed to remove him from his father's custody. ("Domestic Violence -- When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?'' Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1991.)

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship,'' concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. ``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.'' (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990) Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship'' existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship'' to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable.

--------------------------------------



Anyway, that was just from the first search page.

No one is disputing the fact firearms are used in murder more than any other tool.

As for court cases that prove the police have no obligation to protect an individual. Here is a link to 28 seperate court cases.

http://members.aol.com/copcrimes/courtcases.html

I am not quoting any specific one because they all differ. They do provide legal precednce.

"To protect and serve," is now meaningless.

Lebell beat me to it.

I think I remember this kind of attitude among airline employees and passengers before 9/11.

I simply cannot understand that you would try to cooperate with someone who has invaded the sanctity of your home. At what point is a decision made to fight back? Before they tie you up and rape your daughter, or after?

These thoughts just confirm what I already know. Americans (for the most part) are independent and prefer not to rely on someone else for anything, especially self-protection. This general attitude does not exist in Europe. The thought of running away and hiding under my bed if someone invaded my house is absurd.

As an aside, the best way that I know of not getting shot by somebody is to shoot them before they have a chance, not cooperate with them.

Fear the person using the gun....guns dont kill people....people kill people

Timalkin - please re-read my posts, in their entirety (there is not much). I think you will find that I am advocating anything but a passive stance. Rather, I am trying to be pragmatic.

Is it better to shoot a burglar in your home, or not have a burglar in your home in the first place? This is not a rhetorical question.

Regards,

A well prepared - and unarmed - homeowner.

It is most definitely better to not have a burglar in your house in the first place. With that being said, that's why I don't leave my door wide-open at night when I go to sleep.

I also will not go out of my way to install a 20 foot electric fence around my home, dig a moat, or have patrolling packs of guard dogs guarding my house. Anything short of these drastic measures will not guarantee that your house will never be a target.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic, but that is your choice. As long as you don't try to limit my rights, we won't have a problem with each other.

Cheers.

Thanks for opening my eyes on the police issue. However, I think the leap to "we need guns to protect ourselves" is rather a convenient one. Where does your right to posess arms to protect yourself stop? Can you have cyanide-tipped armor-piercing bullets? How about a tank? Who decides what is reasonable?

Well, if not with guns, then what with?

Most people use the tool that is the most effective, especially if the application is critical.

Anyway, as to your other question, the same people who decide the scope of all the other ammendments, i.e., the courts.

When I saw bowling for columbine, they had some pretty powerful numbers in the end.

www.bowlingfortruth.com

VERY well documented site on MM.

'nuff said, or it's a threadjack ;)

I have an honest question for the several posters thus far who have had firearms in their lives since childhood, respect them as powerful tools, and feel that their right and responsibility is to be able to protect themselves and their families with deadly force, if needs be.

Obviously, in your particular cases, the chances of accidental firearm deaths/drunken games of russian roulette/unsupervised kids getting at the weapons and ammo is very low. It is perhaps not *obvious*, but I think a case could be easily made for the position that many of the accidental deaths, suicides of adolescents, etc., which take place in this country via firearm are in fact the result of firearm owners who lack this basic respect for their tools, for whatever reason.

To what degree do you feel that the exercise of the 2nd Amendment rights are predicated upon demonstrating responsibility and respect for firearms? Is there an analogy which can be drawn between the 1st Amendment and the responsibility to not yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater? Or does the 2nd Amendment mean that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms however they wish, leaving the 'responsibility' portion of the equation for after some tragic misuse of their tools?

This question comes from someone who does not himself keep firearms in his home. I do have many firearm owners in my family, though, and I've never felt uncomfortable or fearful being in their homes, because I understand the respect they hold for, and care they take with, their weapons and ammunition.

I find my personal experience of firearm ownership to be very much at odds with the statistics on accidental deaths and misuse of weapons by unsupervised kids, and I am very interested to know what you all think.

I'm not sure I've heard that argument before, hlprmnky. The idea that rights come with responsibilities is something we all need to think about some more.

wanders off to ponder...

hlprmnky,

I do beleive that the 2nd amendment is predicated upon personal responsibility. Honestly, who cares about a tyranical government if their 3 year old has just offed himself after finding daddys pistol, right? I firmly believe that gun education should be mandatory in elementary and high school (a stay away class for younger kids, a proper use and respect class for older kids). The real problem with guns comes when the ignorant are put in a situation with a fireamr, and do not know the proper way to behave.

debaser,

That's a hell of an idea. One that had never occurred to me, but one I'd certainly support, provided that the class could be taught in a safe manner.

I mean, my phys. ed. class had an *archery* unit in middle school, so it's not like there exists *no* precedent for weapons training in school. Of course, since a bow is difficult to conceal, and takes skill to use with deadly effect, we weren't in too much danger (though I wouldn't have put it past some of the knuckleheads in that class to try re-enacting the story of William Tell with a buddy...)

Man, now it's my turn to wander off and ponder.

An awesome right like the Second Amendment also comes with some equally awesome responsibilities. This does not mean that I want some government trying to license me. When you give that kind of power to a governmental body, it would be easy for them to deny your right for vague reasons, not to mention the power to confiscate your firearms at will.

I'd be all for school-based firearm safety programs. I'd like to see a class like this teach not only basic safety, but also why we have a Second Amendment and what it means. Everyone in my junior high school had to take a hunter's safety course, which was basically all about firearm safety. Some parent's opted out of their children attending the class, but I guess complete ignorance of firearms is better than knowing how to use them safely.:rolleyes:

Besides, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?