Guns for protection or do they create more harm

The best part of the US fascination with gun ownership: Gun owners are far more likely to kill themselves, or a family member. This is somewhat a self-solving problem.

The worst part: Any moron can buy a gun, easier than buying beer, for example.

Any gun fanatic triggered enough to respond to this - please put your awesome gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.

Replying to this because you were one of the few posters to actually link to some good sources -- or sources, period.

The Roland Fryer paper referenced in that Washington Times article is legit, and you're right that they found no evidence of police bias in regard to shootings. BUT if you're accepting that, then you'll agree with their findings that blacks are 21% more likely to experience non-lethal force in a police interaction, even when controlling for factors related to context and civilian behavior. What are your thoughts on that?

Also there are a few weaknesses in the paper's methodology that the authors are up front about. Most importantly, these results are conditional upon the civilian interacting with police in the first place - they do not account for potential differences in police stopping rates, which is notoriously difficult to compare cross-racially while effectively controlling for contextual factors (various studies have found that blacks are anywhere from 323% more likely or 45% less likely to be stopped, as cited in the Fryer paper.)

Also, the data is solely police-reported and only from cities that participate in the Police Data Initiative. So if anything, the findings may be overly optimistic. Either way, this study shoes clear racial differences in use of force by police.

Sorry to derail the gun discussion, but this is important stuff.

It really doesn't matter since citizens have a Constitutional right to own guns.

The U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Connecticut Constitution states, “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state”

The Connecticut constitutional provision has not changed since it was adopted in 1818 as part of the state's first constitution , so clearly the intent was for every citizen to be able own guns for self protection.

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:

Ezekiel bread wrote:

You have to understand our founding principles. One of which is resistance against tyranny and infringements on our liberties.

So do you believe the number of handgun deaths are irrelevant?

That's not actually a snarky question, btw. It's genuine.

What if it could be shown to your satisfaction that stricter gun laws would reduce crime? Would that be relevant to you, or is gun ownership more of a moral issue on which you won't budge?

The point is, that has never been proven, and those places with the strictest gun laws, e.g., Baltimore and Chicago, also have the most murders.

You are proceeding from a false premise.

FFF wrote:

The best part of the US fascination with gun ownership: Gun owners are far more likely to kill themselves, or a family member. This is somewhat a self-solving problem.

The worst part: Any moron can buy a gun, easier than buying beer, for example.

Any gun fanatic triggered enough to respond to this - please put your awesome gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.

Obviously, you know nothing about purchasing firearms.

While I'm sure it's similar for somebody in the west / midwest, I can only speak for the non-big city south. I grew up in the south USA and don't understand not having guns. I think this is a major disconnect in society so I've elaborated far longer than I probably should on a running site.

It's a lifestyle thing for the rural south. Some people like to sit outside on a porch drinking coffee. Rural southerns like to do that with a shotgun or a .22 to shoot squirrels and rabbits. Some people like to have cookouts with backyard games. Rural southerners like to do that and shoot skeet or vie for who can hit various targets set up on the property, This is a far more common use of guns than to use them for protection.

Guns for protection mean (at least) 2 things to a rural southerner. 1) The far more common protection is from animals. It's not uncommon for genteel city folk to drop dogs off in the country because they can't bear giving them to a shelter to be put down. That means they pack up in the country and become territorial and mean (please, drop them at a shelter instead). That means they kill farm animals and will attack kids. Then a gun becomes necessary. Other than dogs, you get things like bears, deer (eating your crops), coyotes, etc. If you live in Louisiana or Florida you see the occasional aggressive alligator. 2) If a strange car pulls up on your property (in the middle of nowhere), a rural southerner will have a gun by the door, if not in hand, to go meet that stranger. If the stranger is a normal person with no ill intent (this is the vast majority of the time), the gun isn't an issue. If the stranger is a smart person with ill intent, the gun is no issue because the person drives off. If the stranger is an idiot with ill intent, the gun becomes an issue. Guns don't generally threaten in the rural south because they are ubiquitous. If you walk up to me gun in hand or I see a gun in your vehicle and you roll your window down to talk to me, I'm not thinking you are intending to shoot me. If I'm on your property in the middle of nowhere and you see me drive up but you don't know me, I'm going to be respectful, greet you and not approach your house until you come out to meet me and invite me in.

Typically if you stop by a rural home in the south, you will find at least one gun unlocked and probably loaded. Typically if babies are in the house, this won't be reachable for a baby, but by a young age the kids are trained not to mess with the gun unless they are going to kill something with it. This is a foreign concept to some people, but I would imagine it's like young kids on boats in New England (my kids would drown but theirs can handle it) or young people coding robots in silicon valley (my kids would stare at the screen with no idea what to type). Our kids grow up shooting targets, skinning squirrels, learning to disassemble guns. Typically a kids' first experience with a gun is to be given basic safety advice and handed an unloaded one (mine got it with the firing mechanism disabled) to see how they handle it. The average parent can tell very quickly when they put a gun in their kids' hands whether the kid should be allowed to continue holding it or not, and the average parent doesn't allow the kid to continue in any situation that presents itself as dangerous (i.e. I've seen a kid unintentionally muzzle flash his mom with an unloaded shotgun and immediately have the gun taken and a long lecture on safety ensued).

Occasionally accidents do happen, and they can be tragic. Occasionally you have bad actors or idiots get their hands on guns and tragic things happen. Occasionally you do everything right and you have a misfire or bad ammo or whatever and tragic things happen. The Freakonomics guys discovered pools kill more kids than guns and present a far higher risk to children statistically speaking. I don't keep my kids from pools - I just try to be vigilant with pools (and firearms) to make sure they understand the risk and are educated on how to deal with those risks. I'm there as a backup in case they don't manage it. If I fail, it's going to be a sad day, but I'm not going to live in fear and not enjoy life.

-

Southern Boy

John Utah wrote:

Anyone can cherry pick and spin stats to prove whatever point they want. I can submit the probability of a normal non-criminal, non-ghetto-dwelling person being shot is EXTREMELY small. I've seen the stats and can pull them when I have more time.

So your response to firearm suicide rate statistics is to change the topic?

Pull all the statistics on "non-ghetto-dwelling persons" you want and firearm suicide statistics don't get any better.

If we count the number of legally owned firearms in which are kept loaded for reasons of self-protection, than look at two statistics: one being how many times have they prevented assaults? The other being how many times have these guns accidentally caused injury or death?

I could understand why people who live in rural areas feel unsafe because law enforcement is far away. But other questions have to be raised. Are there children in the household who can access these guns? How well trained are the adults how have access to these guns?

Bobby1 wrote:

It really doesn't matter since citizens have a Constitutional right to own guns.

The U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Connecticut Constitution states, “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state”

The Connecticut constitutional provision has not changed since it was adopted in 1818 as part of the state's first constitution , so clearly the intent was for every citizen to be able own guns for self protection.

Very educational and informative. Please, Bobby, since you have an affinity for the second amendment—tell us how you feel about the other 26? Do you also believe they should be followed word for word—as written with no subtlety or interpretation allowed? Do you believe a POTUS should be able to just issue an executive order that overrules one of the amendments? If Barack HUSSEIN Obama had issued an executive order that invalidated the 2A how would’ve that made you feel? What if he had just threatened to do so as a campaigning tactic?

Also, how do you specifically feel about the 14th amendment? Do you also hold that in high regard? Or are some amendments more American and fundamental to our existence than others?

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:

Ezekiel bread wrote:

You have to understand our founding principles. One of which is resistance against tyranny and infringements on our liberties.

So do you believe the number of handgun deaths are irrelevant?

That's not actually a snarky question, btw. It's genuine.

What if it could be shown to your satisfaction that stricter gun laws would reduce crime? Would that be relevant to you, or is gun ownership more of a moral issue on which you won't budge?

Well said. Cars become safer, in part because of new legislation, every year. Why aren't we getting stricter with gun laws? Why not re-ban assault weapons? Furthemore, I don't understand why the right wing can't see the hypocrisy with Trumps current war on the 14th amendment yet can't touch the 2nd.

John Utah wrote:

49yroldrunna wrote:

The USA has approx. 320million people. Per every 1 million people, you're very likely to have one potential homicidal maniac. In the USA, the intangible is that unlike many other 1st world countries, getting a gun is very easy. So the homicidal maniac in the USA almost always has a gun where he can kill more people faster.

And only in the usa do you hear this mantra, "More guns, less shootings". This is of course has been shown to be false in every study on guns.

Ok, then is sounds like the USA is not a good fit for you.

Wow. Great response. We are not worthy of your genius.

Also your wife and kids called me again last night. They told me to tell you that you’re still insufferable.

Amazing work.

This is the greatest LRC post of all time. Spot on.

Monkeys typing wrote:

John Utah wrote:

Anyone can cherry pick and spin stats to prove whatever point they want. I can submit the probability of a normal non-criminal, non-ghetto-dwelling person being shot is EXTREMELY small. I've seen the stats and can pull them when I have more time.

So your response to firearm suicide rate statistics is to change the topic?

Pull all the statistics on "non-ghetto-dwelling persons" you want and firearm suicide statistics don't get any better.

Suicide is a suicide problem. This has no bearing on my right to own a weapon.

Also, the USA according to the website below ranks 38th on suicide rates, way behind so many countries which have very strict gun laws.

You can make all of the posts you want but the reality is that guns are legal, always have been and will continue to stay that way.

The self defense argument for guns is absurd. Guns harm more people than they protect. Macho he-man politicians who weren't brave enough to serve in the military like to argue the opposite, but there's no way someone who is not specifically trained to deal with a shooter situation is going to improve the situation with a gun. Also, it was not until 2008 (District of Columbia v Heller) that the second amendment was interpreted to protect the right to own guns for self defense. It overturned long-standing precedent. United States v. Miller (1939) limited it to cases that comply with the first four words of the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia".

Having said that, I am not opposed to people having guns. Shooting is a lifetime sport and requires skill. In rural areas, they help protect livestock. Plus, they're an important part of rural culture and that should be respected. Just make sure that anyone who wants a gun can show they're properly trained in safety by passing tests, and make sure there some basic background checks to make sure that people who can't be entrusted with guns aren't allowed to have them. That bar should be high, and their should be the right to appeal, but I don't want to see anyone with a criminal history or a history of domestic violence or dangerous mental health issues with guns.

JohnMD1022 wrote:

FFF wrote:

The best part of the US fascination with gun ownership: Gun owners are far more likely to kill themselves, or a family member. This is somewhat a self-solving problem.

The worst part: Any moron can buy a gun, easier than buying beer, for example.

Any gun fanatic triggered enough to respond to this - please put your awesome gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.

Obviously, you know nothing about purchasing firearms.

Like I said, suck it.

Wrong. Shooting for basic home defense is not as hard as you make it out to be. Anyone can do it with a little practice. Children can do this. It's not that complicated. We're not talking about landing a fighter jet on an aircraft carrier. Just follow the very simple and basic gun safety rules and everything will be fine.

Also, shooting is not just for sport or for protecting livestock. It's also for shooting the bad guy in your house. It's unlikely that will happen, but scroll through police crime reports and it's a lot more likely than you might think. Also, I'd rather have one and not use it vs. be in a situation where I need one and don't have one.

Yashi wrote:

I have now lived in USA for 4 years. I was born in Thailand and don’t understand guns.

Do you think that guns outside of police and military protect more than they hurt?

With all the accidental shootings that led to death or shootings where someone went too far in protecting themselves (and thus were charged with a crime), it is clear that guns in the hands of private citizens harm more people each year than they protect.

Now, just to be fair here:

The fact that ANY house could have a gun-wielding owner in it more than likely DOES deter some crime, maybe even a lot of crime, some of which could be violent.