Gun violence close to home

[lost highway]

One thing I think we all agree on is that no one here wants to be, or see anyone be shot down by a psycho.

 

The more extreme approaches to dealing with this potential threat are either:

 

a.  Play cowboy and see if you can pull a trigger faster, and aim better under the duress of a gunfight, something you've never experienced before

 

b.  Pass sweeping legislation to systematically remove legal, and illegal guns from private owners in our country

 

Both seem like a long shot (excuse the pun).

 

 

They're locked up and nobody is hurt. 

 

P.S. I am licensed to carry a gun so I am seldom far from one.

 

 

 

That same kind of lock that deterred your imaginary assailant? 

 

 

 

As for nations like the UK that have essentially banned guns:

 

 

 

 

This doesn't support much of an argument either way.  The peak is several years ago and still under 100, for an entire year.  Yes populations are different, so it comes down to per capita.  Most stats I've read have the per capita incidence of homicide by firearm to be 30-40 times greater in the U.S.A. as compared to the UK.

[Ghost of Electricity]

When you said this:

 I'm not going to worry about statistics,...

I refrained from using statistics and kept to logic (which has gone unrefuted).  But now that you've done this:

 

 

 

 

in addition to introducing yet another inconsistency to your position, you have freed me to do this:  

 

 

 

 

But let's keep it domestic, at least for now:

 

 

 

number of unintentional gun fatalities per 100,000 people, USA, 2009: 0.27

 

which if you do the math comes out to about 800 unintentional gun fatalities a year in the US

 

 

 the FBI counted an average of 213 justified firearm homicides per year over the period 2005-2010    

 

So if you have a gun in the house  you are about 20 times as likely to kill someone accidentally (probably a guest, loved one, or yourself) than to kill an intruder. 

[Hixter]

a.  Play cowboy and see if you can pull a trigger faster, and aim better under the duress of a gunfight, something you've never experienced before

 

b.  Pass sweeping legislation to systematically remove legal, and illegal guns from private owners in our country

 

Both seem like a long shot (excuse the pun).

I wouldn't call them both long shots, as people defend themselves with guns every day of the year, while nobody has yet tried to remove all guns from private owners.

 

 

That same kind of lock that deterred your imaginary assailant? 

Think more along the lines of a 6-foot tall, 600-pound safe.

 

 

This doesn't support much of an argument either way.  The peak is several years ago and still under 100, for an entire year. 

As I've said over and over again, different countries have different cultures. Gun crimes were relatively rare in the UK before guns were removed, so it should come as no surprise that gun crimes are still relatively rare.

 

kept to logic (which has gone unrefuted). 

Absolutely incorrect. It has been refuted and you have chosen to ignore my explanations.

 

 

So if you have a gun in the house  you are about 20 times as likely to kill someone accidentally (probably a guest, loved one, or yourself) than to kill an intruder. 

If you live in a building you are infinitely more likely to die in a building fire, so logic dictates that you should live under a bridge somewhere.

 

I don't give a damn about statistics -- I would rather have a firearm than face an intruder unarmed. Is that really so difficult to fathom?

[uncool2pillow]

I think I -- and others -- said this before, but it bears repeating as, Hixter, you call for the current laws to be enforced.  The NRA and their friends in Congress are a roadblock to this.  IIRC, when someone posted a link to a Daily Show bit that you ignored as you don't like Stewart.  I could have imagined this or it could've been someone else on your side of the debate.

 

Anyhow, it's worth a watch.  It's a really well documented story, not just Stewart spouting off. 

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom---atf

[Ghost of Electricity]

No, it isn't.  I've stated before I can understand that it does make you feel safer.   But apparently it IS difficult for you to understand that it actually puts you at greater risk.  Before backing that up with the statistics above, I argued it in this post, which you conveniently ignored:  

 

 

Incorrect.   There are two axes that this hinges on --you having or not having a gun, and the intruder having or not having a gun.  Let's consider your safety.  If neither you nor the intruder are armed, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be hurt or killed by gunfire.  There could be a random shot froma a domestic dispute at a neighbour's which comes through your window and hits you, but the odds of this are obviously infintesimally small. If you are armed and the intruder isn't, the likelihood of you being injured by gunfire goes up.  The intruder could wrestle the gun from you and use it on you, or the gun could backfire.  Neither is likely, but either one is more likely than being hit by a random shot through the window, and of course those infintesimal odds are still present.  So, when the intruder is not armed, you are more likely, not less likely, to be injured or killed by gunfire.

 

Now let's consider the situation of an armed intruder.  If this is the case unquestionably your odds of being injured or killed by gunfire have increased.  But the question is, are you more or less likely to be injured if you have a gun than if you don't.  If the intruder enters with intent to harm, you are likely to he injured or killed either way.  He has the element of surprise.  Odds are not good for you.  If the intruder has entered without intent to harm- say to burgle or because he's strung out looking to raid your medicine cabinet or he's a bored kid looking for kicks or whatever- your having a gun increases the chance that the situation will escalate into one where you are injured or killed.  He (or she) sees that you have a gun, panics, and uses the weapon that he (or she) didn't really intend to use.

 

Finally let's consider that the intruder is armed and you are not (the situation you are most afraid of).  If he enters with intent to harm, your chances are not good.  But remember they weren't good when you were armed either.  As he is already holding his weapon and has the element of surprise,I would put your likelihood of being injured or killed by gunfire at about equal whether you have gun or not.  If the intruder enters without intent to harm he is less likely to use his weapon if you are unarmed than if you are armed, and you are less likely to be injured or killed by gunfire.

 

So if we are considering your safety, we can see that if you are armed the likelihood of your being injured or killed by gunfire in all situations is either equal or greater.  

 

And i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't ignored or forgotten my question about how to prevent gun violence from happening in the first place.

[Hixter]

IIRC, when someone posted a link to a Daily Show bit that you ignored as you don't like Stewart.  I could have imagined this or it could've been someone else on your side of the debate.

I didn't watch it because I hate celebrities telling me how I should think politically. I have nothing against Stewart, but I'd rather poke my own eyes out than listen to a celebrity yammer on about politics. I'm looking at you, Colbert, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Danny Glover, Alec Baldwin, Nugent, Limbaugh, Hannity, Tweedy, etc.

[Ghost of Electricity]

I think I -- and others -- said this before, but it bears repeating as, Hixter, you call for the current laws to be enforced.  

yes by all means enforce the laws that exist, but they will do nothing to prevent gun crime from happening in the first place.  

[Hixter]

But apparently it IS difficult for you to understand that it actually puts you at greater risk.

Live your life by statistics, if you choose. Myself, when I hear someone break a window in my house I'm going to reach for a 12-gauge rather than crunch numbers in my head.

 

And i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't ignored or forgotten my question about how to prevent gun violence from happening in the first place.

I've answered that question at least 5 or 6 more times. I'm not going to continue repeating myself every time you don't like my answer.

[Ghost of Electricity]

Live your life by statistics, if you choose. Myself, when I hear someone break a window in my house I'm going to reach for a 12-gauge rather than crunch numbers in my head.

 

I've answered that question at least 5 or 6 more times. I'm not going to continue repeating myself every time you don't like my answer.

I agree we should enforce the laws, but punishment as a deterrent has never worked on any issue and won't work here.  

[Hixter]

I agree we should enforce the laws, but punishment as a deterrent has never worked on any issue and won't work here.  

The recidivism rate for people jailed on gun charges is something like 75%. Maybe possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime should result in a lifetime sentence without chance of parole. Many lives would be saved.

[uncool2pillow]

2 replies to Ghosts of Electricity

 

1) Enforcing current laws could do a great deal.  It would include giving the ATF appropriate resources to press charges against gun dealers violating the law, for example.

 

2) Hixter isn't a statistic.  He is a living, breathing human being.  Just because gun owners in general are more likely to be victimized rather than stop criminals does not mean he fits into this statistical norm.  There are lots of variables.  Women in general make less money for doing the same job as men.  I am a public school teacher.  I work with a lot of women who have more experience and education than me.  They make more than me (I'm a dude).  So while statistics might support your view, there are other variables that must be considered.

 

The recidivism rate for people jailed on gun charges is something like 75%. Maybe possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime should result in a lifetime sentence without chance of parole. Many lives would be saved.

 

Good lord would that be expensive.  Again, let's tax gun sales to help pay for things like that.  Although, if I were in charge of criminal justice, I would throw every person guilty of possession of drugs with no intent to distribute out of jail today to save money and make room to keep the violent criminals locked up longer. Especially those who use deadly weapons.

[Hixter]

I would throw every person guilty of possession of drugs with no intent to distribute out of jail today to save money and make room to keep the violent criminals locked up longer. Especially those who use deadly weapons.

I have no problem with that.

 

Gangs are responsible for 25% of our nation's murders. Going after gang members makes more sense than going after Joe Hunter and his rifles.

[Magnetized]

   

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

By the way, did you all know there's going to be an awesome Wilco festival in June? Three days of peace, love and understanding, with nary a gun in sight. Just thought I'd mention it.       

[Hixter]

By the way, did you all know there's going to be an awesome Wilco festival in June? Three days of peace, love and understanding, with nary a gun in sight. 

I'll be there. I guess I'll probably leave the gun at home since Massachusetts doesn't recognize my concealed handgun license. Pity, because Texas is nice enough to allow Massachusetts license holders to carry in our fair state.

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

holy shit this rules

[uncool2pillow]

Yeah, I agree.  I have no idea what Hixter looks like, but I totally imagine him at Solid Sound looking like this:

 

[Hixter]

I have no idea what Hixter looks like, but I totally imagine him at Solid Sound looking like this:

 

Old, fat and bald ... that's pretty much the dad rock demographic, right?

[Ghost of Electricity]

 

 

2) Hixter isn't a statistic.  He is a living, breathing human being.  

And it is my sincere hope that he doesn't become a statistic.  But let's remember this isn't about hixter, it's about policy.  and this argument:

 

Live your life by statistics, if you choose. Myself, when I hear someone break a window in my house I'm going to reach for a 12-gauge rather than crunch numbers in my head.

 

 

may work for him, but does not serve as a strong enough foundation on which to build an entire policy.

 

wish i could discuss this with you further over a brew at solid sound (especially as you won't be packing there-i'd feel safer), but alas, i'm unable to attend:( 

[Ghost of Electricity]

Probably would have ignored this but it seems sadly appropriate to post here.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21455453

[Tweedling]

It will be interesting to see if he truly had mistaken as a burglar or if some of the calls to the home that were "domestic in nature" happened to be precursors to this horrible event.

 

This too is an appropriate article to post.

http://www.chronline.com/crime/article_430b2a60-74d8-11e2-983f-0019bb2963f4.html

[Hixter]

A gun confiscation bill in Missouri:

 

 

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

            (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

            (2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

            (3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

            5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

 

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM

[Lammycat]

See, that wasn't so hard.

[mountain bed]

   

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

By the way, did you all know there's going to be an awesome Wilco festival in June? Three days of peace, love and understanding, with nary a gun in sight. Just thought I'd mention it.       

Not a single cop anywhere in the area for 3 days. 

[Hixter]

Not a single cop anywhere in the area for 3 days. 

They don't like to advertise it, but their guns are loaded with glitter bullets that weekend, although they're more likely to zap you with a Tickle Taser first.

[Magnetized]

[quote name=mountain bed" post="1519826" time="1360902209"]Not a single cop anywhere in the area for 3 days. Oh the shenanigans we can get up to. Let's remember the recent changes in Massachusetts laws.