Guns used for lawful self defense

[FBM]

Let's see what Harvard Law has to say:

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE
MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND
SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
DON B. KATES* AND GARY MAUSER**

INTRODUCTION
International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such
discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.
Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has
the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact
of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the
true homicide rates.2 Since well before that date, the Soviet Union
possessed extremely stringent gun controls3 that were effectuated
by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement.4 So
successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have
firearms and very few murders involve them.5 Yet, manifest success
in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet
Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the
developed world.6 In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less Soviet
Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those
of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then
steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically
that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times
higher than that of the United States. Between 1998‐2004 (the latest
figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly
four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also
characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various
other now‐independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.7
Thus, in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning
into current‐day Russia, “homicide results suggest that where...
CONCLUSION
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf

[JimC]

In the US, gun availability is largely unaffected by gun control laws, as you yourself point out, and this is particularly true among the criminal-minded. Increasing gun control laws in a population where gun ownership is traditional and wise in light of the aforementioned criminal element will only serve to make criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens. If I go to Canada and smoke a joint, I'm not a criminal. I do the same thing in the US and I am. The act is the same, the existence of the law makes me a criminal, not genuine maladaptive behavior.

Again, we need a clear, verifiable 1:1 causal correlation between the existence of strict gun control laws and a decrease in homicide rates.

I think you mean "introduction" rather than "existence". If, in America today, much stricter gun control laws were introduced (possibly over Seth's dead body... ), you may not see much of a decrease in murder rates, given the large numbers of guns that would be in circulation.

The question really is whether countries with a comparable level of technology and democratic traditions to the US but with strict gun controls and low numbers of handguns in circulation have significantly lower homicide rates than the US, to which the answer is definitely yes...

[FBM]

In the US, gun availability is largely unaffected by gun control laws, as you yourself point out, and this is particularly true among the criminal-minded. Increasing gun control laws in a population where gun ownership is traditional and wise in light of the aforementioned criminal element will only serve to make criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens. If I go to Canada and smoke a joint, I'm not a criminal. I do the same thing in the US and I am. The act is the same, the existence of the law makes me a criminal, not genuine maladaptive behavior.

Again, we need a clear, verifiable 1:1 causal correlation between the existence of strict gun control laws and a decrease in homicide rates.

I think you mean "introduction" rather than "existence". If, in America today, much stricter gun control laws were introduced (possibly over Seth's dead body... ), you may not see much of a decrease in murder rates, given the large numbers of guns that would be in circulation.

Ah, yes, "introduction."

The question really is whether countries with a comparable level of technology and democratic traditions to the US but with strict gun controls and low numbers of handguns in circulation have significantly lower homicide rates than the US, to which the answer is definitely yes...

Well, not according to the Harvard profs in that study up there.. ^^

[JimC]

In the US, gun availability is largely unaffected by gun control laws, as you yourself point out, and this is particularly true among the criminal-minded. Increasing gun control laws in a population where gun ownership is traditional and wise in light of the aforementioned criminal element will only serve to make criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens. If I go to Canada and smoke a joint, I'm not a criminal. I do the same thing in the US and I am. The act is the same, the existence of the law makes me a criminal, not genuine maladaptive behavior.

Again, we need a clear, verifiable 1:1 causal correlation between the existence of strict gun control laws and a decrease in homicide rates.

I think you mean "introduction" rather than "existence". If, in America today, much stricter gun control laws were introduced (possibly over Seth's dead body... ), you may not see much of a decrease in murder rates, given the large numbers of guns that would be in circulation.

Ah, yes, "introduction."

The question really is whether countries with a comparable level of technology and democratic traditions to the US but with strict gun controls and low numbers of handguns in circulation have significantly lower homicide rates than the US, to which the answer is definitely yes...

Well, not according to the Harvard profs in that study up there.. ^^

The only comparison they make is with former Soviet countries, very murky places indeed, definitely not comparable in terms of political style and processes...

Try Western European countries, + Oz and NZ, and it becomes very clear indeed - BG has already provided the required figures in other threads...

However, I don't think you guys are going to change, and even if you tried, there would still be a hell of a lot of guns around. At the moment, is it true that a clear majority of Americans would be in favour of keeping your gun laws pretty much as is?

[Svartalf]

I guess nobody on that side is interested in participating in a little research on the truth of that Freudian pop-psych chestnut about penis compensation or whatever it's called.

It is all a myth. The obsession with guns has nothing to do with any 'shortcomings' in the penis department. It is all about shortcomings in the cerebral areas.

thank you, just thank you.

[FBM]

@ Jim: I haven't checked official figures on it lately, but the last time I looked, there was very little political will to make drastic changes to existing gun laws. And as for the research above, I think they did enough to debunk the common, bold claim that the US homicide rate far outdistances those of all other developed (or as Bg would have it, "civilized") countries, unless you're willing to say Russia and the others are undeveloped or uncivilized. If you keep narrowing the field, yes, you can eventually find a setup that will produce the desired statistics, but I don't think that's either very honest, intellectually speaking, nor very indicative of much once you've cherry-picked the countries you want to include and de-selected those that don't support your preferred results. (generic 'you')

[Svartalf]

Because what's right for NZ is right for the whole world.

Dem kiwis are crazy. We don't need Devogue, they are welcome to him.

[FBM]

I've know a few who were sane. The Ozzies on the other hand....

[JimC]

@ Jim: I haven't checked official figures on it lately, but the last time I looked, there was very little political will to make drastic changes to existing gun laws. And as for the research above, I think they did enough to debunk the common, bold claim that the US homicide rate far outdistances those of all other developed (or as Bg would have it, "civilized") countries, unless you're willing to say Russia and the others are undeveloped or uncivilized. If you keep narrowing the field, yes, you can eventually find a setup that will produce the desired statistics, but I don't think that's either very honest, intellectually speaking, nor very indicative of much once you've cherry-picked the countries you want to include and de-selected those that don't support your preferred results. (generic 'you')

Excluding the former Soviet Union is scarcely cherry picking. I presume that Americans would like to be thought of as belonging to a modern, western developed nation with a long democratic tradition. Pick all the countries in the world that reasonably fall into that category, and you are comparing apples with apples...

[FBM]

Well, if you extend the criteria to limit the choices to "modern, western developed nation(s) with a long democratic tradition", it seems to me that you're (generic 'you' again) slanting the playing field in your favor. I'm for just including all of humankind and all countries, since ultimately we're the same species and ultimately share a common history.

[JimC]

Well, if you extend the criteria to limit the choices to "modern, western developed nation(s) with a long democratic tradition", it seems to me that you're (generic 'you' again) slanting the playing field in your favor. I'm for just including all of humankind and all countries, since ultimately we're the same species and ultimately share a common history.

Really, it's about not bothering to compare gun-death statistics with countries which are rife with internal conflict and have only a tenuous rule of law. If you do compare the US to western Europe and Oz, you see a very clear-cut difference. You guys allow widespread hand-gun ownership, we don't. You guys have more than 4 times the homicide rate by hand-gun than we do - not just a minor statistical difference of a few percent. It is quite possible to accept this correlation, but still argue that your historical legacy and concept of personal freedom takes precedence, and that the extra deaths are just too bad. If a majority of your population felt like this, fair enough...

[FBM]

Ah. You see, I see the US as having always been "rife with internal conflict and have only a tenuous rule of law." It's that way now, imo.

[Blind groper]

That causal correlation is shown very clearly in the relationship, nation by nation, between gun ownership and murder rate. In the west, only the USA has easy access to hand guns, and the US has 4 times the per capita murder rate of other western nations, half of which are done with hand guns. If you look at other nations, outside the west, then the relationship is less clear, but still there. Nations like Afghanistan and Pakistan have a very high per capita murder rate, and easy (though not legal) access to firearms.

Of course, it is not quite as easy as that. Several other factors strongly affect murder rates. Countries with major drug industries tend to have high murder rates. There is also a relationship between poverty and a high murder rate. So, some South American nations with drug industries have very high murder rates, and the murder rate in some impoverished African countries is also high.

I should also add, to correct a misapprehension, that local gun control laws are not necessarily the key. In the USA, gun control responsibility falls to a large extend on individual states. This is quite pointless, because, as I said, if a gun is not available in State A, the would-be owner simply travels to State B to get it. The only gun control laws that would make any difference would be federal, and rigorously policed.

I have to add also, that for the USA, the problem is two fold.
1. Gun ownership - especially hand guns.
2. Gun culture. While the gun toting "good guy" is shown to solve problems with guns, people will continue to think that way, leading to widespread tragedy. The messages I continually receive on this thread reveals that completely. No matter how many statistics I post showing that the use of guns just makes things worse, the less than rational rationalia posters keep trying to tell me they will solve problems with guns. This is, in my opinion, and according to the statistics, a cause of further problems and tragedies.

The idea that removing guns from normal citizens will make things worse, because criminals still have guns, is not correct. A large percentage of both murders and suicides are carried out by 'normal' citizens on impulse. More murders, for example, are done by people who know the victim than by outside criminals. And most of those murders in America, but not elsewhere, are done by hand gun. If a gun is not readily available, many of those deaths will not occur.

In addition, a ban on hand guns means criminals will be more reluctant to carry them, since that would give the police a ready excuse to arrest them. Do you not think it would be a good thing, for police checking up on a gang, to be able to check for gun possession and arrest anyone carrying a hidden gun?

[JimC]

Blind Groper wrote:

Do you not think it would be a good thing, for police checking up on a gang, to be able to check for gun possession and arrest anyone carrying a hidden gun?

They probably could do that now, since it is unlikely (though not impossible, I suppose) that a gang member would have a valid license for "concealed carry". Whether being in that situation is regarded as a serious crime or a minor misdemeanour I'm not sure...

[JimC]

Ah. You see, I see the US as having always been "rife with internal conflict and have only a tenuous rule of law." It's that way now, imo.

I find that a little depressing, somehow...