Guns and Pie

[visaveteran 1]

Some random comments:

The reason American is not the universal gun culture it once was is most men (people) don't need a gun on a daily basis except if the choose to carry.

They don't need to hunt for food or teach their kids to hunt for food. And with the shrinking woodlands, hunting for sport is a diminishing activity. Less and less kid's parents steer them to shooting clubs and gun competitions that were sometimes connected to Boy Scouts or the Issac Walton League. There are less and less farm kids who take part in the annual slaughter of cows and pigs for winter food or go hunting or killing varmints.

Once upon a time, high schools and Junior ROTC actually used real guns to teach shooting but that has pretty much gone away. Too many feminist mothers and gun fearing fathers made a stink about it, especially after some of the high school shoot outs.

And, we no longer have the military draft where millions of men once learned to shoot rifles and pistols at a fairly high level of marksmanship...and to use them in self-defense and combat situations.

So...we have had a growing armed citizen void that has been filled with people who have not ever even touched a gun, much less shot it. These folks fear what the don't understand or trust, or read about in negative media stories and anti-gun lobbies BS...so they have developed an unrealistic view of just how much the police can protect them, and provide a a replacement for "self-defense." As Gary noted the irony, we call men with guns to protect us from men with guns. Guns are OK with these gun-less people, but only in the hands of the cops and military...both of whom can, in reality, do very little to help in the suddenness of crazed killers or hardened criminals.

As to some of Slim's points about "running away" from danger and our founding fathers, I would say this. Our founding fathers would give you the back of their hand and challenge you to a duel for crossing certain boundaries. The dueling gun was a piece of the old English gentleman's code of chivalry. Insult my wife and die at dawn. The gun was embedded in the code of manhood and honor. Further down the food chain, if a thief tried to steal a man's horse, he'd quickly shoot him dead, as his horse was his life. And there would be no bad consequence or a trip to jail.

So, I don't see them "running away" from very much. Today it may be wise to run away because if you shoot someone or kill someone, you could end up sued into bankruptcy or put in jail. If someone is in your house stealing your TV, and you shoot him, you will likely go to jail unless you make sure he's dead and make it look like a self-defense scenario. This is true in all states except Texas if I'm not mistaken. You can only shot to kill if you fear for your life or physical safety, or that of others near you.

So, yes, run if you can but that is a tricky mindset to maintain and still be ready to not run, and stand and fight. Yes, it's a bad idea to play policeman if you see a crime going down, but that's an individual call. We allhave heard of citizens who've stopped crime, even crime not directed at them.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It sounds like a reasonable conclusion to come to, but there's nothing definitive out there that shows this one way or the other. No scientific and independent study I know of has concluded that an increase in gun ownership lowered violent crime. (if it exists, point me to it please, I'd love to eat my words on this one) As a quick, off-the-top-of-my-head example, many liquor and convenience store owners have guns behind the counter, but I heard earlier this week on the radio that bank and liquor store robberies are up nationally.

There is a similar philosophy that the death penalty and longer/harsher jail terms are deterrent effects, but crime continues to rise. Many states have enacted the "3 strikes" rule, but there's no evidence to show its deterrent effect either.

I don't think the deterrence effect of guns is wrong, I just don't think it's necessarily a truism.

John Lott's difinitive, county by county study. "More Guns, Less Crime" This study, done while Lott was a professor at the university of Chicago has been the most conclusive and oft quoted of all the concealed carry studies. Mnay states have since added concealed carry

You should find it by googling "John Lott"

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Fyi VV

The high school I went to ISSUED us rifles for use on the rifle team. Remington 513Ts for the rimfire and M1s and M14s (changed to semi-auto only) for Hi-power service rifle competition. We carried them to school for ractice on the bus and kept them in our lockers. We were not supposed to have ammunition with them, the school issued ammunition at the practice sessions and matches. No bloody shootouts occured even though on any given day there could be a dozen or more privately held (by teenage boys) assault rifles in lockers around the school.

A couple years after my graduation the scholl replaced the M513Ts with Remington 40Xs and my coach called me and offered me the rifle I used for four years for $40! It was a lot of money for me at the time, but I coughed it up and still have the rifle. It is just as accurate now as...OK we dont' need to say how many years ago.

A few years after that someone built a shopping center across the street and a gun shop wanted to go in. The local soccer mom's objected to a gun shop being located so close to their precious children. The rifle team had faded into history, but was still featured in our yearbooks from those years. I went to the public hearing about this gun shop. The principal of the school was there (not the same prinicipal when I went to the school) I simply asked "What, sir, has changed that a few years ago students at our school were issued assualt rifles which they kept in their lockers and now children are threatened by a gun shop across the street? What have you done?" I presented copies of the yearbook with our photos, with rifles, our team record of matches and the rifle team posing in the school, with rifles, for the team photo WITH our coach and the school principal.

The gun shop opened a few weeks later. Whining toadies!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It sounds like a reasonable conclusion to come to, but there's nothing definitive out there that shows this one way or the other. No scientific and independent study I know of has concluded that an increase in gun ownership lowered violent crime. (if it exists, point me to it please, I'd love to eat my words on this one) As a quick, off-the-top-of-my-head example, many liquor and convenience store owners have guns behind the counter, but I heard earlier this week on the radio that bank and liquor store robberies are up nationally.

There is a similar philosophy that the death penalty and longer/harsher jail terms are deterrent effects, but crime continues to rise. Many states have enacted the "3 strikes" rule, but there's no evidence to show its deterrent effect either.

I don't think the deterrence effect of guns is wrong, I just don't think it's necessarily a truism.

I hope you will take in the study I referred you to.

Comparing to government based forms of punishment is not a fair comparison. Death penalties are rarely carried out and only after many years of expensive appeals. and even then, typically only for heinous crimes of homicide. I mean it simply loses its deterence effect. On the other hand the potential death penalty of an armed citizen is another matter. There is no appeal and your fate is in the hands of a panicked victim who may just start shooting. It is the only way you can get the death penalty for attempted robbery, attempted rape, attempted burglary, etc. Without a study, I couldn't say for sure, but my guess is more criminals get the "death penalty" from armed citizens than from states. In a state with pervasive concealed carry, your chances of getting the death penalty for attempted robbery is far higher than your chances of getting it for mass child homicide. I am not a fan of state issued death penalties. Much too wishy washy and unreliable. Not to mention way too expensive. Lock them up and throw away the key.

You need to get CAUGHT, tried, convicted and lose a whole bunch of appeals to get the death penalty from the state. You only need to choose the wrong victim (or choose a victim too close to someone else carrying a gun) to get the death penalty for stealing a purse. The victim can represent police, judge, jury, and appeals process all rolled in one...and it can happen real quick.

the three strikes rule is alos relatively rarely used and many of those laws have so many loopholes that many repeat offenders slip through the cracks or aren't correctly co-ordianted with other states. The three strikes rule would probably work much better if properly implemented and enforced.

fact is that studies show a decrease in crimes against persons in jurisdictions with concealed carry while crimes against property have risen or remained stable at same time. This gives more credence to the fact that the concealed carry law actually did reduce crime and was not the unwitting beneficiary of a general drop in crime. It really was a brilliant study...read it.

[mox 298]

John Lott's difinitive, county by county study. "More Guns, Less Crime" This study, done while Lott was a professor at the university of Chicago has been the most conclusive and oft quoted of all the concealed carry studies. Mnay states have since added concealed carry

You should find it by googling "John Lott"

I know of John Lott, aka Mary Rosh (the sock puppet account he created to give his book better reviews on Amazon). More Guns, Less Crime is certainly an interesting study (it was recommended to me last year, I checked it out from the library but didn't get through most of it), and it did actually seem to be the holy grail of gun studies until I learned about the Mary Rosh thing. As I looked into it further, I learned that he was actually unable to produce the raw data he had collected for a (different) survey that is the basis of many of his claims. I couldn't remember exactly how that had all gone down, so thank god for Wikipedia:

In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999-2000, Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997. However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[45] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Following extensive publicity, David Gross, a Minnesota gun activist and former NRA board member came forward to say that he had been interviewed for a gun survey, and he thought that he was interviewed in the spring of 1997, probably by people working for Lott. [4] Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[46] but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy, quoting on his website colleagues who lost data in the hard drive crash.[47]

Now no serious academic is going to rely on data that he can't reproduce, no matter how painful it is to accept that it's gone. (can you imagine what the reaction would be if a major global warming study telling us that it's real were based on un-reproducable data?) So already I wasn't too inclined to trust the guy. There are also a lot of serious academics (including the National Academy of Science) that either outright disagree with how he used the data, or at least have serious concerns with his conclusions.

I'm not saying Lott is wrong and that his critics are right (even Einstein had critics), but if he had been ethically forthright then I might put more stock into what he says. As a critical thinker, I have to take in the whole picture. And even given that there's always going to be some debate about any study, tell me you'd give the time of day to an anti-gun study where the author sock-puppeted Amazon and conveniently lost raw data that they continue to base their positions on. You'd dismiss them completely out of hand. I'll at least concede that Lock may be on to something, but I'm not going to throw my hat in completely.

[visaveteran 1]

Mox, I'd hate to hang my hat on Wikipedia being fair and accurate. It's not to be fully trusted or seen as a fountain of truth. It's just a quick and dirty source for some loose snap shot of something or somebody. It's a lazy man's resource.

But I looked at John Lott under wiki and I think you cherry picked to make him look bad, First, his academic credentials are very impressive and he's taught and worked at great schools. His resume is very strong and some impressive scholars have applauded him...like Milton Friedman.

The missing data from some study he did is not connected to his "More Guns, Less Crime" work as far as I can tell. And he did have an explanation for the missing data that was not unbelievable to me. Some sources verified the study took place.

The phony Amazon persona was wrong but even noted author and historian, Stephen Ambrose, author of many great works including "Band of Brothers," got caught committing plagiarism. Should we label him as a phony or doubt all his work?

And we all know for every group who honors a study, there is an opposition group that tries to discredit it. But as I read it, even the NAS felt some of his data was good and defended some of it. There are lies, damn lie and statistics. This is especially true in non medical studies where controversial social issues are dealt with. It's hard to keep out politics and bias and an agenda. We should read his book and make our own judgments...not jump onto a pro or con bandwagon.

I give you some credit for not totally trashing him or his work, and ending your piece with a modest degree of open-mindedness, but you did leave out some important things in my judgment.

[mox 298]

I'll do some more research, and time permitting I'll try to read the book again. I didn't mean for it to sound like I was cherry picking, I was more trying to focus on my concerns. But yeah, his credentials are nothing to sneeze at for sure.

[slim 1,525]

Do not bring an ice scraper to a gun fight

Rules of a Gun Fight

1. Bring a gun, preferably bring two guns

2. Bring all of your friends who have guns

http://www.military-quotes.com/media/data/516/Gun_Fight.jpg

I still cannot understand how Illionois and Wisconsin can still not allow concealed carry? When will the people of those states say "Hey, we want to have lower crime also!"

I think they're still so excited over the "success" of sensible legislation and effective gun control in Chicago.

it's a damn dirty shame that Slim isn't gainfully employed as a gun safety expert.

Talk about a dream job.

It sounds like a reasonable conclusion to come to, but there's nothing definitive out there that shows this one way or the other. No scientific and independent study I know of has concluded that an increase in gun ownership lowered violent crime.

How about statistics from the DOJ?

Violent crime continues to decline even though gun ownership is skyrocketing and concealed carry permits are being issued in record numbers. Why is that?

Here's a link up to 2007 - http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search....cfm?stateid=52 The smart libs would argue it was because the AWB but that doesn't explain why it didn't shoot back up after 2004. It's continuing to decline all the way through 2007 and current statistics (sorry, no link - too lazy) support that it's declining further still.

my coach called me and offered me the rifle I used for four years for $40! It was a lot of money for me at the time, but I coughed it up and still have the rifle.

Very cool!

The gun shop opened a few weeks later. Whining toadies!

Huzzah!

[mox 298]

How about statistics from the DOJ?

Violent crime continues to decline even though gun ownership is skyrocketing and concealed carry permits are being issued in record numbers. Why is that?

Here's a link up to 2007 - http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search....cfm?stateid=52 The smart libs would argue it was because the AWB but that doesn't explain why it didn't shoot back up after 2004. It's continuing to decline all the way through 2007 and current statistics (sorry, no link - too lazy) support that it's declining further still.

From 2005 to 2007, the number of violent crimes dropped from 469.0 per 100,000 population to 466.9 per 100,000 population. 2 fewer violent crimes per 100k is not exactly a staggering drop. You just told me that gun ownership has "skyrocketed," and yet all it can account for (and that's really a big "if," since these numbers speak nothing to cause and effect) is a slight variance.

Now (as you said) if I were a gun-banning **, I'd link the drop to the AWB. But then I'd keep going. Since the expiration of the assault weapon ban, crime has risen from 463.2 to 466.9. Coincidence? I don't...well actually yeah, I think it probably is a coincidence. Because there's all kinds of things these statistics can be attributed to. 1994 was also the year other major anti-crime legislation went into effect, such as funding for more police. Or maybe there was an increase in sunspot activity. Who knows? 2002 saw a pretty big drop, maybe it was the PATRIOT act.

Again, I'm not arguing that there is no deterrent effec. It's just that the mantra has obtained a certain level of truthiness that I think needs to be challenged. It seems to make sense at the gut level, but people are complicated and correlation does not imply causation.

Edited December 31, 2009 by mox

[visaveteran 1]

I doubt he AWB had any effect one way or the other in crime rates as most crimes are committed with handguns. The type of gun never changed with the AWB, only certain cosmetic items...like a bayonet lug and collapsible stock. Not sure how that would raise or lower crime.

I think as more states allow conceal carry and gun ownership goes up, we will see, over time, a decrease in certain types of crime...carjackings, home invasions, muggings. But crime overall will probably continue to rise in other areas. The real measure of gun ownership and crime may be that crime goes up LESS than without guns...but rises none the less. Crime will always exist and some criminals just are not afraid of guns. Drug addicts and hardened career criminals will always do their thing...guns or no guns.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

From 2005 to 2007, the number of violent crimes dropped from 469.0 per 100,000 population to 466.9 per 100,000 population. 2 fewer violent crimes per 100k is not exactly a staggering drop. You just told me that gun ownership has "skyrocketed," and yet all it can account for (and that's really a big "if," since these numbers speak nothing to cause and effect) is a slight variance.

Now (as you said) if I were a gun-banning **, I'd link the drop to the AWB. But then I'd keep going. Since the expiration of the assault weapon ban, crime has risen from 463.2 to 466.9. Coincidence? I don't...well actually yeah, I think it probably is a coincidence. Because there's all kinds of things these statistics can be attributed to. 1994 was also the year other major anti-crime legislation went into effect, such as funding for more police. Or maybe there was an increase in sunspot activity. Who knows? 2002 saw a pretty big drop, maybe it was the PATRIOT act.

Again, I'm not arguing that there is no deterrent effec. It's just that the mantra has obtained a certain level of truthiness that I think needs to be challenged. It seems to make sense at the gut level, but people are complicated and correlation does not imply causation.

You would have to be a retard (**, whatever) to associate anything to the non-AWB that didn't ban anything but bayonet lugs and names of firearms. And grandfathered all the existing ones. So all the AR-15s that were present before the ban were still there and the new ones (sans bayonet lug) were called "Colt Sporter A2" Now there is crime fighting for you!

The AWB was the most retarded piece of congressional vomit ever conceived and NEVER had any possible chance of reducing crime. It was nothing but a science fiction show.

regardless if crime has remained steady or dropped even a little while gun ownership has increased (Barack Obama has been the firearms industries best salesman ever) then obviously more guns do not equal more crime.

[mox 298]

regardless if crime has remained steady or dropped even a little while gun ownership has increased (Barack Obama has been the firearms industries best salesman ever) then obviously more guns do not equal more crime.

It's actually not obvious. Crime has remained steady or dropped while iPod ownership has increased too. So does that say anything about how iPod ownership does or doesn't equal more crime? Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

(Barack Obama has been the firearms industries best salesman ever)

Ignorant people and the shrewd opportunists who mislead them through fear, uncertainty, and doubt have been the firearms industry's best salesman ever.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Mox

8 hours ago Wikipedia reported Rush Limbaugh was dead. He is not. Read John Lott's study and see what you think

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It's actually not obvious. Crime has remained steady or dropped while iPod ownership has increased too. So does that say anything about how iPod ownership does or doesn't equal more crime? Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

Ignorant people and the shrewd opportunists who mislead them through fear, uncertainty, and doubt have been the firearms industry's best salesman ever.

Yes it does. Ipod ownership and gun ownership have exactly the same affect on crime rates...none. Ownership of firearms. unlike concealed carry license issuance has nothing to do with crime.

The ignorant people were there when George Bush was President also. Did they become more ignorant when Obama was elected? Really I do not care, firearms ownership is UP and that is a good thing for preventing more firearms laws from being passed. One of the political goals of firearms laws and bans is to complicate ownership therby reducing ownership, thereby reducing resistance to more gun laws. Anything that increases firearms ownership (and contirbutions to the NRA which are soaring as is the membership) is a good thing. It is the best "change" Obama has implemented so far.

I am always a bit dismayed when we hqve "pro-gun" Presidents in that interest and membership and the coffers of the NRA shrink. People think there is no battle to be fought, they think we have "won". We need a good liberal around to stimulate sales, membership and contributions. Occasionally a useles, brainless gun law (AWB) gets passed and it empties the anti-gunners out of congress for a while.

[mox 298]

8 hours ago Wikipedia reported Rush Limbaugh was dead. He is not. Read John Lott's study and see what you think

You'll notice that I use Wikipedia as a reference, not a source. Anything I quote from Wikipedia is backed up by a source that is not Wikipedia. That's what all those numbers are in the square brackets. In fact, encyclopedias, not just Wikipedia, are not accepted as academic resources. But they offer a handy collection of real sources in one place and that's why I like to go there.

Another great thing about Wikipedia is that it's community policed. That's why Limbaugh was only "dead" for a short time.

Yes it does. Ipod ownership and gun ownership have exactly the same affect on crime rates...none. Ownership of firearms. unlike concealed carry license issuance has nothing to do with crime.

Really? Because I keep hearing gun ownership has an inverse affect on crime.

The ignorant people were there when George Bush was President also. Did they become more ignorant when Obama was elected?

Nope, they pretty much stayed the same kind of ignorant. They were ignorant when Bush misused 9/11 to invade the wrong country, they were ignorant when he convinced them he was a Conservative, they were ignorant when Bush and Congress (both parties) shoved the PATRIOT act down the American peoples' throats, despite the fact that it did more to curb our freedoms than any anti-gun liberal has ever done, and they ignorantly went out and bought up guns and ammunition because they drank the kool-aid that said Obama was going to take their guns. These are the same ignorant fools who kept their mouths shut for 8 years of out of control spending, but are outraged to the point of carrying guns to peaceful speaking events now that a (black) Democrat is doing it. You're absolutely right, they were ignorant then and now.

BTW, sure wish the NRA would get as worked up about the PATRIOT act as they are about 2A. Right now the President doesn't have to take your gun away, he can just make you--an American citizen--and your gun disappear without access to a lawyer, he can keep you indefinitely, and he doesn't even have to say where you are. Why weren't gun owners buying up guns and ammunition when that Marxist bit of legislation was passed by a Republican controlled Congress (not that it needed to be, the Dems were all too happy to join in) and signed by a Republican President? Oh...right. He wasn't a Democrat.