Mom Runs Burglars Off with Gun

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Very specific answer to the original post I made, which you conflated into an argument I didn't make.

You state repeatedly 'concealed carry, specifically the very liberal and long standing law in Vermint regarding same, is the sole reason Vermont has such a low crime rate.' you claim all states should copy Vermont, doing so will reduce crime.

You pointed to your guru and the definitive source of your claim.

I said the source of your claim has been thoroughly discredited. In fact repeatedly, and even subsequently in the very pages of the source where his 'work' was originally published.

You love guns, Vermont, and your family, possibly even in that order. Great! More power to you!

But, you are not safer. Credible studies bear that out. Credible studies refute the claim you make, parroting the claims of Mr. Lott, and the only claim I am referring to.

Edited February 13, 2012 by ready4ONE

[slim 1,525]

Here in Ohio anyone is allowed to openly carry a gun. Only certain people are allowed to concealed carry. Yet we have a pretty high crime rate.

So, can we further say that it's not just allowing people to carry guns but allowing them to concealed carry that stops crime?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Here in Ohio anyone is allowed to openly carry a gun. Only certain people are allowed to concealed carry. Yet we have a pretty high crime rate.

So, can we further say that it's not just allowing people to carry guns but allowing them to concealed carry that stops crime?

No we can't. Gun laws ranging from hugely restrictive to massively liberal concealed carry have very little impact on crime rates. Crime rates vary widely even within any given state, yet the law remains the same.

[xebec 195]

I said the source of your claim has been thoroughly discredited. In fact repeatedly, and even subsequently in the very pages of the source where his 'work' was originally published.

Lott certainly has not "been thoroughly discredited." Telling use of the passive voice- and, as usual, not accompanied by any citation. I think you mean he has "been thoroughly discredited" on the Daily Kos, the Democratic Underground, and the Daily Show, where you obviously receive your education on such matters. His research has certainly been questioned, particularly by those who rankle at his conclusions. For example, Hemenway, writing for the New England Journal of Medicine, outs himself quite effectively by citing Tom Diaz (A journalist with a stunning ignorance of the subject he purported to research).

Lott's book is pro-gun, with an academic flavor; indeed, some training in econometrics is essential to assess his statistical approach. By contrast, Making a Killing, by Tom Diaz, an analyst at the pro-control Violence Policy Center, is more journalistic and can be evaluated more easily by a lay audience.

Making a Killing focuses on gun manufacturers and argues that in the past two decades, in an attempt to increase their sales and profits, these companies have deliberately increased the lethality of firearms. The case is made with quotations drawn from the industry itself.

The problem for the industry has been that, given reasonable care, guns don't wear out. With fewer young people growing up into the markets for traditional hunting and sport shooting, convincing people that they need more guns has required innovation and fear-nurturing advertising.

Instead of innovating in the direction of safer firearms (e.g., guns with childproof locks and load indicators What the hell is a "load indicator"), the industry chose the opposite direction. Manufacturers made guns to hold more rounds Wrong. The Browning Hi Power was a high capacity 9mm introduced nearly 80 years ago. The 32 round MP18 saw service during the First World War, and the AK-47 entered production over half a century ago, increased the power of the rounds and the speed with which the bullets could be shot, and at the same time made guns smaller and more concealable. Wrong. The century-old Colt 1911 fires rounds just as rapidly as any modern auto-loader, and the Walther ppk, beloved for its small size, hit the market in 1929.

Ammunition and accessories with "Rambo" appeal So what? -- bipods 100+ year old technology, at least , flash suppressors, grenade launchers Really? Get a clue! , laser sights, and expanding bullets More 100 year old technology -- have also been increasingly offered. Ammunition has come on the market with names like "Eliminator-X," "Ultra-Mag," "Black Talon" (whose razorlike talons could tear protective gloves As would any expanding bullet of bimetal construction, dating back to the 1930s , exposing doctors to infectious diseases), and "Starfire," whose advertisements called it "the deadliest handgun cartridge ever developed for home or personal defense," with "fast knockdown" due to the "massive wound channel" it can create So the author doesn't like the marketing hype....stop the presses!

This is typical of attempts to "thoroughly discredit" Lott and anyone else who attempts to rationally anylyze the impact of new thinking on gun control. (Unless, of course, the "researcher" has a left bias, and fills their work with this sort of irrelevant, misinformed, and biased tripe.

You love guns, Vermont, and your family, possibly even in that order. Great! More power to you!

But, you are not safer. Credible studies bear that out. Credible studies refute the claim you make, parroting the claims of Mr. Lott, and the only claim I am referring to.

You can't seriously be questioning the man's priorities in relation to his family, after telling us all on another thread that you would not even arm yourself, or harm another person, in order to protect your family from a violent predator. You can't be saying this.....nobody is that blind to hypocrisy. Nobody.

"Credible studies bear that out." Again.....no citation. I highly doubt you have any perspective on credibility when it comes to this issue.

Edited February 13, 2012 by xebec

[natty bumppo 297]

John Lott has already been completely and thoroughly outed as having put forth a study so flawed a number of academics have used the word 'worthless' to describe both his study and conclusions. This of course didn't stop Mr. Lott from publishing a book based on his worthless study, and generated any number of fan-boys such as yourself who don't really understand academic research, and only point to what agrees with your points of view, ignoring anything which even remotely fails to agree.

The fact is the study which would definitively put the argument to rest hasn't been done, and the party most interested in making sure such research never gets done is the gun lobby. Credible studies do argue against the demonstrably flawed results of the demonstrably flawed study by Mr. Lott however. The gun lobby simply prefers researchers such as Mr. Lott. Form a desired conclusion, exclude any fact which works against said conclusion, emphasize anything remotely resembling support of the desired conclusion, make conclusion and call any criticism of the study 'bias' from 'the other side.'

Frankly I don't think increased danger to the owner/possessor of the gun is necessarily an argument against legally owning guns, as I have stated over and over again, I think that the danger is increased that the owner or their loved one do indeed increase and not without good reason, credible studies indicate that truth, but my thought is simply that is something for anyone to keep in mind prior to obtaining a gun.

Let's look at an excerpt from a credible study shall we?

...For this we have a legitimate study by Kellermann, published in the, horrors, the biased New England Journal of Medicine (Protection or Peril?). I'll quote the abstract:"To study the epidemiology of deaths involving firearms kept in the home, we reviewed all the gunshot deaths that occurred in King County, Washington (population 1,270,000), from 1978 through 1983. The medical examiner's case files were supplemented by police records or interviews with investigating officers or both, to obtain specific information about the circumstances, the scene of the incident, the type of firearm involved, and the relationship of the suspect to the victim. A total of 743 firearm-related deaths occurred during this six-year period, 398 of which (54 percent) occurred in the residence where the firearm was kept. Only 2 of these 398 deaths (0.5 percent) involved an intruder shot during attempted entry. Seven persons (1.8 percent) were killed in self-defense. For every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms. Handguns were used in 70.5 percent of these deaths."

The expected tactic immediately materialized: raise doubt as to the validity of the study and its methodology. Didn't work; it underwent careful examination and emerged largely unscathed. Of course, demonization was not far behind: biased, liberal and worse.

http://www.thedoctor...ts-pro-and-con/

using a rather old piece of research provided by a shill for VPC?

you can do better ...

Kellermann, Arthur L., MD, MPH and Donald T. Reay, MD, "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 314, No. 24, 6/12/86, pp. 1157-1560.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Here in Ohio anyone is allowed to openly carry a gun. Only certain people are allowed to concealed carry. Yet we have a pretty high crime rate.

So, can we further say that it's not just allowing people to carry guns but allowing them to concealed carry that stops crime?

Just looking at open carry you can see it wouldn't do much regarding crime because the firearm is unloaded and visible. A criminal would choose to disarm the individual first.

[Marilyn. 340]

In Nevada, you may carry a loaded or unloaded firearm on your person without a permit so long as the firearm is fully exposed (known as "open carry").

http://www.nsrpa.us/legal/nevlocal.html

And from what I have read Nevada has one of the worst crime rates...

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Xebec I certainly never said I wouldn't arm myself to protect my family. Only someone with serious myopia would believe the only way to protect oneself and his/her loved ones is with a gun.

Serious academics have indeed thoroughly discredited Lott and his bogus study as well as conclusion. If you choose to ignore all evidence to the contrary and worship Lott, go ahead. It is a free country. But if you spout his bogus claims expect them to challenged and corrected.

Edited February 13, 2012 by ready4ONE

[xebec 195]

Xebec I certainly never said I wouldn't arm myself to protect my family. Only someone with serious myopia would believe the only way to protect oneself and his/her loved ones is with a gun.

Serious academics have indeed thoroughly discredited Lott and his bogus study as well as conclusion. If you choose to ignore all evidence to the contrary and worship Lott, go ahead. It is a free country. But if you spout his bogus claims expect them to challenged and corrected.

Hmmmm.....ok. I'll go back and find your post. Fair enough.

I took the liberty of emphasizing in bold your hyperbole.

I see the challenge (yours), but I see no correction. Only hyperbole.

[slim 1,525]

No we can't. Gun laws ranging from hugely restrictive to massively liberal concealed carry have very little impact on crime rates. Crime rates vary widely even within any given state, yet the law remains the same.

So if we can't say gun laws have any effect on crime rates, why do we have so many gun laws? Additionally, why are there people out there who think passing laws is going to reduce crime?

That makes no sense at all!

Wrong. The Browning Hi Power was a high capacity 9mm introduced nearly 80 years ago. The 32 round MP18 saw service during the First World War, and the AK-47 entered production over half a century ago, increased the power of the rounds and the speed with which the bullets could be shot, and at the same time made guns smaller and more concealable. Wrong. The century-old Colt 1911 fires rounds just as rapidly as any modern auto-loader, and the Walther ppk, beloved for its small size, hit the market in 1929.

The baddest of the bad, Ma Deuce, was designed all the way back before the first gun laws were even put in place. There's nothing "modern" about big guns that shoot fast. (Or small guns that shoot fast.)

And the fact is, the more guns we have... the more our crime rate goes down.

Just looking at open carry you can see it wouldn't do much regarding crime because the firearm is unloaded and visible. A criminal would choose to disarm the individual first.

Why carry an unloaded firearm?

[SMOKE 1,426]

Why carry an unloaded firearm?

i'm having a déjà vu moment here. i have asked the same poster the same question before...yes really.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Why carry an unloaded firearm?

i'm having a déjà vu moment here. i have asked the same poster the same question before...yes really.

There really is no point to carrying an unloaded firearm, but its the open carry law in many states.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

i'm having a déjà vu moment here. i have asked the same poster the same question before...yes really.

Was my answer the same back then?

[xebec 195]

Xebec I certainly never said I wouldn't arm myself to protect my family.

My mistake. You didn't say this. Apologies for the confusion.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

No we can't. Gun laws ranging from hugely restrictive to massively liberal concealed carry have very little impact on crime rates. Crime rates vary widely even within any given state, yet the law remains the same.

Why? Give examples.

Vermont has liberal gun laws and low crime because of it. Vermont was awarded "Healthiest State" for among other things, low crime and low household accidents. Google it.

Our liberal Democrat Governor, a gun owner, shooter, supporter of concealed carry and lifelong hunter has increased the amount of firearms and hunter safety training in schools

The absolute refusal of the antigunners to present anything except the tired old claims with no evidence and not even an answer is the reason that dozens of states have adopted concealed carry, the AWB is dead, Brady Act is Dead, we have the Heller and McDonald decisions...simply because the anti's can't make a case.

Thank you, carry on.