Ultimate Gun Defense

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

MikeK wrote:
And those numbers don't really have any bearing on the discussion. A lot more people play baseball and softball so those numbers would naturally be high. Same with everything else on that list. I'm going to take a crazy wild ass guess and thing that kids who shoot or carry handguns as an activity would be much lower. To be injured by a handgun one has to be somewhere in the area, which of course is obvious.
The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US. If you add those owned by the military, law enforcement agencies and museums, there is probably about 1 gun per person in the country. *

Removed those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns). *

About 12 million people play baseball in the United States. **

I'm going to take a wild guess and say no more than 20 million people play softball in the United States.

This is the proper comparison, Mike. For the most part the concern is youth exposure and access to firearms, and not use per se.

- Bill


* Source: http://wiki.answers.com

** Source: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball
Valkenar
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Post by Valkenar »

Van Canna wrote:You are paranoid in addition to being dead wrong on the gun issues we have discussed over the years.
Like I said, I didn't actually think you'd stoop to stalking me. But I'm not sure what to make of what you've said so far. You're apparently making up some story about me "getting my ass handed to me" on forums that you somehow just happened to run across me posting on. Care to share the specifics of this supposed ass-handing?
Do us a favor and just get lost, will you pal??
If Bill wants me off his forum, he can ban me. Go back and read this thread with a calmed mind and ask yourself which of the two of us started making personal attacks.
Last edited by Valkenar on Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Valkenar
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Post by Valkenar »

Bill Glasheen wrote: This is the proper comparison, Mike. For the most part the concern is youth exposure and access to firearms, and not use per se.
Except that with pools and sports, you have people actively encouraging kids to pursue those activities. There may be way more hand guns, but there are way more kids playing baseball than kids with free access to guns. And those kids spend way more hours playing baseball than with guns. So of course more kids are injured more playing baseball than through gun accidents. It's not a reasonable comparison at all. Apples and Oranges, completely.

Phrased the way it was it makes it sounds like pools or baseball are more lethal than guns.
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

"is a valid choice in that spectrum, and whether you choose it or not may depend, in part, on your risk factors for being a victim of crime.
It certainly is for some people, as Panther has also written. To each his own.

Neither Panther nor I have ever advocated 'Must own….must carry'


Assessing your own personal risk factors in becoming a victim is an impossible task. I have come up against these similar concepts in my work as a professional liability claims investigator.

Our professional risk managers were part of the initial evaluation process to establish premium rate.

Many of my investigations and defense attorney's trial prep involved cases of street violence, workplace violence and robberies as well as workplace shootings, under the so called 3D crime policies which also included Kidnap and ransom coverage.

The assessment of the risk of a particular person becoming a victim of crime is a most complex undertaking. As Panther has written many times S*hit happens when you least expect it…while thinking you are/should be safe.

The choice is yours.


At times the perp will go to great lengths to acquire the victim. In other cases, the perpetrator has acquired a victim of opportunity.

Perhaps in this last instance, something that the victim had done, or was involved in, had elevated their risk of becoming a victim of that crime.

Victim risk is broken into three basic levels: low risk, medium risk, and high risk. They all refer to the degree of chance of someone coming to harm by virtue of their personal, professional and social life.


But the mistake is in not including in the evaluation an examination of the risk an offender is willing to take in procuring victims. This is known as offender risk assessment...

....an offender also perceives his exposure to 'incident risk' …. Which refers to the possibility of him suffering harm in a victim attack.

This is where the bad guy's perception that the sweet old lady he is about to pounce on, may have a gun in her purse, goes to great lengths in keeping the general population safe, as it has been pointed out to you over and over and you continue not to understand.

Thus you and I …who don't carry guns concealed…or may not even possess a gun at home…indirectly benefit from the bad guy's perception he may run into a loaded gun in the hands of a victim_ because most States now allow citizens to carry concealed.

The 'no gun' for many of us may well be a viable option, especially in cases of hoplophobia, yet it is the 'yes gun' of others ....that is what may well them keep safe if lucky.

The perception of the bad guys is what's important in crime deterrence. This is the message Panther and I, essentially have tried to get across.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Read this again

Post by Van Canna »

Fact: More Americans believe having a gun in the home makes them safer. This belief grows every year the survey is taken.124

Fact: Arthur Kellerman, a researcher whose work is often cited by gun control groups said “If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

Well, that is true…it is Bill's forum, and I was out of line with that comment which I deleted, which was more of an annoyance than an insult…..

And as you can see, you have not been banned from my forum. :wink:

Actually I prefer that you stick around so you can continue to see the errors of your thinking ways when it comes to firearms.

But maybe you can answer this: Were you not antigun in your discussions years back? This has always been my perception, thus the reason why I wrote that you were a hoplophobe.

If I was wrong in my perception, then I take it back and apologize for your perceived insults.

If your thinking has changed...what motivated the change?
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Once over

Post by Van Canna »

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself.

There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates.

For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.
Van
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Valkenar wrote:
Bill Glasheen wrote: This is the proper comparison, Mike. For the most part the concern is youth exposure and access to firearms, and not use per se.
Except that with pools and sports, you have people actively encouraging kids to pursue those activities. There may be way more hand guns, but there are way more kids playing baseball than kids with free access to guns. And those kids spend way more hours playing baseball than with guns. So of course more kids are injured more playing baseball than through gun accidents. It's not a reasonable comparison at all. Apples and Oranges, completely.

Phrased the way it was it makes it sounds like pools or baseball are more lethal than guns.
I stand by my post, Justin. My comparison is the valid one. It's the only one germaine to the discussion. Nobody is telling little Tommy to go play with guns except for you in your straw man world. * I'm not necessarily taking a side, guys. But I will call BS when I see it.

Carry on. :popcorn:

- Bill

* See Straw man
Last edited by Bill Glasheen on Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Lott

Post by Van Canna »

The effect of "shall-issue" laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent.

Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.

For other types of crimes, I find that both children as well as adults are protected when law-abiding adults are allowed to carry concealed handguns.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Lott

Post by Van Canna »

We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns.

The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under.

However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face.

Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires.

Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

Lott: Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

Lott: Some people do use guns in horrible ways, but other people use guns to prevent horrible things from happening to them. The ultimate question that concerns us all is: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? While there are many anecdotal stories illustrating both good and bad uses of guns, this question can only be answered by looking at data to find out what the net effect is.
Van
Valkenar
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Post by Valkenar »

Van Canna wrote:Were you not antigun in your discussions years back? This has always been my perception, thus the reason why I wrote that you were a hoplophobe.
I was never as anti-gun as you thought. I took a devil's advocate position in one discussion and ever-after people simply refused to believe that my beliefs were anything but the most extreme version possible of my argument (despite my pointing it out multiple times). Yes, I was more anti-gun than I am now, but never as ridiculous as you're painting me to be here.
If your thinking has changed...what motivated the change?
Why don't you go read my other post which you obviously skipped? Oh nevermind, I'll just repeat mself: I was convinced by talking to you guys and by reading More Guns Less Crime. I'm not the close-minded idealogue you seem to think I am.

Question: Why are reacting so strongly when you clearly aren't reading my posts?
Valkenar
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Post by Valkenar »

Bill Glasheen wrote: I stand by my post, Justin. My comparison is the valid one. It's the only one germaine to the discussion. Nobody is telling little Tommy to go play with guns except for you in your straw man world. * I'm not necessarily taking a side, guys. But I will call BS when I see it.
Okay, except that you've completely mischaracterized my point here. You're accusing me of making up a strawman... but it was exactly my point that nobody is telling little Tommy to play with guns. That these are apples and oranges comparisons because one (the gun) is a a tool that (almost) nobody lets their kids use without supervision and the other is an activity (baseball, or swimming) that people let kids do unsupervised all the time.

I never said that anybody was letting Tommy go play with guns.
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

ever as anti-gun as you thought. I took a devil's advocate position in one discussion and ever-after people simply refused to believe that my beliefs were anything but the most extreme version possible of my argument (despite my pointing it out multiple times). Yes, I was more anti-gun than I am now, but never as ridiculous as you're painting me to be here.
So you were antigun at the time of your 'devil's arguments' years back…right? And I remember you doing it with 'glee' while playing with fire. You knew or should have known that gun control is a very thorny subject in this country, and it is easy to paint…yourself with indelible paint once you start with your 'devil's advocate' …BS just to bust balls as you did, then crying uncle while running for cover.

The 'Gun control thing' is necessarily a highly emotionally charged matter, especially when you, with no specific life experiences are taking on people who have gone through some terrible life events. You have been pissing off Panther for as long as I can remember.

You could at least be man enough to take the heat when it comes...knowing well enough it is bound to come in gun discussions.

Well you reap what you sow my friend.

Lucky for you, on these forums, the reactions are not so bad.
Try this on gun forums and see how far you get with your 'devil advocate' …

You cry out about insults...you have no idea what real insults are/would be on this subject if you dared to step out this safe cyber haven and engage dedicated gun forums.


OK…so you are a little less antigun now…but still antigun to some extent, right?


Your posts??

I did read them, but you never convinced people much of your 'improved views' on the gun issue…which is the antigun perception you created and still do, by admission even now that you are still antigun a 'little' ….

And you continue to be mired in your obdurate refusal to acknowledge/accept …
studies by Lott re your belief on 'No guns…for 'no risk' that were posted.

This is precisely the position that my cousin's wife took in denying her husband's possession of a house gun for family protection stating that since they lived in a nice area there was no such need…[low risk]

I wonder what her thoughts were when scraping bits of her daughter's brains from the walls. And then why did she not object to a gun in the house after her daughter was killed…I just wonder.

Question: Why are you so obsessed by 'insults' and 'strong reactions' in these discussions?
Van
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”