Changing attitudes about firearms

[gregorach]

I'm not arguing about that. I'm arguing about whether your argument based on the specific example of Orlando is valid. Allow me to state, once more, with feeling:

I'm not trying to make any positive claim about any correlation between gun ownership, "shall-issue" legislation, and crime stats, in either direction.

I'm not anti-gun. I'm not pro-gun. I think the entire argument is beside the point.

You want to argue the moral or philosophical points? You want to overturn centuries of British jurisprudence on the subject of self-defence? Fine, go ahead - I'm not particularly interested. This is a democracy, and you have every right to campaign for a change in the relevant laws. You do not, however, have the right to insist that your view is the only valid one, and that anyone who disagrees must necessarily be arguing in bad faith based on an irrational dislike of guns. As soon as you step into moral or philosophical arguments, it ceases to be an empirical matter.

I'm purely focussing on the misuse of statistics, because it's something you have repeatedly criticised others for whilst indulging in yourself, and it's something that winds me up.

 

[Armleywhite]

Although I'm no longer participating in the discussion it would be sad to see it degenerate into a slanging match! As the mods have said, keep it going nicely. Please!

 

[BigShot]

Then why don't you knock it on the head?
I think you're arguing just for the sake of it now. Just running round in circles, claiming you know all, refusing to listen, contradicting yourself.
You're clearly up for an argument for it's own value, not as a way of reaching a consensus.
You shout people down for not falling over and agreeing with you, as if you're some kind of all-knowing seer.
Give it a rest.

As much as this sounds like confirmation of it...
Rubbish!

I'm arguing because people continue to refuse to address important points and keep making the same dogmatic statements about what the proliferation of legally owned and carried firearms would cause when every vaguely relevant example we have, including the history of guns and crime in the UK, Australia, Canada, the USA, Switzerland, Israel and so on says that it doesn't happen.

Granted - I'm not opposed to a good row from time to time - but I'm not one to back down when the opposition refuses to give an inch either.

As for contradicting....
....right.

How do you figure I'm failing to listen - I've read every post I've repsonded to with care. I've taken arguments apart and presented counter arguments.
Am I not listening because I won't roll over and say "oh - you're right" and go cap in hand to the government to protect me from the assorted "threats" both real and percieved?

 

[BigShot]

You do not, however, have the right to insist that your view is the only valid one, and that anyone who disagrees must necessarily be arguing in bad faith based on an irrational dislike of guns.

I've done nothing of the sort.
I've acknowledge time and time again that other people have valid views, pointing out that those views don't stand up under scrutiny is perfectly valid, not because they disagree with me - but because they disagree with reality.
(eg. "If we legalise guns for self defence there will be more violent crime" or alternately "gun control means less violent crime" [whether stated or implied, and it's been both])

I have concluded that since some arguments opposite to mine have no empirocal basis (and I am prepared to accept, if it is demonstrated, that mine have none either) they must be based on someting emotional or philosophical, be that to guns, self defence or both.
Maybe my specific conclusion was wrong in some cases, though I don't believe it was for those I've levelled it at.

 

[xylaria]

I'm arguing because people continue to refuse to address important points and keep making the same dogmatic statements about what the proli............. ?

OK important point: I have been trained to defend my self against rape. I have used physical force to defend myself against sexual assault.

I feel no need to carry gun on british street.

I said before the increase in gun violence has nothing at all the ban on hand guns.

I find it pretty patronising that you think a nine stone woman can't defend herself form rape without a firearm.

 

[Armleywhite]

You'd fight physically?
So what about those of us who aren't built, trained or able to fight physically?

Are we now down to the strong and agressive dominating the weak? Is that ok?
It must be nice to think you'd have a chance in a physical fight, but what chance does a 9 stone woman have against a 14 stone rapist who's been in fights his whole life?
Unarmed she has no chance other than to either scream or "go limp" and hope he doesn't kill her when he's finished.
Armed she has the loudest "Leave me alone!" in the world - and one that has been proven to be remarkable effective.

I'm responding to this as a matter of respect, in that I never answered it. Yes I would try to fight physically, as I am well able to look after myself. Due to my military training and subsequant Martial arts training I am more than able to look after myself. Martial arts, taught in a respectful and correct manner has the ability to help anyone defend themselves against any attacker. Even if a person is massively superior in size to a person there are ways and means in which to escape any given situation with the minimal of damage to one's self!! MA is more than capable of helping anyone defend themselves from unarmed and even knife attack. Obviously a gun is a whole different kettle of fish and one I would never advocate taking on.

 

[BigShot]

OK important point: I have been trained to defend my self against rape. I have used physical force to defend myself against sexual assault.

I feel no need to carry gun on british street.

I said before the increase in gun violence has nothing at all the ban on hand guns.

I find it pretty patronising that you think a nine stone woman can't defend herself form rape without a firearm.

I don't think that.
I think SOME can, you included it would seem.

On a personal note - fair play to you for getting the training and using it successfully. I'm glad it turned out for the best.

What about the women who can't do that for any number of reasons?

This comes down to the same point again. YOU don't feel the need - that's perfectly ok - don't.
What right is it of yours, or anyone else's, to deny that right and that choice to somebody else when you can do absolutely nothing to demonstrate that disarming them makes society a single jot safer?
More importantly, you can't demonstrate that denying them that right makes THEM any safer.

 

[Tadpole]

All of this stats discussion does miss an important point though...
What right is it of yours (or anyone else's) to deny a woman the means to protect herself from rape?
What right is it of yours (or anyone else's) to deny anyone the means to protect themselves from violent crime and home invasion?

Considering at the very least gun control can not be demonstrated to have a positive impact on crime, and at worst a negative one, on what basis - other than your own personal dislike of guns and of people who are prepared to stand up for themselves instead of being an unarmed victim - do you deny their right?

That the right is denied - is sickening.

If a person doesn't want to go armed, they shouldn't - but for them to deny another person that right when doing so can not be shown to have any positive effect on society is just plain wrong.

Taking from the number of rapes 82,000 in 2000 (of which 72% are either domestic abuse or the person is know (friend, lover, boyfriend, sibling, workmate, date) and the cases of legal rape or statutory rape)
You are left with 5% of rape happening where the victim did not know the attacker, and of which (depending on state) between 35% and 64% of the victims were under 17 years old. I think you can safely say that a gun would not help prevent many of the above victims from becoming victims.
Therefore, your repeated assertion that a gun is the best way to stop a vulnerable woman becoming a victim of rape does not hold up as a valid reason to allow all Americans to carry guns.

Now taking 5% of the 82,000 rape victims ie only those who did not suffer from domestic violence or friend, lover, boyfriend, sibling, workmate, date) and the cases of legal rape or statutory rape). You are left with 4,100 women who may have benefited from having a gun which if my maths is any good is 0.002733333% of 152,000,000 women in the USA 1 on 2 million chance of being raped, taking out domestic violence and the like it’s 1 in 37 million of being raped. You are 10 times a likely to be assullted with a firearm.

 

[BigShot]

I'm responding to this as a matter of respect, in that I never answered it. Yes I would try to fight physically, as I am well able to look after myself. Due to my military training and subsequant Martial arts training I am more than able to look after myself. Martial arts, taught in a respectful and correct manner has the ability to help anyone defend themselves against any attacker. Even if a person is massively superior in size to a person there are ways and means in which to escape any given situation with the minimal of damage to one's self!! MA is more than capable of helping anyone defend themselves from unarmed and even knife attack. Obviously a gun is a whole different kettle of fish and one I would never advocate taking on.

I agree - when someone can dedicate the time to the training, practice and so on MA can be effective - to a point.

I trained in Tae Kwon Do for a while and in Chinese Kickboxing (Lau Gar Kung Fu mixed with Kickboxing) for considerably longer. I came off worse when I was attacked by 2 guys near my home and didn't stand a prayer against the 8 who attacked, robbed and beat me in the centre of Manchester.

For some people MA simply isn't an option due to strength, physical ability (or disability) and so on.
Even for those of us who could dedicate the time - it still requires close contact with your attacker and that is something to be avoided.

I've avoided much trouble by my practice of the world's most effctive martial art - run away. However I'm not always the fastest (I was caught when I was beaten by the 8) and not always able (injuries from sports) - so why should I have to rely on that when there's a much more effective means of defence available. One which I can master with far less physical demand and leaving me free to enjoy my other hobbies that don't involve learning to fight (climbing, snowboarding, reading and much more besides).

 

[BigShot]

Taking from the number of rapes 82,000 in 2000 (of which 72% are either domestic abuse or the person is know (friend, lover, boyfriend, sibling, workmate, date) and the cases of legal rape or statutory rape)
You are left with 5% of rape happening where the victim did not know the attacker, and of which (depending on state) between 35% and 64% of the victims were under 17 years old. I think you can safely say that a gun would not help prevent many of the above victims from becoming victims.
Therefore, your repeated assertion that a gun is the best way to stop a vulnerable woman becoming a victim of rape does not hold up as a valid reason to allow all Americans to carry guns.

Now taking 5% of the 82,000 rape victims ie only those who did not suffer from domestic violence or friend, lover, boyfriend, sibling, workmate, date) and the cases of legal rape or statutory rape). You are left with 4,100 women who may have benefited from having a gun which if my maths is any good is 0.002733333% of 152,000,000 women in the USA 1 on 2 million chance of being raped, taking out domestic violence and the like it’s 1 in 37 million of being raped. You are 10 times a likely to be assullted with a firearm.

On what basis do you deny those 4100 women (read that number again - four thousand, one hundred women) who could have benefitted from having a firearm the right to carry it when you can not deonstrate any positive evvect on violent crime through the banning of legally owned and carried firearms?

It's also incorrect to argue that a firearm would be unlikely to help in rapes where the victim knew the attacker... especially the ones for "date" rape. What prevents the armed would-be victim, when she realises what is happening, from acting exactly the same way as she would with an attacker she didn't know?
Ditto with all others in fact.

Prohibition still has no positive effect on violent crime.
You are still arguing to deny someone's right to choose the means by which they prepare to defend themselves.

You think the odds are too long to need to take precautions as far as arming yourself - fine - don't take them that far. But you still can not justify denying others that choice.



Trends in assaults with firearms increase after prohibitions - you won't accept that point, but others reading might so I'm repeating it.
You still have a chance of being assaulted with a firearm in a prohibition area so that's not an argument for prohibiton.


"You are 10 times a likely to be assullted with a firearm."
Where - compared to where? (or when)

 

[Armleywhite]

Big Shot. I disagree that you have to be a certain size build to be able to defend yourself adequately. I think it's all down to skill level and confidence. I know several people, both male and femal who are much smaller than I having to defend themselves and have done so with the minimal of harm to themselves. However, their attackers did suffer far worse than them. I have had occasion to use my skills and have always been successful, one time defending myself agains 6.

Pulling a gun to defend oneself and having the courage to stand your ground and, maybe, take that chance your going to have to use it is just as paramount.

Bugger, I'm back in....

Cheers

 

[gregorach]

Here's a question: do you think all those potential victims out there would feel safer if they knew or suspected that you were carrying a concealed firearm? Why should they trust you? You're a potential rapist, like all men.

You want to do something serous to prevent rape? There's plenty of options. However, they don't involve giving you the right to carry a gun. So, which is your real concern?

 

[BigShot]

Big Shot. I disagree that you have to be a certain size build to be able to defend yourself adequately. I think it's all down to skill level and confidence. I know several people, both male and femal who are much smaller than I having to defend themselves and have done so with the minimal of harm to themselves. However, their attackers did suffer far worse than them. I have had occasion to use my skills and have always been successful, one time defending myself agains 6.

Pulling a gun to defend oneself and having the courage to stand your ground and, maybe, take that chance your going to have to use it is just as paramount.

Bugger, I'm back in....

Cheers

I'm not arguing that one has to be a certain size. I used to train with people much smaller than me (with the shorter reach that comes with it) and they'd run rings around me - and I wasn't hopeless either.

The problem with the MA approach, is that it requires a LOT of training to reach the level of proficiency where one can reasonably expect to defend themselves against most attacks they might face.

I tried against the 2 I was jumped by and despite jamming my elbow into on of their throats (and a shot I'm still proud of making to this day) giving myself a chance to escape - I was still fighting and effectively running blind as my eyes were swollen shut.

Had I not been able to land that shot with the slit of vision I had - I dread to think what could have happened.


The fact still remains that in a few weeks or months of training and the occasional trip to a rance to stay fresh - someone can achieve a level of proficiency with a handgun high enough to use it confidently, accurately and safely in pretty much any situation they are likely to face.
In MA it takes years and years (and a fighting instinct many simply don't posess) to get to a level where you can confidently take on "most" attacks you might face.

 

[Tadpole]

It's also incorrect to argue that a firearm would be unlikely to help in rapes where the victim knew the attacker... especially the ones for "date" rape. What prevents the armed would-be victim, when she realises what is happening, from acting exactly the same way as she would with an attacker she didn't know?
Ditto with all others in fact.
)

You said

“Domestic violence parate issue and attempting to use it to address the issue of violent crime outside the home, regardless of how many times you say stranger danger is not the problem, is a classic bait-and-switch”
So I excluded it, yet now you are saying that it is a invalid argument to exclude it

Trends in assaults with firearms increase after prohibitions - you won't accept that point, but others reading might so I'm repeating it.

Only you are not right, trends are falling
As already posted by me

According to the Bureau of Justice Website
Violent crime trends
Violent crime is down from 43 people per 100,000 population in 1973 to 21 people per 100,000 population in 2005
Rape is down from 2.5 people per 100,000 population in 1973 to 0.5 people per 100,000 population in 2005
Robbery is down from 6.7 people per 100,000 population in 1973 to 2.5 people per 100,000 population in 2005
Aggravated assault is down from 12.5 people per 100,000 population in 1973 to 4.3 people per 100,000 population in 2005

"You are 10 times a likely to be assaulted with a firearm."
Where - compared to where? (or when)

Compared to being raped

 

[Armleywhite]

I'm not arguing that one has to be a certain size. I used to train with people much smaller than me (with the shorter reach that comes with it) and they'd run rings around me - and I wasn't hopeless either.

The problem with the MA approach, is that it requires a LOT of training to reach the level of proficiency where one can reasonably expect to defend themselves against most attacks they might face.

I tried against the 2 I was jumped by and despite jamming my elbow into on of their throats (and a shot I'm still proud of making to this day) giving myself a chance to escape - I was still fighting and effectively running blind as my eyes were swollen shut.

Had I not been able to land that shot with the slit of vision I had - I dread to think what could have happened.


The fact still remains that in a few weeks or months of training and the occasional trip to a rance to stay fresh - someone can achieve a level of proficiency with a handgun high enough to use it confidently, accurately and safely in pretty much any situation they are likely to face.
In MA it takes years and years (and a fighting instinct many simply don't posess) to get to a level where you can confidently take on "most" attacks you might face.

I see your point in the training times. I have been practicing MA for over 30 Years. My 12 year old son isn't very keen on going, but I force him and he does enjoy it when he gets there. By the time he's 20 he will be very proficient and able t olook after most situations. I still feel that your overlooking the psychological aspect of "pulling a gun"!

Thats me out again..

This is a cracking thread though!!!

 

[BigShot]

Here's a question: do you think all those potential victims out there would feel safer if they knew or suspected that you were carrying a concealed firearm? Why should they trust you? You're a potential rapist, like all men.

You want to do something serous to prevent rape? There's plenty of options. However, they don't involve giving you the right to carry a gun. So, which is your real concern?

I can't speak for the ones in the UK...
...but all the female friends I have in the USA (of various ages) feel far safer knowing the people around them are armed.
Again we come down to the argument that legally owned and carried firearms are a contributing factor in making societies safer.

We also come down to the argument Pict has made several times now.

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit."

I'd suggest, considering that point, that women would feel safer knowing I, and people like me, carry legal firearms.
I'd be one of those people named above. I have no criminal or violent intent to anyone except those who have that intent to me or those around me.

If those women feel safe when the police are around - they should feel safer when the CCW permit holders are around. "Cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens".


Those "other options" you suggest seem great. More of it please.
However - from what I gather that involves aiming for a cultural shift to change men. Great - the fewer rapists the better - but there will always be predators who act in ways the majority do not.
While I agree that to a woman who doesn't know what I'm like I may be a potential rapist - I, like the majority of men, am nothing of the sort.

Disarming me, and the women, and the rest of society - because of the actions of a minority who will carry on regardless is - and always has been - a really stupid idea.

 

[gregorach]

I still feel that your overlooking the psychological aspect of "pulling a gun"!

Especially pulling a gun on your father, brother, or husband...

 

[durulz]

You are still arguing to deny someone's right to choose the means by which they prepare to defend themselves.

Yes, because those means of defence could also be turned to attack by someone.
Attack by someone who has taken the weapon off someone. Attack by someone legitimately possessing a firearm and in a fit of pique drawing it as a weapon.

You have a very dewy-eyed sentimentality about the benefits of legalising firearms. You're right, of course, if someone REALLY wants a handgun, legal or not, then they will get one.
However.
By making firearms legal then they become EASIER to get. Yes yes yes - criminals can get guns already. But they're not that prolific (in the UK) yet (anyone reading this who has experience of gun crime - real or imitation - please speak up. Unlike our American friends - who have already illustrated how they have experienced gun crime in their gun-rich country). Gun crimes DO happen. Some of the crimes are by people wielding imitation firearms. Which carries as stiff a sentence as a real firearm offence. So presumably they could not get their hands on real firearms. If made legal that would by necessity change - after all, they are easier to obtain. That is a self-evident truth: guns are legal, therefore easier to obtain.
By controlling gun availability it clearly becomes more difficult for a criminal to possess a gun (remember, I am talking about the UK).
The US has looser gun ownership laws. And yet they still have a higer, per capita, incident of firearm offences than the UK (I can't be bothered quoting a source. You will inevitably refute it, believing your source to be more reliable. Odd that). So much so, that US residents feel the need to carry firearms on a regular basis (if there was no threat, after all, there would be no need to defend against it). Equally so, the US has capital punishment - supposedly a deterent against serious crime. And yet those same serious crimes continue. Not much of a deterent. And neither, therefore, are armed civilians.
If your cause is to stop crime, then you seem to be coming at it from the wrong direction. Rather than put a plaster on the wound, why not try to heal the infection?
If your cause is to exact retribution on criminals...well, that doesn't sound like morality to me - that's just looking for public permission to kill. Not many morals to that.

 

[gregorach]

I can't speak for the ones in the UK...

Finally! Something we can completely agree on. So perhaps you should stop trying to, and start actually listening to the ones we've got right here.

There are, so far as I know, no calls from women's groups in the UK for the right to arm themselves with concealed firearms in self-defence. As far as I am aware, they universally support the status quo as regards self-defence, and several are currently pressing for tighter restrictions on air guns.

 

[BigShot]

So I excluded it, yet now you are saying that it is a invalid argument to exclude it

I did say you were bait-and-switching. You've now presented a much better argument and I'm addressing it on its merits.

It is incorrect to say a firearm would not help in non-stranger rapes.

It may be that most women in that situation would, faced with the choice between rape and pointing a gun at someone they knew, would choose rape (and what a horrible situation to be in) - but that doesn't mean you or anyone else is right to deny them that choice.


It is also the case that for those 4100 women who are raped by strangers a firarm may have helped - and it still isn't right to deny them that option.

Only you are not right, trends are falling

Are those American stats?
If so - in 40 states (out of 50 - that's 80% of states for those hard of maths) the law states "shall issue" CCW permits for firearms.
Are you now presenting stats that show that despite high crime rates in cities with no legal CCW - the national average (thanks, I would argue - to the prevalance of CCW permits and increased public ownership and carry of firearms) is coming down.

At best that doesn't help your argument - at worst, it weakens it.

That is, of course, assuming you're presenting American stats.

Compared to being raped

How does that make it ok to deny either group (would-be firearm assault or rape victims) the option to defend themselves with a firearm?
You can not demonstrate that gun control has any positive effect on these crimes, and in fact the opposite argument carries more weight, and yet you still prefer to deny them their right to an effective deffence against such assaults.