Closed books, closed minds

[unixronin]

From rosencrantz23:

Unfortunately, to the kind of people who ban books, shutting out unapproved ideas sounds like a really good ... well, idea.

Comments

Re: INFERNAL 4300-CHAR LIMIT! (Part 2)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

More people kill or seriously injure themselves with their own guns than ever use firearms in self-defense -- and it's not just a simple majority, either.

Actually, yes, it is. There are about 20,000 firearm suicides in a typical recent year, out of 34,000 or so total firearms deaths. That's about 58.8%. That fails to meet the criterion for even a three-fifths supermajority (let alone two thirds or three quarters).

The first half of your statement is also false, but it's a falsehood widely promoted by the gun control lobby. Studies indicate that there are more than two million defensive uses of firearms every year in the US. (About one every thirteen seconds - and that is using very conservative methodology. Other studies have yielded numbers as high as 4.7 million.) In more than 90% of these, no shots are ever fired; the attacker turns tail as soon as the intended victims shows that he or she is armed, even though in 83.5% of defensive gun uses, the attacker is the first to use or threaten force. Less than 1% involve the intended victim shooting and killing the attacker. But gun control advocates count only that 1% when comparing to suicide rates. It's a classic example of lying by telling only part of the truth.

Find some actual stats here. (http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm) A telling quote:

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

And here's some more:

According to John Lott and David Mustard's landmark 1997 study Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, if all states had adopted right-to-carry laws in 1992 roughly 4,000 rapes a year could have been prevented.

Results from the Department of Justices National Crime Victimization Survey support Lott and Mustard's conclusion. They show that women who offer no resistance are 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than women who resist their attackers with a gun. (http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=287)

Another Department of Justice study found that that resisting assault using a firearm resulted in the lowest likelihood of injury or death, followed by resisting with a knife or blunt weapon, resisting with bare hands, and worst of all, by offering no resistance at all.

When you look at what happens to crime statistics and death rates in states that institute handgun waiting periods, you find that the crime rate is not affected one way or the other.

Untrue again, sorry.
California makes an excellent test case for this, because California initially introduced a three-day waiting period, then increased it in successive steps up to an eventual fifteen days. Each increase was followed by a sharp increase in violent crime, which then leveled off at the new higher level until the next increase in the waiting period, after which it rose sharply again.


In short, you have been badly misinformed.

Re: INFERNAL 4300-CHAR LIMIT! (Part 2)

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

The gunowners' fact sheet you linked to is interesting, and has some numbers on it that I certainly find surprising! But I am completely willing to be openminded. Do you have any other sources for the number of self-defense uses, though? Almost all the cites come from the work of just two researchers, Kleck and Gertz, based on their 1993 survey of gunowners. That same survey is heavily relied on by Lott and Mustard. It is a self-reported survey, and as such is interesting but not entirely reliable. I'd love to see a survey of police reports.

The fact sheet itself is internally inconsistent, first claiming 2.5 million self-defense uses every year in America, then claiming half a million self-defense uses. Even half a million would mean that of the approximately 52 million gun owners in the US (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America), close to one tenth of them uses their firearm in self-defense each year. That's a heck of a lot! (Of course, it could be that a much smaller percent use their firearms in self-defense much more frequently.)

I know that of people I personally know, I know of no times in which a firearm was used by a private citizen in self-defense. I do know of one time in which one was brandished effectively. My father's first job out of the service was to manage a warehouse in rural Kentucky. There was an unloaded shotgun on display hooks over the desk. (It had been there when he took the job, and he just left it there.)

Edited to add: Someone tried to break into the warehouse one weekend, when Dad happened to be alone in the office. The office overlooked the loading dock, where some guy was trying to force open a door.

My Dad grabbed the shotgun, opened the window, and hollered at the man that he had been a marksman in the Army (this was true) and that he would give him about five seconds to clear off.

The would-be burglar took less than five seconds to run away, and they weren't troubled again for the 18 months or so Dad worked there.

I have no problem with keeping shotguns in places of business or in homes, for self-defense of that sort. But that is the only time, to my knowledge, that any family member or friend that I've met in RL has ever used a firearm in any way in self-defense.

Re: INFERNAL 4300-CHAR LIMIT! (Part 2)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Do you have any other sources for the number of self-defense uses, though? Almost all the cites come from the work of just two researchers, Kleck and Gertz, based on their 1993 survey of gunowners. That same survey is heavily relied on by Lott and Mustard. It is a self-reported survey, and as such is interesting but not entirely reliable. I'd love to see a survey of police reports.

I don't know offhand whether a survey of police reports exists. That particular sheet relies largely on Kleck and Gertz, but Lott later did a much larger study of his own, and there are numerous other studies out there. I'm afraid I can't point to any primary sources off the top of my head right now, but I can look around for more if I get a chance. I pulled those references up in about five minutes. The one I was actually looking for is very much more complete, and includes a breakdown of projected preventions subdivided by murders, rapes, armed robberies, assaults, arson etc. I'll see if I can find you some more complete and up-to-date references.

The fact sheet itself is internally inconsistent, first claiming 2.5 million self-defense uses every year in America, then claiming half a million self-defense uses.

If you follow the footnotes, those two cites are referencing numbers from two different studies. The smaller figure is from 1993, the larger from 1995, presumably after a larger-scale and more rigorous study.

I know that of people I personally know, I know of no times in which a firearm was used by a private citizen in self-defense.

I know of several among my circle of personal acquaintances. For just one example, my first wife, jilara, once intervened with her pump shotgun to stop an assault in which a miscreant had thrown a toolbox through her downstairs neighbor's plate-glass sliders and was dragging said neighbor, screaming, off across the lawn by her hair. I don't think (offhand) I personally know anyone who's had to actually shoot someone, other than in the course of duty as a soldier or a police officer. I know several people who've had to show that they were armed in order to repel an individual approaching with fairly evident nefarious intent, and I'm pretty sure a couple of people I know have had to fire warning shots.

I do know of one time in which one was brandished effectively. My father's first job out of the service was to manage a warehouse in rural Kentucky. There was an unloaded shotgun on display hooks over the desk.
[...]
My Dad grabbed the shotgun, opened the window, and hollered at the man that he had been a marksman in the Army (this was true) and that he would give him about five seconds to clear off.

That's a perfectly legitimate defensive use. A defensive use doesn't necessarily require either killing an attacker, nor actually firing a shot at all. If merely brandishing the gun, or even just showing that you're armed, is enough to scare off the goblin, your weapon has done its job. Most of those of us why carry by habit sincerely hope we never have to shoot anyone; we're just prepared to do so if we should ever find ourselves with no acceptable alternative.

Re: INFERNAL 4300-CHAR LIMIT! (Part 2)

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I know of that one time when my Dad showed a weapon (albeit unloaded) to scare off a bad guy.

On the other hand, I know several people who have been hurt by firearms. My close friend Eden committed suicide with the handgun she'd legally acquired (but never used) for self-defense. My sister-in-law was shot and wounded by her ex-husband, with the handgun he'd legally acquired (but never used) for self-defense. bbwoof was shot and wounded by his first wife, using his own gun, legally acquired for his job as an armed security officer.

This is not counting my Uncle David, shot at and wounded several times while on duty as a police officer -- once by an angry man brandishing his legally-owned handgun during a domestic violence call, once in the foot by a drunk driver with a perfectly law-abiding record who didn't want to give up his concealed carry handgun when arrested for DUI, and once (not wounded but shot at) during a raid on a drug house.

I've been a crime victim -- my car's been stolen, my apartment burglared, my wallet lifted -- but never when I was there to prevent it even if I had been armed. There have been a couple of times when I've felt like someone was "approaching with fairly evident nefarious intent". I've managed to avoid trouble without showing a weapon, by retreating to a well-lit place with other people, or by quickly locking my car door and driving off, or by just looking fiercely self-confident. Maybe if I'd been carrying, I would have shown my gun -- and then I too might have said that by showing that I was armed, I'd discouraged the potential bad guy, even though, it turns out, being armed wasn't necessary after all.

If I saw a neighbor being dragged across the lawn by her hair, I'd call 911 and start screaming at the "miscreant". (Bet you dollars to doughnuts it was a domestic violence incident, wasn't it? A former partner, perhaps?)

dammit, I have to split this again ...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Apologies in advance, but I'm going to have to be a little harsh here in places.

My close friend Eden committed suicide with the handgun she'd legally acquired (but never used) for self-defense. My sister-in-law was shot and wounded by her ex-husband, with the handgun he'd legally acquired (but never used) for self-defense. bbwoof was shot and wounded by his first wife, using his own gun, legally acquired for his job as an armed security officer.

I'm sorry to hear about those. But (I hope this doesn't sound insensitive) my grandfather on my father's side cut his throat with a straight razor, and he's no less dead for not using a gun.

There's this about suicides: As a rule, most of the people who commit suicide with a gun are the really determined ones who, in the absence of a gun, are going to find some other highly lethal means. People who are desperate for help or attention, and don't really want to actually die, tend to do things like slit their wrists shallowly or the wrong way (or both), or take drug overdoses, or swallow rat poison or drink pesticide. Sometimes they get it wrong and die anyway. Out of those, the lucky ones are the overdoses, because they usually go peacefully with no pain. The ones who choose rat poison or pesticide frequently die in unspeakable agony.

Now, this is a philosophical position that you may not share: I personally feel that if someone is so deeply miserable and hates their life so much that they just want it to end quickly and cleanly, NOW, who are we to deny them? It's their life, and we should consider it theirs to end at a time and in a manner of their choosing if they so choose.


One thing the gun-control lobby likes to quote is what's become known as the Kellerman factoid, which states that "A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used against a family member than to prevent a crime." Dr. Arthur Kellerman based this on a study of a thousand homes in and around Atlanta, Georgia.

There's three major problems with it, though.

First, Kellerman got his math wrong. When confronted with the corrected math that showed only a 2.3:1 factor supported by his data, Kellerman conceded that the 2.3 factor was correct ... but both he and the gun control lobby continued to cite the known and admitted incorrect 43:1 number.

Second, even while touting the 43:1 number, Kellerman admitted in a radio interview that if his own wife were to be attacked, he'd want her to have a gun to protect herself.

And third, Kellerman got his data not from a thousand normal households, but from a thousand households specifically selected for having the highest levels of domestic violence in the area, because the study he drew his numbers from was about domestic violence. But the datum was so attractive, given his anti-guns-for-other-people viewpoint, that he took it and promoted it out of context anyway.


Nevertheless, the fact remains, sometimes guns — like any other implement — will be used to hurt or kill those close to us. On the average, the odds are agsinst it. I'm sorry your friends and family seem to have gotten the short end of the odds.



As for your Uncle David, I'm sorry to have to say this, but he knew — or should have known — up front what he was getting into when he chose to become a police officer. If he thinks it's too dangerous now, and thinks that means everyone's Constitutional rights should be restricted in order to make it safer, then just maybe he might be in the wrong line of work.

Re: dammit, I have to split this again ...

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Eden was not deeply miserable, and she didn't hate her life.

She had a sudden and severe psychotic break. She left a long, sad, rambling note explaining that she had suddenly realized that aliens were trying to take over her body in order to control the earth. She decided that the only way to save mankind, her family and everyone she loved, was to destroy herself so that the aliens could not enslave us all. She acted with great courage and sorrow, because she hated to die.

I feel so proud of her incredible self-sacrifice, and so intensely sad and angry that it was completely unnecessary. If she had used a less-lethal means of trying to commit suicide than shooting herself in the temple, she might have been hospitalized and treated and be alive today.

Many times depressed people have passing moments of intensely suicidal feelings. If they have access to a firearm, they are likely to "successfully" kill themselves. If they only have access to less-lethal means of suicide, they are more likely to survive the attempt and to get treatment for their depression.

I agree that if someone in basically sound mind should have the right to commit suicide, perhaps because they are terminally ill, or in the very early stages of irreversible dementia, or in severe and untreatable pain, or out of deep guilt for a crime committed, or for whatever "sane" reason they may have. But most psychiatric illnesses are treatable; most moments of suicidal ideation do pass; and most people who survive a suicide attempt are ultimately grateful that they did survive.

Re: dammit, I have to split this again ...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Ouch.

It's particularly rough when things go that way, and you KNOW the person wasn't thinking rationally at the time....

Re: dammit, I have to split this again ...

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I've never heard of the "Kellerman factoid". I've never seen it cited before.

I do know that most homicides by whatever means are committed by people the victim knows. Relatives and partners (including former partners) are much, much more dangerous than random criminal punks. Domestic violence calls are the most dangerous ones for police, as well. On the average, you are more likely to be assaulted, injured, even killed by a partner or former partner than to be a victim of a street crime.

Firearms are more lethal than knives, fists, baseball bats, hot irons, frozen chickens, or any of the other things family members may attack each other with. Not that these other things can't be lethal, just that firearms are more likely to be.

Firearms are not terribly useful for self-defense in a domestic violence situation. Either both partners are insanely angry and not likely to use the gun wisely or to back off when a gun is brandished... or one partner is sane and miserable, and not likely to want to shoot the insanely angry partner because, y'know, being sane and miserable, s/he doesn't really want to kill this person s/he once loved....

Yeah, David knew what he was getting into. He's retired now. Forty years of dealing with the worst of the public he has sworn to protect has made him cynical. He has a acquired a fairly low opinion of the intelligence, competence, and maturity of the general public, I'm afraid.

Re: dammit, I have to split this again ...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I do know that most homicides by whatever means are committed by people the victim knows. Relatives and partners (including former partners) are much, much more dangerous than random criminal punks. Domestic violence calls are the most dangerous ones for police, as well. On the average, you are more likely to be assaulted, injured, even killed by a partner or former partner than to be a victim of a street crime.

Yup, true. And it's a pretty sad commentary, in a lot of ways.

(Part 2 again)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I've been a crime victim -- my car's been stolen, my apartment burglared, my wallet lifted -- but never when I was there to prevent it even if I had been armed.

Good. That's the safe way for it to happen. Far better a simple property crime than an assault-and-robbery, a carjacking, a burglary that turns into a rape. If you're going to be a victim of a property crime, far better that it happen while you're not there to become a victim of assault — or worse — as well.

There have been a couple of times when I've felt like someone was "approaching with fairly evident nefarious intent". I've managed to avoid trouble without showing a weapon, by retreating to a well-lit place with other people, or by quickly locking my car door and driving off, or by just looking fiercely self-confident.

Absolutely nothing wrong with those (though the third is risky; glad it worked out for you). Avoiding trouble is better than repelling it. The absolute best way not to get hurt in a trouble situation is to never get into it in the first place.

Sometimes, though, trouble comes to you — or to a neighbor.

If I saw a neighbor being dragged across the lawn by her hair, I'd call 911 and start screaming at the "miscreant".

Sorry, but if what her attacker had done was drag her into the alley he was dragging her towards and stab her, slit her throat, or bash her head in with a hammer or a brick, it would probably have been little consolation to her next of kin that someone had dialed 911. The average time for police to respond to a 911 call is over twenty minutes. She could have been dead in two.

The police do not, and cannot, prevent crimes. They don't have the power, and it's not their job. The Supreme Court has ruled they cannot be held responsible for failing to do so. Trust me, you don't want there to be enough police with enough powers to prevent crimes. Their job is to investigate crimes, find and arrest the guilty, provide evidence for a court to convict the guilty, and see that the worst of the mess gets cleaned up when necessary.

They can't protect you. That's your responsibility. Even if you have a specific and tangible threat from someone, they really can't do much of anything until he actually commits a crime.

(Bet you dollars to doughnuts it was a domestic violence incident, wasn't it? A former partner, perhaps?)

Very former, with a restraining order that was the most the police could give her, and which didn't slow him down for a moment. jilara and her shotgun very likely saved her neighbor's life that night.

Re: (Part 2 again)

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I've called the police a few times. They've always responded promptly, much sooner than 20 minutes.

But, sure, the police can't prevent crimes. When my sister-in-law was shot, she was confronted in the parking lot of her apartment complex by her ex-husband. The guy was angry because he'd heard that she was remarrying, and he "just wanted to talk". He showed his gun to persuade her to come talk with him. Pegi screamed for help, neighbors called 911, and a police officer arrived very quickly. (The ex was still trying to drag her into his car at gunpoint to "talk".) The police officer, drawing his own weapon, commanded the ex to drop his. Seeing the police officer's weapon didn't prevent the ex from shooting Pegi. He shot Pegi in the side at close range, and the police officer then emptied his magazine into the ex. The ex was killed, but he had managed to seriously hurt her anyway. (Fortunately no major organs were damaged. The bullet passed through her arm and both breasts. She lost a lot of blood, and ended up not being able to nurse my nephew when he was born.)

jilara's neighbor was very fortunate that her ex was slightly more sane, or perhaps it was that he was not carrying a firearm of his own.

Re: (Part 2 again)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I've called the police a few times. They've always responded promptly, much sooner than 20 minutes.

You're fortunate, then. You're ahead of the odds on that score at least.

(Counter-example: The one time I ever had to call the police, in Spokane Washington, it took two calls and 45 minutes for an officer to arrive. Spokane PD, among others, will no longer even investigate property crimes. They say it's because they're too overloaded. Ask most people in Spokane and they'll tell you it's because too many of them are posted on traffic enforcement.)

Re: (Part 2 again)

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Spokane PD, among others, will no longer even investigate property crimes.

St Louis PD has been uneven on that score. When my car was stolen, they didn't bother to investigate at all. But when someone broke into our garage and stole $200 worth of power tools, two officers arrived about ten minutes after we called.

But when an inebriated neighbor punctuated a barbecue party this past summer by shooting into the air, three squad cars showed up literally moments later.

Re: (Part 2 again)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yup, "shots fired" is one of the things that usually brings an as-immediate-as-possible response. I was on ride-along once with SJPD when my ride partner got a call for backup ... we were about half way there when the unit already on scene called shots fired. She lit'em up and stepped on it.

Fortunately, that time it turned out to be a backfiring truck.