Are you afraid of guns?

[Sam.I.Am]

I don't own a gun (other than a pellet\BB gun used to kill mice caught in glue traps because I think that it's more humane and apparently I have mice with enlarged brains who stay away from snap traps but glue traps seem to work) and never have. However I'm well trained in their use because the navy made me a small arms petty officer and sent me to Range Safety Officer school in order to train others. This wasn't my choice BTW but they had to fill the billet and I was already fairly close to where the school was (Dam Neck in VA) so it cost them a lot less to send me there than someone else.

I'm not afraid of them and in my experience most, not all, people who own them have a very healthy respect for them so if I see someone with an open carry, or even if they have a concealed carry permit, they overwhelmingly tend to be responsible about it. Sure one could pick out the dummies because no matter what you can't fix stupid but they are few and far between. I don't think I've ever seen anyone brandish an arm in real life, it's just not as common as some people seem to think it is.

 

[Roboramma]

The source for the killings by corrupt police are here.

I'm not sure I'm following your objection completely, but in case it wasn't clear: the part you're quoting is murders per officer (the officer is the population, not the US population) versus murders per CCW. The comparison was which is more dangerous: a police officer or a CCW, not the total number of deaths per US capita of each group- because that number wouldn't tell us anything in this context and would be subject to that same confusion of the inverse fallacy I pointed out above it.

I think your comparison is missing a piece of information, though: how much time to CCW permit holders actually spend carrying their firearms, vs. how much time to do police officers spend carrying their firearms?

If the average CCW permit holder carries his/her firearm for 100 hours/year, then seeing one carrying his firearm tells me something different from if the average is 1 hour/year or 1000 hours/year. Because, obviously, they can only shoot people when they actually have their firearm. Only if those numbers are the same between CCW permit holders and police officers is your comparison valid.

Similarly, five year old drivers don't cause many car accidents, but if I see a five year old behind the wheel of a car on the freeway, I'm going to consider it to be a bigger risk than a 30 year old.

ETA: Note that I don't actually know the numbers for average time spent carrying a firearm, and thus can't say that your conclusion is right or wrong, only that there is an important factor missing in your analysis.

 

[Totovader]

I think your comparison is missing a piece of information, though: how much time to CCW permit holders actually spend carrying their firearms, vs. how much time to do police officers spend carrying their firearms?

If the average CCW permit holder carries his/her firearm for 100 hours/year, then seeing one carrying his firearm tells me something different from if the average is 1 hour/year or 1000 hours/year. Because, obviously, they can only shoot people when they actually have their firearm. Only if those numbers are the same between CCW permit holders and police officers is your comparison valid.

Similarly, five year old drivers don't cause many car accidents, but if I see a five year old behind the wheel of a car on the freeway, I'm going to consider it to be a bigger risk than a 30 year old.

ETA: Note that I don't actually know the numbers for average time spent carrying a firearm, and thus can't say that your conclusion is right or wrong, only that there is an important factor missing in your analysis.

I don't know that I would agree with that- we might be able to estimate "time carrying" but I don't see how it would be a confounding factor, and I would expect it to be relatively equal. In order for it to be a factor we would have to assume that these crimes are random events, and I don't think they are.

I will say, though, that the fallacy I am referencing does come up a lot in car insurance: you are "more likely" to get into an accident near your home... because that's where most of the driving is done! So maybe it's a factor, I'm just not seeing how it would make a difference between the two groups.

 

[tyr_13]

Except the "arguments" he is debunking are strawmen. I'm sure there are people out there who fudge up statistics in such a simplistic manner, but that isn't really a revelation.

Unfortunately they are not. But let's say that they are. It appears the numbers he's using are sourced and his general reasoning solid, even if I disagree with tone and some of the conclusions he reaches from other threads. If there's a counter argument for any of his points, then the presence of the straw men (especially ones not attributed to anyone specifically) don't actually get in the way of that. Straw manning someone else's stated argument would of course not be helpful.

I think your comparison is missing a piece of information, though: how much time to CCW permit holders actually spend carrying their firearms, vs. how much time to do police officers spend carrying their firearms?

If the average CCW permit holder carries his/her firearm for 100 hours/year, then seeing one carrying his firearm tells me something different from if the average is 1 hour/year or 1000 hours/year. Because, obviously, they can only shoot people when they actually have their firearm. Only if those numbers are the same between CCW permit holders and police officers is your comparison valid.

Similarly, five year old drivers don't cause many car accidents, but if I see a five year old behind the wheel of a car on the freeway, I'm going to consider it to be a bigger risk than a 30 year old.

ETA: Note that I don't actually know the numbers for average time spent carrying a firearm, and thus can't say that your conclusion is right or wrong, only that there is an important factor missing in your analysis.

Yeah, time at risk is an important factor. It's like the 'you're more likely to be injured at home' stat, or the 'shark attacks happen in shallow water'. That's because that's were people spend more time at risk.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Are you afraid of guns?

Yes. Guns are dangerous, and so you should be afraid of them.

A gun that is properly holstered with the safety on, or stored in a cabinet with the bolt out, is nothing to be scared of. At any other time it is potentially lethal. It might just be lying there on the table looking innocuous, but do you know that it isn't loaded and on a hair trigger? No. If you see a gun, assume that it's loaded. If one is pointing at you, assume it will go off. If you get shot, assume you are going to die.

And it's not just guns you should be afraid of. Motor vehicles, knives, swimming pools, pencils, even cute furry animals can be deadly if not treated with appropriate respect.

Being afraid of things that have a high probability of killing you is healthy.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No. I know how to handle and use them.

I might get a bit worked up over someone pointing a gun at me, though. That's not a good thing to have happen. Would definitely get a rush of fear/adrenaline if someone were shooting at me, as well.

I killed everybody that pointed a gun at me.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Afraid isn't how I would put it. Cautious, yes. Fear is a reactive, sub-cognitive emotion that does not usually generate logical responses.

 

[newyorkguy]

I think your comparison is missing a piece of information, though: how much time to CCW permit holders actually spend carrying their firearms, vs. how much time to do police officers spend carrying their firearms?...

I think there is also another important piece missing as well. The nature of police work -- the stress, the danger, the fact that cops are out there 24/7 getting into all kinds of dicey situations -- versus what I imagine is a comparatively much more sedate existence of the average CCW holder.

One thing I have noticed is, the real rabid gun rights advocates routinely attack law enforcement. One of the reasons they recommend arming yourself is so that you don't have to rely on police. That you're in less danger of being shot by a CCW holder than a cop. So who do you want to arm? If the average guy has to give up his guns make the cops give up their guns.

It makes me wonder about the politics that lay behind this.

 

[BenBurch]

I don't fear guns. I fear the people for whom guns are not a deadly object to be treated with respect and kept locked away except in great need. And because so few gun owners are like that, I would rather nobody was allowed to have them.

 

[bruto]

Shouldn't one be at least a little afraid of guns? After all, that's kind of the point of it isn't it? If people weren't afraid of guns, the gun rights advocates would lose an argument.

 

[Totovader]

I think there is also another important piece missing as well. The nature of police work -- the stress, the danger, the fact that cops are out there 24/7 getting into all kinds of dicey situations -- versus what I imagine is a comparatively much more sedate existence of the average CCW holder.

One thing I have noticed is, the real rabid gun rights advocates routinely attack law enforcement. One of the reasons they recommend arming yourself is so that you don't have to rely on police. That you're in less danger of being shot by a CCW holder than a cop. So who do you want to arm? If the average guy has to give up his guns make the cops give up their guns.

It makes me wonder about the politics that lay behind this.

Nobody has attacked law enforcement, settle down. The politics are quite simple: police officers do a great job... at responding to crime. They are just as likely and just as prone to committing most crimes as the general public. It's not a slam on police, it's just the facts of human nature. Not saying we need to get rid of police, just pointing out the uncomfortable truth.

Plus, gun control advocates are never really quite honest in their objective. It's not about gun control, it's about taking the guns out of the citizens and making sure that the police and military have them. And that goes back to the central planner fallacy: if people are too stupid to be trusted with their own rights, why is it suddenly different because we elect them or because they put a badge on? (Hint: it's not) That's why checks and balances exist and it's ultimately why an armed society is presented in the US Constitution.

 

[newyorkguy]

...Plus, gun control advocates are never really quite honest in their objective. It's not about gun control, it's about taking the guns out of the citizens and making sure that the police and military have them...

Gun control advocates want to ban guns? Can you back up that assertion with anything besides anecdotes?

And that goes back to the central planner fallacy: if people are too stupid to be trusted with their own rights...

What central planning? Do you believe gun control advocates are secret agents of the new world order?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I killed everybody that pointed a gun at me.

I had to do a sidewalk taste-test for an armed Air Force cop once. (Total misunderstanding on his part) I was afraid, not of his M16 but of his youth and confusion.

 

[Totovader]

Gun control advocates want to ban guns? Can you back up that assertion with anything besides anecdotes?

Of course! See: jref forums.

What central planning? Do you believe gun control advocates are secret agents of the new world order?

Central planner fallacy. You love to snip out the most important parts of the quote...



ETA / OT: Incidentally, I don't know who this new guy is but I much preferred Broderick Crawford. Born Yesterday is one of my favorites.

 

[newyorkguy]

Gun control advocates want to ban guns? Can you back up that assertion with anything besides anecdotes?...

Of course! See: jref forums.

Okay. Okay sure. The scary thing is, you probably think that's a very solid answer.

...Central planner fallacy. You love to snip out the most important parts of the quote...

What I'm asking you is, what is the relevance to gun control, police misconduct or...whatever it is you're talking about?

 

[Totovader]

Okay. Okay sure. The scary thing is, you probably think that's a very solid answer.

I was quite proud of it. Printed it out and put it up on my wall.

What I'm asking you is, what is the relevance to gun control, police misconduct or...whatever it is you're talking about?

As I said in the part you snipped out: if gun control advocates think the general population is too stupid to have their own individual rights, putting those same people in a suit or in a badge is absurd. It comes from a certain type of elitism that seems to be quite popular particularly among some of the more vocal advocates here: "everyone but me is dumb, so only I know what works best for everyone else." The central planner fallacy points out that putting people in a position of planning for all the possible outcomes and all the possible variables is logically inconsistent. As others have pointed out, the solution that is supposed to work for everyone tends to work for no one.

 

[Polaris]

Gun control advocates want to ban guns? Can you back up that assertion with anything besides anecdotes?

Sen. Diane Feinstein isn't a lightweight when it comes to gun control and her solution is bans every time a Cubs fan farts. That's no secret.

 

[jasonpatterson]

The source for the killings by corrupt police are here.

I'm not sure I'm following your objection completely, but in case it wasn't clear: the part you're quoting is murders per officer (the officer is the population, not the US population) versus murders per CCW. The comparison was which is more dangerous: a police officer or a CCW, not the total number of deaths per US capita of each group- because that number wouldn't tell us anything in this context and would be subject to that same confusion of the inverse fallacy I pointed out above it.

OK, I misunderstood the statistic. When I do the math for both groups I get much closer numbers, but the cops are still in the lead. Note that your value for "corrupt cops" is at least 2x too high. The site that you linked reports 127 fatalities associated with credible excessive force complaints in 2010. There are about 900,000 officers in the US with the authority to arrest people at any level of the government. That comes out to 14.1 per 100k.

The number for CCW carriers is low as well. Again, nobody officially tracks these statistics that I can find, but the most solid source for a number of CCW homicides was 644 since 2007 from here. While they're an advocacy group, they do have news reports to tie to every case they include in the total. This is almost certainly an underestimate as well, since there are going to be cases where the CCW status of a murderer is never mentioned. With about 9M CCW holders in the US (again, no good number for the present, rounded up significantly), we're looking at more like 1 per 100k.

Again, the cops are still winning, but it's 14:1 instead of 30-something:1.

Honestly, my solution is that neither group needs guns. I realize that in your mind this would lead to total anarchy as we are all brutalized by the villains, but it seems to work surprisingly well in most of the developed world.

 

[geni]

The source for the killings by corrupt police are here.

And nowhere does the number 32 per 100K appear in there. The actual number given is 5.5 per 100K. If we add Fatal excessive force (we can't because we don't have that figure for CCWs) we see a rise to 23.47 not 32.

As the same time I can't find where the 0.7 per 100K is meant to come from.

 

[NoahFence]

Sen. Diane Feinstein isn't a lightweight when it comes to gun control and her solution is bans every time a Cubs fan farts. That's no secret.

How's that working out for her?