I'm all for gun control

[Drewbot]

How valid is the argument of "I need a gun for protection" ?

.

If the criminals are breaking in my house, and coming at me with a gun or a knife, then the argument becomes EXTREMELY valid.

Only in the case that the gun owner is well trained in the use of his weapon (member of shooting club or hunter) can he/she be a true match against a hardened criminal who is more likely to use a gun regularly.
Armed citizens trying to defend their homes often get wounded doing so.

Can you please show any information sources on the above two statistics?
I would maintain that most legal gun owners have better training and background with guns than most criminals.

Secondly, I would add that because they are better trained/experienced, the legal gun owner is less prone to accidental discharges than a criminal. A criminal would be unable to obtain a legal gun, so he would have to steal it or buy it on the black market, and would be less familiar with the gun than a gun owner who has hunted/trained/target practiced etc...

Furthermore, research seems to indicate that having a gun in the house is more dangerous than protective :

You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. "Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

It is my personal opinion that a society should try to resolve conflict, not escalate it. Weapons only lead to escalation of conflict.
As a population arms itself, criminals will counterreact with more and heavier guns.

As a population arms itself, criminals will look for easier targets, however, this becomes difficult, if they don't know which potential victim has chosen to arm themselves.

There are alternatives for protecting your home and family against crime, like electronic alarms, video surveillance, smart locks, etc...

"Hello police, I just saw on my video surveilence system, someone kicking in my window, please hurry" 'See you in 5 or 10 minutes'

 

[Lothian]

As a population arms itself, criminals will look for easier targets, however, this becomes difficult, if they don't know which potential victim has chosen to arm themselves.

Excellent point. So not knowing if their victim is armed what is the criminal going to do?

Bearing in mind that conceal and carry is legal in 48 states (from recollection) we know that they are not going to stop committing the crime.

 

[GStan]

Excellent point. So not knowing if their victim is armed what is the criminal going to do?
Bearing in mind that conceal and carry is legal in 48 states (from recollection) we know that they are not going to stop committing the crime.

I assume "realize the error of their ways, get a college degree and climb the corporate ladder" is probably not the answer you're looking for.

 

[Drewbot]

I assume "realize the error of their ways, get a college degree and climb the corporate ladder" is probably not the answer you're looking for.

Ideally.

But the point is, that you hope there is some form cost/benefit analysis being performed by the criminal, and that the risk, or cost of attempting to hurt someone, becomes high enough that they look for other avenues. i.e. switching to non-violent crimes such as shoplifting, stealing cars etc, instead of Holding up a liquor store.

Bearing in mind that conceal and carry is legal in 48 states (from recollection) we know that they are not going to stop committing the crime.

But it does reduce the amount of violent crimes.

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.

 

[SisterSmile]

.
Can you please show any information sources on the above two statistics?
I would maintain that most legal gun owners have better training and background with guns than most criminals.

Secondly, I would add that because they are better trained/experienced, the legal gun owner is less prone to accidental discharges than a criminal. A criminal would be unable to obtain a legal gun, so he would have to steal it or buy it on the black market, and would be less familiar with the gun than a gun owner who has hunted/trained/target practiced etc...

How can there be statistics if some states do not even require licensing and registration ? Only a limited number of states have licensing and registration systems in place. Licensing, establishing safety standards for ownership and use and enforcing those standards through mandatory instruction and periodic testing - only when those are in place you could make an assertion of the training and background of the legal gun owner in general.

 

[Lothian]

But the point is, that you hope there is some form cost/benefit analysis being performed by the criminal, and that the risk, or cost of attempting to hurt someone, becomes high enough that they look for other avenues. i.e. switching to non-violent crimes such as shoplifting, stealing cars etc, instead of Holding up a liquor store.

You can hope as much as you want.

But it does reduce the amount of violent crimes.

Don't see it myself.

 

[Drewbot]

How can there be statistics if some states do not even require licensing and registration ? Only a limited number of states have licensing and registration systems in place. Licensing, establishing safety standards for ownership and use and enforcing those standards through mandatory instruction and periodic testing - only when those are in place you could make an assertion of the training and background of the legal gun owner in general.

How about a survey?
Just send 1000 surveys to legal gun owners, asking them how many hours they have been in the field, or at the gun range, or cleaning their gun and familiarizing themselves with the operation of the gun

Then send 1000 surveys to criminals possessing guns, asking the same question, then just tally the results and report them here.

I think my assertion is valid based on my experience with other legal gun owners.

 

[SisterSmile]

.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084

This study from 1993 "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home" came to the same conclusion :

As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).

 

[GStan]

How can there be statistics if some states do not even require licensing and registration ? Only a limited number of states have licensing and registration systems in place. Licensing, establishing safety standards for ownership and use and enforcing those standards through mandatory instruction and periodic testing - only when those are in place you could make an assertion of the training and background of the legal gun owner in general.

If you don't have enough data to make the assertion about legal gun owners being better equipped to handle their firearms than criminals, then you also certainly do not have enough data to support this statement either:

Only in the case that the gun owner is well trained in the use of his weapon (member of shooting club or hunter) can he/she be a true match against a hardened criminal who is more likely to use a gun regularly.
Armed citizens trying to defend their homes often get wounded doing so.

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ]http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

But it does reduce the amount of violent crimes.[ . . . ]

Don't see it myself.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084

This study [ . . . ]

You mean, . . . sceptics are not yet all of one accord on exactly what the evidence shows? Horrors, perhaps the sceptical method is not all it's cracked up to be.

This is why I prefer Miss_Kitt's suggestion to just about anything else.

 

[Lothian]

This is why I prefer Miss_Kitt's suggestion to just about anything else.

My concern with the idea is that some people may have to resort to armed hold ups to raise the money for the insurance premium.

 

[Drewbot]

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084

This study from 1993 "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home" came to the same conclusion :

As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).

That study did not differentiate between LEGAL gun owners, and Criminal Gun-Owners, at least it did not reveal the difference in results.

The NEJM’s 1993 follow-up article – widely received as the definitive statement that guns in the home pose serious risks – is also deeply flawed. The study excluded nearly 30 percent of "in home" homicides, and failed to mention that its results changed when comparing relevant subgroups (e.g., gun-owning criminals vs. law-abiding gun owners, who may be much less likely to be shot).

http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=482

 

[Francesca R]

My concern with the idea is that some people may have to resort to armed hold ups to raise the money for the insurance premium.

That's not the way it ought to work. More like, once insured, ordinary peaceful citizens feel a good deal more justified in shooting up the crap out of the local neighbourhood, secure in the knowledge that the victims will receive underwriting. It will get cold-blooded killing out of the realm of "social no-no" and towards a "covered transactional externality". Therein lies fairness and welfare.

This post wasn't that serious, a bit like the OP.

Back to the evidence-fight

 

[WildCat]

Only in the case that the gun owner is well trained in the use of his weapon (member of shooting club or hunter) can he/she be a true match against a hardened criminal who is more likely to use a gun regularly.

It's actually quite the opposite. Your average gangbanger never even fired a gun before he acquires one and goes looking for a group of rivals to fire into. That's why he often misses completely and instead hits the 8 year old girl half a block away from the targets.

 

[Drewbot]

This is why I prefer Miss_Kitt's suggestion to just about anything else.

I don't understand why you would subscribe to this. Basically, law-abiding gun owners would be required to purchase liability insurance, to cover any injuries sustained in the discharge of the firearm. How should we force a criminal to purchase this insurance? I'm sure they will go out and pick up a policy before they go out and decide to partake in a 'Drive-by'.

So I am to take from this that law-abiding gun-owners would have to carry an 'uninsured shooter' clause in their policy to cover the damages cause by uninsured shooters. Hypothetically, what percentage of coverable damage do you think is caused by a legal gun owner? What percentage of damage is caused by an illegal gun user? I'd guess it's disproportionately higher on the side of illegal gun users, which of course we know isn't going to be buying any insurance, thus leaving legal owners with an unfair burden of bearing the responsibility of covering the damage of a criminal.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't understand why you would subscribe to this. Basically, law-abiding gun owners would be required to purchase liability insurance, to cover any injuries sustained in the discharge of the firearm. How should we force a criminal to purchase this insurance? I'm sure they will go out and pick up a policy before they go out and decide to partake in a 'Drive-by'.

So I am to take from this that law-abiding gun-owners would have to carry an 'uninsured shooter' clause in their policy to cover the damages cause by uninsured shooters. Hypothetically, what percentage of coverable damage do you think is caused by a legal gun owner? What percentage of damage is caused by an illegal gun user? I'd guess it's disproportionately higher on the side of illegal gun users, which of course we know isn't going to be buying any insurance, thus leaving legal owners with an unfair burden of bearing the responsibility of covering the damage of a criminal.

I don't think it would (should) in any sense insure criminal damage from firearm shooting, but cover the increased accidental liability of insured (and legal) gun owners.

 

[Drewbot]

I don't think it would (should) in any sense insure criminal damage from firearm shooting, but cover the increased accidental liability of insured (and legal) gun owners.

But if this plan is enforced, all you would do is produce barriers to legal gun-owners, which are not the ones doing the majority of the damage. Criminals would see that fewer law-abiding people are able to obtain guns, and they would be rewarded by the gun insurance policy.

 

[quarky]

guns are too noisy.

Biological and chemical weapons for the home are where its at.

 

[Francesca R]

But if this plan is enforced, all you would do is produce barriers to legal gun-owners, which are not the ones doing the majority of the damage. Criminals would see that fewer law-abiding people are able to obtain guns, and they would be rewarded by the gun insurance policy.

Yes, but covering criminal liability is strictly beyond the ethical remit of any form of mandatory insurance IMO. I don't have a solution for illegal acts other than "Make 'em illegal and enforce against them"

 

[Quad4_72]

guns are too noisy.

Biological and chemical weapons for the home are where its at.

Yeah I tried that actually. A burglar tried to break into my home so I released mustard gas on him. Yeah it did the trick, but then you gotta deal with a haz mat team coming in and cleaning everything up. Plus I don't think my neighbors liked that their cat now looks something like an overmicrowaved sausage.