dagblog - Comments for "The Second Amendment Right to Kill You"

Calling people herd animals

Donal — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:07:20 +0000

In reply to Which takes us right back to

Calling people herd animals and then complaining about insults is itself divisive. Citing outlandish stats and then complaining about the other guy's logic is itself divisive.

If you simply say, "I think owning a gun is essential to preserving my freedom, and here is my belief in how ownership should/should not be regulated," or whatever, we can debate that.

Which takes us right back to

Patrick — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:36:04 +0000

In reply to Wowzer ...From "...firearms

Which takes us right back to my original statement. The topic of gun rights/gun control is so divisive that rational discourse is almost impossible. OGD clearly didn't read my comments carefully. OGD clearly ignores the logic flaws in the opposing point of view. And OGD insults rather than informs. Don't get me wrong, if I went to a pro gun right site and took the opposing stance I would get the same irrational ranting that I see here.

Wowzer ...From "...firearms

oldenGoldenDecoy — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:29:12 +0000

In reply to Doc, I am not looking to

Wowzer ...

From "...firearms are used defensively up to 2.5 million times a year..." to "...X number of crimes are committed with guns (though not necessarily though the discharge of the firearm) and X number of crimes are prevented with guns (though not necessarily though the discharge of the firearm)..."

From this sub-thread I have come away with a way in which Patrick's procession of logic can be made useful. His questionable use of logic can be used by instructors of college courses as a final exam of sorts. Any student who can't find at least 10 errors of fact or fatuous statement automatically flunks.

Paddlin' on...

~OGD~

Doc, I am not looking to

Patrick — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:26:26 +0000

In reply to LOL is right. I find some of

Doc, I am not looking to upset anyone here, I just think the topic is worthy of discussion. I'd like to try and reach a point of agreement here so: X number of crimes are committed with guns (though not necessarily though the discharge of the firearm) and X number of crimes are prevented with guns (though not necessarily though the discharge of the firearm) can we agree on that?

LOL is right. I find some of

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:06:40 +0000

In reply to LOL Doc you sure are generous

LOL is right. I find some of your arguments hard to take with a straight face.

If you want to return the numbers of rapes and robberies prevented with a gun to the discussion, then you also have to include the numbers of those crimes committed with a help of a gun. Your argument, as stated, is that the 6000+ extra gun deaths is counterbalanced by the number of rapes and robberies that guns prevent. That proposition is already dubious, but also wrong. It's not a trade in which you get 6000 more murders but reduce other violent crimes. It's a tradeoff where you get 6000 more murders than you prevent and also more rapes and robberies than you prevent.

Look, with all due respect, I'm not feeling an overwhelming trust for the way you're using figures today. You're the one who brought the clearly-absurd 2.5 million figure in here. You're not even really thinking about these figures to see if they make sense at all. Now you've made up a claim that 10% of all crimes are deterred by gun owners. But at this point, you've made enough specious arguments that anything you say is suspect.

Here is the first question: how many murders are committed with guns and how many prevented by guns? The answer is ... many more people are killed with guns than saved by them.

Here is a second question: how many other crimes are committed with guns, and how many prevented by guns? The same answer applies: guns enable far more crimes than they prevent.

LOL Doc you sure are generous

Patrick — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:49:11 +0000

In reply to Is it a life saved if it

LOL Doc you sure are generous with your numbers. Still it does seem to me that, generosity aside, that you are being a bit disingenuous with some of your assumptions here. Is defending against rape and assault a laudable thing? How many criminals were deterred by simply brandishing a firearm? From the same FBI report "In 2009, an estimated 1,318,398 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 5.3 percent from the 2008 estimate.". These are defined as four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Just be conservative I will use 10% to reflect the defensive use of a firearm to prevent such crimes, hey 131839 that's pretty close to the 108K I generously conceded to you earlier. :)

All life matters Doc, perhaps we can compromise in a way that allows those who wish to defend themselves from violence to do so without increasing criminal violence. All we need is some common sense and a desire to find a practical solution.

Is it a life saved if it

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:25:38 +0000

In reply to I am happy to concede the

Is it a life saved if it comes at the cost of two others lost?

Even that 108,000 figure is "all crimes" not murders. Let's go to the annual FBI crime report:

In 2009, there were 215 cases of justifiable homicide, meaning the killing of a felon in the act of felony, by private citizens using handguns. (Meanwhile, 46 hardy souls killed a felon hand to hand.) Now, that's only a subset of the legitimate uses of a gun to prevent a crime, but on the other hand that 215 includes lots of felons who weren't attempting murder: it also includes rapists, burglars, thigs robbing liquor stores, and so on. This, I think gives us a reasonable mainline basis to start estimating 1) how many times guns really were used to prevent crimes in 2009 and 2) how many lives were saved. Even the 108,000 figure means a ratio of about 500 crimes prevented with a gun for every one criminal killed in preventing a crime. That still strikes me as improbably low. 0.2%? Really?

But when we get to "lives saved by gun-owning citizens," the numbers get even less promising. How many of those felons (the burglars, the armed robbers, the rapists) were actually going to kill a victim? The fact that you shoot someone who's holidng up your store is totally justified, but doesn't mean that you would have been killed if you handed over the money in the register. I'm going to peg the number of lives saved with handguns at a (generous, I'd say) factor of 5 times the number of felons killed with handguns. Oh, the hell with it, I'll give you an unrealistically high multiple of 10. So, 2150 human lives.

Meanwhile, in 2009, law enforcement officers shot and killed 403 felons. I don't actually believe they saved 4000 lives in the process, but I'll give you the 2150 number.

But the total number of firearm murders in 2009 was 9,146. That's a good number. For several years there the figure was over 10,000 a year. And since I haven't double-checked the FBI's methodology, let me be safe and subtract the justifiable homicides from the toal number, which gives us about 8500. That is still, slanting things as heavily as I can toward the personal-defense side of things, four times as many people wrongfully killed with guns as saved by guns in private hands.

What about those 6000+ people? Doesn't even one life saved matter?

I made no such claim

Patrick — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:06:00 +0000

In reply to I propose that there is an

I made no such claim regarding violence in this country. Is gun violence somehow worse than all the other forms on violence?

I am all for common sense and practical solutions and I am very pleased to hear that "gun-control" advocates are all-for compromise measures.

I believe that is a very rational proposal. One I whole heartedly support.

I propose that there is an

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:55:22 +0000

In reply to II don't believe anyone is

I propose that there is an actual problem with gun violence in this country.

I propose that claiming that nothing can or should be done about it is not a reasonable position. If your plan for dealing with gun violence is no changes, or even a loosening of restrictions, I would suggest that you are not being serious.

I propose that defenses of gun rights based on imaginary facts, such as A) our friend "William Travis's" counterfactual claim that the Austin shooter "might have been" killed by an armed bystander or B) surveys like the one you cite, which lists more criminals killed or wounded by citizens with guns than is actually possible given the number of gunshot wounds in the country, help neither public safety nor the cause of gun rights. By refusing to address common sense concerns, you get in the way of practical solutions and discredit your own cause. If gun rights are ever genuinely abolished in this country, it will be because self-described "gun-rights" advocates keep ruling out any compromise measures.

I propose that people interested in preserving gun rights in this country think about ways to preserve gun rights while reducing gun violence. I'm looking for policies that maximally reduce the amount of overall bloodshed while permitting lawful uses with minimal inconvenience.

I am happy to concede the

Patrick — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:45:25 +0000

In reply to From the page you

I am happy to concede the more conservative number of 100K. Still even one life saved must be worth something?