Keeping track of self-defence
I recently discovered the National Rifle Association publishes an Armed Citizen Database where they record news stories of law-abiding Americans using firearms to halt or prevent crime:
During the decades the American Rifleman has published “The Armed Citizen” column, thousands of incidents of law-abiding Americans using firearms to halt or prevent crime have appeared in the magazine. Editorial space allowing, the total could have been far greater of course, as award-winning survey research shows that each year in the U.S. gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently as 2.5 million times.
The right to own a firearm to protect yourself and your family is a fundamental civil liberty. One doesn’t actually have to fire the gun; even brandishing the weapon can often be enough to deter a criminal. It’s unfortunate neither mainstream party is supportive of this unfashionable aspect of civil liberties.
51 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Catallaxy Files- Read and weep statists February 4, 2012More government spending will not bring back the days when supposedly triple-A-rated mortgage securities could be fashioned out of dodgy loans to unqualified borrowers. Arnold KlingSinclair Davidson
- Farewell Chris Huhne February 4, 2012Chris Huhne, the UK climate change and energy minister who did more than any other minister to bankrupt his country by pursuing the folly of wind power, has resigned. Huhne is a wealthy member of the elite who did not practice what he preached. In other words, Huhne is a hypocrite.Samuel J
- Julia Gillard’s policy to prop up inefficient firms will be counterproductive February 3, 2012In The Australian today (subscription required): “According to Julia Gillard, things are difficult for Australian manufacturing as the resource boom threatens “to hollow out other sections of the economy”.Henry Ergas
- Read and weep statists February 4, 2012
- inCISe
- Hardly fair to vulnerable children February 3, 2012For the last three years, I have been arguing that Australia’s failing child protection system is being run in the interests of social service providers and not ‘at risk’ children. In the name of ‘family preservation,’ state community service departments are leaving children for far too long with highly dysfunctional families and only remove them as a last r […]Jeremy Sammut
- RIP democracy says Brendan O’Neill February 3, 2012They say Athens was the birthplace of modern democracy. Well now it is the graveyard of democracy. In the name of saving the euro, Brussels bigwigs have proposed a system of external interference into Greece’s economic affairs and national sovereignty that is so far-reaching it would make Victorian colonialists beam with pride. The EU dream that libera […]Brendan ONeil
- Constitution folly February 2, 2012Australia is once again revisiting the core problems of the failed Indigenous policies championed by the Labor Party. The expert panel for constitutional reform to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution gave their recommendations to the federal government on 19 January. The Gillard government has pledged to hold a constit […]Editor
- Hardly fair to vulnerable children February 3, 2012
- IPA news
- Who'll drag us free of our heavy debt burden? February 2, 2012While most Australians were tanning themselves at the beach during their summer breaks, the federal opposition and the...
- Renewable energy rules lose traction January 31, 2012Energy policy in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries is spurred by concerns that gas...
- Danger of new thickets of gas regulation January 30, 2012Peter Roberts' "Globalised gas pricing has local costs" (Talking Point, January 30) applauds the commonwealth's National...
- Who'll drag us free of our heavy debt burden? February 2, 2012
At least you know that if you get into a tight spot, the police will be more than happy to show up 30 minutes after you’ve already been killed to take your statement.
How absolutely fundamental. What the hell is wrong with Australians? Why aren’t they pressuring politicians to get back their right to bear arms?
#2
Because guns are evil. They jump up and kill people all the time, don’t you know anything?
I’d like to see the numbers. How many crimes are stopped versus how many accidental deaths occur due to the abundance of guns in the US? Or compare the US gun death rate to that in the EU.
I think gun ownership is great, if properly regulated. I don’t own a gun or rifle myself but have enjoyed recreational shooting. The most fun was a muzzle loader. Now there’s a heck of a weapon.
This is a case of being able to have your cake and eat it too — if you can accept some regulation. As it stands now, however, it’s mindnumbingly easy to purchase a firearm in the US, easier than getting a license to drive a car. Just go to a gun show. Is it any wonder that doctors from Europe come to Detroit and Philadelphia to learn to treat shooting victims?
Check out http://www.packing.org/ to see the extreme view. Several US states have passed laws making it easier to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
If you want the right to carry a concealed weapon, why not hand grenades? Where do you draw the line if anywhere?
Since 1996 in Australia it has been impossible to obtain a licence to own a gun for self-defence, even in your own home. In some states a handful of people manage to obtain a permit, but not in NSW. The legislation there specifically prohibits the Police Commissioner from issuing permits for personal protection or the protection of another person.
Of course, that does not prevent John Howard’s bodyguards from being armed. That comes under Commonwealth law.
Just prior to the recent APEC conference, the NSW Regulations were amended to allow the Commissioner to issue a permit “in such cases as the Commissioner (at the request of the Commonwealth Government) considers appropriate”.
The Commonwealth requested permits for the bodyguards of President Bush.
In other words it is fine for everyone else to be defenceless, but not for Howard or Bush.
In a free society, the rulers are there with the consent of the governed. Obviously we are not a free society.
Trinifar: hand grenades are not used for self defence.
They are indiscriminate, a danger to the user, etc.
Although if Billy Bob wants to blow up rabbit warrens on his 40000 acre property with explosives, why waste resources in prosecuting him? Who is he hurting? Some rabbits and potentially himself.
Property rights should determine regulation of firearms.
That reminds me – can we have bonfire/firecracker night back? We used to have it every year on Queen’s Birthday holiday until it was banned in the mid-80′s.
Actually it used to be ‘Guy Fawkes Night, 5th November when I was young.
He tried to blow up the british parliament but got unlucky.
Hmm. Let’s see an explosive weapon with a isotropic damage effect versus a a bullet weighing a few grams which can be fired with acceptable precision. Hmm. EXACTLY THE SAME! BAN THEM ALL!
That reminds me – can we have bonfire/firecracker night back? We used to have it every year on Queen’s Birthday holiday until it was banned in the mid-80’s.
Yeah, the amount of paperwork you need to go through to get your hands on tom-thumbs is insane.
There’s a shop in Launceston that sells fireworks and even provides the paperwork for you, but it’s a pain in the arse. Sure I had a firecracker backfire into my stomach as a kid, but that hasn’t put me off them!
Hmm. Let’s see an explosive weapon with a isotropic damage effect versus a a bullet weighing a few grams which can be fired with acceptable precision. Hmm. EXACTLY THE SAME! BAN THEM ALL!
I think Trinifar’s comment is implying that SOME level of regulation is needed. Nuclear weapons should be regulated, for example. Hand Grenades should be regulated. But where should the regulation stop?
Discussions with David L have me thinking any firearm with a legitimate non-weaponry purpose should be legal.
Some fully automatic weapons, rocket-launchers, high power sniper rifles and other such military weapons should definitely be illegal. Basic handguns/ pistols should definitely be legal, as should hunting rifles. Other automatic/ semi-automatic weapons should be a subject of discussion and informed debate (rather than knee-jerk policy as in 1996).
As Shem says, where should the regulation stop?
Should anyone be allow to by a firearm at any time without any background check? Should fully automatic firearms be legal? How about concealed weapons? Cop-killer ammunition? AK47 type assault weapons were banned for a while but the ban expired and the at-the-time Republican controlled Congress did not renew it.
Knowing that any number of the people around me may be armed does not increase my sense of freedom. To the contrary, it makes me wonder what sort of society we have created in the US given that some portion of the population feels the need to be packing. Down right ridiculous IMO. Never in my life have I or anyone I know been the victim of gun violence or been in the position where having a gun would have been the least bit useful in stopping a crime.
Knowing that any number of the people around me may be armed does not increase my sense of freedom.
If you’re worried they’re going to hurt you with firearms then you should still be worried if they don’t have firearms. They still have the means to kill you. It’s their intention and their will to kill/rob/rape you that you should be worried about. Just because you remove one method doesn’t mean you have removed the drive and other methods to commit crimes against you. In fact, more than likely, you have not even decreased the risk to yourself.
Lefties like you intrigue me in that the concept of someone being held accountable for their actions, even at the point of a law abiding citizens gun, seems to bother you. You entertain a fantasy that you can protect these criminals from themselves, along with the rest of the community, by eliminating something like firearm ownership. You haven’t solved anything if the criminal still wants to rob you or kill you. Where there’s a will there’s a way.
The size and brashness of the criminal element is a direct indication of the health of society. But the amount of people like yourself, with no morality or courage to do the right thing, hold people accountable for their actions, or see the civilsed and law abiding empowered, is also a direct reflection of society’s health. Unfortunately the West is not fairing to well at the moment.
Never in my life have I or anyone I know been the victim of gun violence or been in the position where having a gun would have been the least bit useful in stopping a crime.
Well I have. And the database at the top of this post has other examples. Your experiences are not reflective of everyone elses, so don’t be so arrogant to believe that you have the moral prerogative to decide what level of freedom others have to defend themselves from violence.
An armed society is a polite society but a polite society need not be armed.
The ‘reasonable force’ criterion is the crux of the matter – someone attacks you or your property you need a 6 month course in tort before you know how to legally respond.
And if the intruder were to sprain and ankle or cut himself on your broken window he can sue you.
“Shit, there are a lot of things you could use to kill a guy with. You could probably beat a guy to death with the Sunday New York Times. Or suppose you just had really big hands, couldn’t you strangle a flight attendant? shite, you could probably strangle two of them, one with each hand. That is, if you were lucky enough to catch ‘em in that little kitchen area. Just before they break out the frickin’ peanuts. But you could get the job done. If you really cared enough.
So why is it they allow a man with big, powerful hands to get on board an airplane? I’ll tell you why. They know he’s not a security risk, because he already answered the three big questions. Question number one:
“Did you pack your bags yourself?”
“No, Carrot Top packed my bags. He and Martha Stewart and Florence Henderson came over to the house last night, fixed me a lovely lobster Newberg, gave me a full body massage with sacred oils from India, performed a four-way around the world, and then they packed my bags. Next question.”
“Have your bags been in your possession the whole time?”
“No. Usually the night before I travel – just as the moon is rising – I place my suitcase out on the street corner and leave them there, unattended, for several hours. Just for good luck. Next question.”
“Has any unknown person asked you to take anything on board?”
“Well, what exactly is an unknown person? Surely everyone is known to someone. In fact, just this morning, Kareem and Youssef Ali ben Gabba seemed to know each other quite well. They kept joking about which one of my suitcases was the heaviest.” ”
George Carlin
Reason did a comic strip titled The Right to own a Bazooka here: http://reason.com/news/show/121979.html?pg=1
Raised in the country, I believe farmers have the right control rabbit numbers. And my cousins hunt wild pigs as well which in another introduced spices damaging our landscape. Apparently it’s fun too
Personally I can’t Australians lining up around the block to get guns for self defence purposes but that’s no reason to stop them.
I don’t feel more OR less safe when people around me are armed. I think, in Australia, people going around packing heat in public would be slightly paranoid. But it should be legitimate legal reason. I do hope personal gun ownership only increases marginally if “self-defence” is made a valid reason, but I wouldn’t mind a Swiss-militia attitude towards things. I would just feel uncomfortable if Australia ever adapted a gun culture where people walked down with concealed weapons. But the current legislation is just plain stupid, in parts.
I wonder though, Sukrit, how many of those 2.5 million incidents would have involved firing a gun when it was not needed to fire a gun. Being shot and killed for stealing an old lady’s purse is hardly justice… Unless you support a death penalty for such minor misdemeanours.
Being shot and killed for stealing an old lady’s purse is hardly justice
It’s perfectly well justice. So long as a force continuum was used which is basically pointing the gun at him and saying ‘stop or I will shoot’, or maybe even pointing the gun at him and gving him the knowing ‘I suggest you put that down if you want to live’ wink!
It’s precisely this attitude why old ladies purses get stolen in the first place. And it’s precisely the gun laws that make it the most vulnerable members of society and not young rugby front-rowers that get abused and robbed.
I don’t understand why some people think they are safer when the only people with guns are criminals, cops, the military and some security guards. By what logic does that make anyone safer?
Many cops are marginal psychopaths with serious alcohol or drug problems, yet every single one carries a loaded gun around.
Security guards are too psychopathic to even become cops. There are plenty of them who carry loaded guns too.
Most violent criminals are drug-addled psychopaths. But at least they mainly want to rob you, except for when they shoot you in the centre of Melbourne of course.
The military has more firepower than the rest put together, with their share of psychopaths too. Rocket launchers, anyone?
And somehow preventing the rest of us from having guns is good policy?
Being shot and killed for stealing an old lady’s purse is hardly justice… Unless you support a death penalty for such minor misdemeanours.
On too many occasions these people are assaulted for resisting attempts at robbery. Most of them are pensioners and the little they have is precious to them and they are more likely to try to hang on to it. Not long ago an extremely disabled guy of close to 80 years of age in this area chased a young guy who robbed him on his mobility scooter.
They stand on their dig and often suffer for it. They should be allowed to pack heat, then after a few of the bad guys get bailed up or shot, maybe this type of crime will diminish. There is actually an attitude out there that these people are stupid to resist, in other words they have no right to try to keep what is theirs.
I agree with Jim.
How dare we shoot these people who steal from the old and disabled!
But after all it isnt their fault that they need to steal, its the governments.
It seems in this day and age that the perpetrators have more rights than the victims!
I hope it is understood that 2nd and 3rd sentence were ment in sarcasm.
Stealing from the elderly is hardly justified. But I didn’t think we’d stoop so low as to promote a death penalty as a just punishment. A gun may act a deterrent, but surely capsicum spray works better than a gun to that end?
You guys are almost sounding like you think the elderly should be shooting to kill! “Purge the evil from society! Make the world a better place.”
I support rights to gun ownership in self-defence, but I hardly think it is something that should be encouraged. A gun should be a last resort. I like being part of a gun-free culture.
As for saying people are stupid to resist crime, I don’t say that at all. But I do think that one should evaluate the situation properly. Shooting someone in the head because they took your parking meter money is hardly justice. “A head for an eye” is even more barbaric than “An eye for an eye”. I’d rather let him run off with my $50 and then report it to the police. I mean, unless you want to kill anyone that steps outside of social norms as a “deterrent”…
I mean, libertarians oppose the death penalty for a reason.
Shem, I think you’re missing the point. A deterrent is only a deterrent if the will to use it is held by deterrer and is believed by the deterree. That is the principle of deterrence.
Talk of shooting an assailant dead as being the same as the death penalty is wrong. If it is not worth losing your life over to steal it, don’t be a damn thief. It is the mugger that doesn’t back off when confronted by a firearm that doesn’t value his own life, not the victim. Any one decent who kills in self-defence is likely to mourn the death of their attacker more than the attacker would mourn the victim’s passing.
1. If the force continuum is used i.e. ‘stop or I’ll shoot’ it’s not just shooting someone. It’s rightful use of force to protect your person and property. Capsicum spray for the old lady or tackling the guy puts the innocent party at risk. A risk they have no social duty to assume as theirs.
2. I’m a libertarian and I support the death penalty. (But that has no relevance to this argument. The death penalty is a punshment delivered by a court. Use of a firearm to defend your property is just use of force. Pretty much any use of force is potentially lethal, firearms are just more so).
I should add that while they have no social duty to assume risk to themselves in protecting their property or person, they also have no obligation to leave their property unless they choose.
If you steal someones property you are stealing the product of their lives. Effectively you are stealing part of their lives that they worked for that piece of property; equivalent to enslaving or murdering that part of their lives. It may seem a lot of force to be used to protect ‘parking metre money’, but so long as a force contiuum is used the thief has the option to do his own cost/benefit analysis and drop the money and run. If he chooses to chance the bullet then that’s his business!
Shem said:
“I mean, libertarians oppose the death penalty for a reason.”
I don’t know about you but for me that reason is the imperfect nature of the court system, uncertainty of guilt, without that aspect the death penalty would be appropriate for the right crime.
Admittedly we are talking about assault and robbery with violence rather than murder here but I think the right of the victim to resist with reasonable force is clear. “Reasonable” is very much deependent on the victims physical state and their perceptions of the threat.
The death penalty should be applied by special sentencing courts where there is no remorse, pre meditation and guilt is beyond any doubt but the crime has to at least involve murder, conspiracy to murder, mass murder (i.e this covers terrorism without making reference to such a troublesome terminology) or genocide. I would also consider to limit it to those above tha ge of 21 unless they were paticularly violent or unreprentant. I doubt there would be little to oppose this other than emotional argument.
It is known that:
1. The death penalty actually is an extra deterrent, despite the lies of those who oppose it and misunderstand the next point.
2. The court system and justice system find the death penatly has a net cost under the current set up, due to resources used in trying and incarcerating the guilty. A reform like the above probably will have welfare enhancing impacts and more net lives saved.
A gun should be the last resort, but as long as we have the presumption of innocence we should be free to exercise firearm ownership and reasonable self defence.
Well this is a bit nuts and Shem hasn’t missed the point at all.
Deterence is great. But so is a sense of perspective. I do not support life in jail for every person who speeds. Neither should you. Likewise, I don’t want to see somebody shot for stealing your wallet. Neither should you.
When it comes to self defence people should be able to use appropriate force. That means responding in kind. If somebody attacks you with their fists you don’t try to kill them. If they’re attacking you with a gun, then perhaps killing them is your only option. If somebody is running off with your money, pursue on foot… give some warning shots… aim at their legs… but for allah’s sake, don’t shoot to kill.
And the death penalty is not an effective deterent, as explained clearly by the CATO institute.
John, ‘Policy’ magazine did an interesting piece on deterrence, which found that the best deterent was a truely efficient Police Force, whatever the crime. If your cops come from Keystone, expect a crime Wave!
Shem has missed several points.
First, we don’t live in a “gun-free culture”; we are surrounded by guns. Most are either carried concealed or kept inside houses. It’s no different in America – it is rare to see a gun there apart from those carried by law enforcement.
Second, a capsicum spray does not work better than a gun. That’s a simple fact. More importantly, there is no justification for allowing capsicum sprays while not allowing guns for self-defence. Unless you have the right of self defence, which includes the right to use effective means, you do not own yourself. You are a slave to the state.
Third, while it’s true that “Shooting someone in the head because they took your parking meter money is hardly justice“, nobody (certainly no libertarian) argues anything different. Owning a gun has nothing to do with dispensing justice.
Individuals should be able to protect themselves and their property by whatever means they consider necessary. If that means little old ladies choose to carry a gun, then that is their right.
But there is a big difference between defence and retribution. Rights also have responsibilities. That’s inherent to libertarianism.
John – are you saying the death penalty doesn’t increase marginal deterrence or the costs and benefits of the death penalty fail with the current sentencing, incarceration and trial system?
The law and economics literature I’ve seen comes to two conclusions:
1. The death penalty does give more deterrence than life in prison.
2. It isn’t worth the costs given how much must be gven up to keep death row going.
This alludes what nicholas said about policing and conviction rates as opposed to severity of punishments.
What did CATO argue exactly? That it isn’t an extra deterrent or it isn’t worth the costs even if 1. is true?
Maybe there wouldn’t be an extra deterrent with what I proposesince you would be only executing the worst of the worst. What if society feels good by executing these people? What if it deters people from killing police trying to arrest them or murder for financial gain?
Very well then. What about murders committed in prison? How do you actually deter or punish prisoners from killing? This is one issue I have had people generally opposed to the death penalty in the criminal justice system agree with.
Shem – “reasonable force”. It is a very robust legal concept.
Sort of related:
Found this news article interesting. It’s a new “pain generator” that supposedly harmlessly targets nerve cells on the tips of your skin – with devastating pain.
Weapon of torture, or the ultimate security fence?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=482560&in_page_id=1965
You’ve all got it all wrong!!! The best defence is to wear Kevlar armour all the time! AND carry a gas mask! There is no government law against these! (And it’s traditional- we could call them Kellys!)
I’m not arguing against legal rights for gun ownership self-defence. “Reasonable force” is definitely a sound legal principle and I support force that IS reasonable.
But I’m arguing as a matter of social philosophy. In ideal fairy-la-la-land guns wouldn’t be necessary for self-defence. I would never want to PROMOTE the use of guns in self-defence, nor the use of any weapon, nor the need for self-defence. But we do need to face up to these things with a grim sense of reality. Crime rates in Australia, and Japan (especially violent crime rates) are lower than places like America. Logically it follows there is less need to carry a gun for self-defence in Australia. The legal right should exist, but it is my hope that the number of times a gun is NEEDED for self-defence is minimal.
I think that our culture is more gun-free than other cultures. I don’t encounter guns in my day-to-day dealings. I hardly ever see people from the police, or military. But we should have a right to gun ownership, I personally would hope that most people would only choose to exercise that right if they have good reason to, though. Gun ownership isn’t bad, seriously injuring someone with a gun unjustly is bad, though. “Rights have responsibilities.” I guess we’re mostly on the same page here, I support the legal right, but I’ll never be a gun-advocate.
Effective means of self-defence is a necessary right. But rationally I don’t feel like I need a gun to defend myself from anything that is likely to happen in my life. I am somewhat scared of guns. With a gun a wife-beater can become a wife-killer far more easily; a gun is much harder to fight against than a knife, a rope or even a petrol can.
Current legislation is stupid, unfair and anti-liberty.
- Motivation for gun ownership should not be legally relevant. You don’t need to prove that you’ll be using petrol to fill your car up when you buy it in a can.
- The cooling off period is stupid. If you plan on shooting someone, I’m sure having a second gun won’t make it any easier.
- The current line between legal and illegal guns seems to prevent ownership of guns that should really be allowed.
- The buyback was a waste of taxpayers’ money.
I’m sure you can all at least agree with the 4 points I’ve made above.
“You’ve all got it all wrong!!! The best defence is to wear Kevlar armour all the time! AND carry a gas mask! There is no government law against these! (And it’s traditional- we could call them Kellys!)”
Are you sure there is no law? It seems unlikely, certainly it would be illegal in the states.
The only law that might ban you from doing is the one about wearing things that obstruct your face when you go into a bank etc.
Crime rates in Australia, and Japan (especially violent crime rates) are lower than places like America. Logically it follows there is less need to carry a gun for self-defence in Australia.
A common perception, but not the full story as the figures for America are always based on an average.
Two places with the highest violent crime in the US are Washington DC and New York, yet they also have the most stringent gun laws (equal or worse to those in Australia). By contrast, in the state of Vermont gun ownership is virtually unregulated. No licence is required even for a pistol. Yet its violent crime is way below that of Australia.
The only conclusion is that gun ownership and crime rates are independent of each other. Thus if we are to maintain an environment in which we do not feel compelled to carry a gun for self defence, we need to focus on things other than gun control.
The UK has proved that. It banned all pistols in 1997. Since then violent crime (including crime with pistols) has soared. The NEED for a gun for self-defence is therefore growing.
I share Shem’s hope that it will never be necessary to carry a gun for self-defence. But I don’t want the government to make that choice for me. Or for my wife or elderly parents.
The best defence is to wear Kevlar armour all the time! AND carry a gas mask! There is no government law against these!
Sorry, but it is illegal to wear body armour in NSW. It’s probably the same in other states. Everyone is required to remain vulnerable to bullets while having no capacity to return fire.
Nicholas, I think there is some sort of law against body armor, I remember something on it coming up when Howard wore it.
Shem, I agree with your four points but try to stay away from the ‘petrol’ issue, you may give the government ideas.
“Two places with the highest violent crime in the US are Washington DC and New York, yet they also have the most stringent gun laws (equal or worse to those in Australia). By contrast, in the state of Vermont gun ownership is virtually unregulated. No licence is required even for a pistol. Yet its violent crime is way below that of Australia”.
“The only conclusion is that gun ownership and crime rates are independent of each other.”
Another conclusion is that restriction of gun ownership has a negative impact.
Another conclusion is that restriction of gun ownership has a negative impact.
There is a bit of evidence for that, but logically would only occur where guns were previously being used to prevent crime.
There is more evidence that increased gun availability (eg through concealed carry permits) reduces certain types of crime. Lott and subsequent researchers found strong indications of that in the US.
John, do you have a link to that Cato source on the non-effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent? I’d like to read it.
Does anyone know what would happen if a formerly gun-free culture were suddenly given cheap guns? I ask, because our libertarian principles point to us doing just that if we ever get the balance of power to make or repeal laws. Has it ever happened before?
And I didn’t know about laws not letting you wear body armour! How about making body armour that looks like an old-fashioned knight’s attire, and saying you belong to an historical re-enactment society? (The gas mask could be hidden in the visor!)
This well-documented paper http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt discusses the statement quoted in the post above: “U.S. gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently as 2.5 million times” each year.
I was curious about such a high number and it seems rightly so:
“If the [2.5 million times and similar] numbers are in the right ballpark, millions of attempted assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by armed citizens during the 12-month period. According to these results, guns are used far more often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime. (Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07 million incidents of violent crime in 1994, according to NCVS data.)”
and
“For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8).”
From the same paper:
“Of 1,356 accidental deaths by gunshot in 1994, 185 involved children 14 years old and younger.[11] For each such fatality, there are several accidental shootings that cause serious injury. Guns were also the means of destruction in 19,590 suicides, 210 involving children 14 or younger.”
I don’t think gun-suicide is any worse than hanging oneself, or drinking stuff from the cabinet under the kitchen sink, Trinifar.
I don’t think gun-related suicide should be a factor in gun legislation. People planning on killing themselves will find a way to do it, regardless. Unless you want to legislate against razors (then we WOULD be like Europe, pew!) and tall buildings.
I have to agree with Shem here. Most people don’t want to kill themselves because they don’t want to, not because they don’t posess or have access to a firearm.
Mark and Shem, I was just providing some numbers, not advocating a position. 20,000 gun related suicides is getting close to the number of auto fatalities each year, but I’m not saying we should outlaw cars.
However, the 1,400 accidental gun deaths per year should give us all pause for thought. Anyone who touches a gun should know a lot about gun safety. And the NRA touting that ridiculous number of 2.5 million acts of self defense with guns shouldn’t keep being repeated.
Trinifar,
Even you divided that number by 10 for the entire US, 250,000 is a much larger number than 1,400. Of the 1,400 accidental deaths, how many of them were with legal guns and how many of them with illegal guns? Do you think people who own illegal weapons are as careful and as trained with their firearms as legal owners?
Making something illegal inreases the cost to the people who will flout the law, often disproportionately to the danger the law was designed to save them from. Such is the case with drugs and prostitution.
However, the 1,400 accidental gun deaths per year should give us all pause for thought. Anyone who touches a gun should know a lot about gun safety. ……
Are you sure this figure is accurate? If you go off the usual (and quite old) 190 million firearms held by 65 million people that makes America one hell of a safe nation in terms off firearms accidents. I’m pretty sure you would find that most militaries and police forces around the world would not even be able to come close to this. Not to mention contact sports, horse riding, backyard pools, accidents around the home etc. All of these would be much worse.
If the figures are accurate, then well done America!
Mick, you could also make the case that those 20,000 gun enabled suicides each year are a net positive, helping people end their suffering and relieving society of having to care for some of the mental ill. But, to be serious, I agree with you. The number of accidental gun deaths is quite small in comparison to the number of guns. However, since we are talking about death, it’s probably more informative to compare the 1,400 accidental gun deaths to the number of murders (17,034 persons were murdered nationwide in 2006 according to the FBI). Even better would be to compare the number of accidental gun deaths to the number of murders avoided by the defensive use of guns, but we can’t know that number.
It’d also be nice to know how many murders would have been avoided had a gun not been in the house since a large portion of murders are crimes of passion between people living together.
I don’t want to outlaw private gun ownership, but I think it’s in everyone’s best interest to understand it and know about gun safety. Concealed weapon permits should be very tightly controlled.
(BTW, I grew up in a small town where a lot of people hunted deer and bear. It wasn’t at all unsual to see someone walking down the street with rifle or shotgun. Someone carrying a concealed handgun, though, would have been thought batty.)
Here’s some information from the USA on gun ownership and its relationship to crime.
http://splodetv.com/more-gun-laws-more-gun-crimes