The gun owner self-defense mythology is dishonest, in my view

[jpgray]

Violent crime is at an all-time low. The odds of being confronted with a situation wherein you must use deadly force to prevent serious injury to yourself or to protect a substantial amount of property are virtually nil. Those who argue precautions are absolutely necessary due to risk alone would be better served giving up fatty foods, drinking, smoking, driving, or stepping outside during a thunderstorm. It's simply not about the risk.

But what if one is confronted with such a situation? It does happen. Well, introducing a gun into the equation absent training to properly assess these situations carries its -own- additional risks. Police and other security professionals with serious training in threat identification make lethal mistakes, harming innocent life, all the time. Absent this training, the risk of making a fatal mistake can only increase. In addition, one in five police officers killed in a crime are shot with either their own weapon or a partner's. Again, the average gun owner is not likely to be as prepared to confront these situations as a police officer, so again the risk will likely increase.

For the average gun owner, therefore, carrying a weapon is not a reasonable response to risk, nor does it protect against that minute risk without adding significant risks of its own. To my mind, those who justify carrying concealed by citing the dangers of crime are being disingenuous. The fantasy of gun owners as noble vigilantes who refuse to submit to violent criminals both inflates the minute danger while it minimizes the fact that adding a firearm to the mix -adds- new opportunities for a lethal conclusion to the situation, for both the perp and the victim.

Basically it boils down to people simply wanting to have and carry a gun. Whether it's the instant personality inflation (like the old guy who buys a motorcycle or sports car), a mild fetish or whatever else, having a weapon makes some people feel good. It is, however, by no means a practical response to the threat of crime. I make no claim that handguns or CCW permits should be outlawed or anything of that nature, I just wanted to point out that the justification oft-provided simply doesn't make much sense. I dispute that as much I dispute the argument that breaking and entering or petty theft warrant an arbitrary enforcement of the death penalty. Say you like carrying a gun around, say you think the law must provide for it based on the 2nd amendment, but don't say it's a rational defense against the threat of crime. Because barring exceptional circumstances, it simply isn't.

[Kali]

1. ...

:popcorn:








I mostly use mine for euthanizing. :popcorn:

[ret5hd]

3. and turning the t.v. off...

[Kali]

21. ...

:spray: :rofl:


I heard of an old bed-ridden cowboy who blew a hole in his roof shooting at a scorpion on the cieling.

[Kingshakabobo]

48. I remember a story about the guy shooting at the silhouette of a stranger at the foot of....

.....his bed. Turns out it was his penis. Mike Royko used to do an "idiots with guns" column every once in a while and I remember reading it there.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. OK, don't buy one.

A motorcycle either.

Have a nice day.

[Wcross]

4. Better to have it & not need it than to need it & not have one. n/t

[aikoaiko]

5. ok, so what is your criterion for victimization in order to justify carrying a gun?

How many people have to be threatened with bodily harm or actually assaulted in their adult lifetime (or proximity to someone who is) in order for you to feel that carrying a weapon is justified?

[jpgray]

6. Well, I did say "barring exceptional circumstances, it simply isn't"

Or would you argue that gun-owners or CCW holders are threatened and assaulted at a far greater rate than the general population?

[aikoaiko]

7. I understood you to say that the risk is too low to justify the practice, is this correct?

[jpgray]

8. For the average person? Absolutely.

[aikoaiko]

9. Then tell me what rate of victimization would justify the practice?

[jpgray]

13. Note I'm not for outlawing the practice. I just think this justification is silly

But arbitrarily I'd say if a majority of adults were destined to be the victim of violent crime in their lifetime. If I recall, we're nowhere near that.

[aikoaiko]

15. 50%+1 seems way too high for me.

I think the current prevalence of violent crime is high enough for me to carry.

Its true that crime is relatively low in the US now and even if I (or someone in my family) were a victim of violent crime there is a chance that I wouldn't be able to draw or get to my gun in time.

All I want is the chance to fight back, to defend myself or others, should someone with bad intentions come my way.

[jpgray]

16. Well I wouldn't deprive you of that choice, and it's only my opinion that it's no justification

Hopefully that is clear. :dunce: To some, I'm sure, even an extremely low violent crime rate would justify carrying concealed.

[aikoaiko]

40. You're saying more than that too -- you're saying I am dishonest when I use it as a justification

I am not being dishonest.

[jpgray]

42. I can't presume to know your situation, but for the average person I see it as dishonest

[napi21]

I agree with you, sort of.

I have no problem with people being licensed to carry concealed, but there are several requirements involved with doing so.

1. One must know how to shoot THAT gun, including load it, unload it, clean it, and how to keep it safe from being used accidentally...on yourself or anyone else.

2. One must understand the damage that weapon can do.

3. One must be willing to use it in an emergency situation.

The rational' for my thought is this:

I was raised with all kinds of guns in the house, and I was taught not only how to shoot, but how to care for your guns, keep them safe, keep others safe from YOUR guns, and knowing the horrible damage a gun can do. I happen to be a very accurate shot.

About 22 years ago, my closest friend at work was attacked and raped at gunpoint in the parking lot we both parked in everyday, although I wasn't with her that night. I was terribly upset and frightened after hearing that, and decided it was time for me to carry a revolver. I bought a S&W snubnose 38, practiced shooting it etc, and put it in my purse. When walking to that parking lot, I would slip it into my coat pocket with my hand around the grip. I did that for about 2 months, as I continued to go over in my head exactly what I would do if someone approached me and wouldn't go when told. I realized that I just didn't have the personal will to shoot first and ask questions later, and would most likely try to talk the assailant into leaving by using threats and words. The result of that kind of behavior would most likely have been the assailant taking the gun from me and using it on ME!!! That night, I put my Smith in the gun safe, and have only used it on a shooting range or target practice since.

Many women don't think about that, and men too I imagine. Being armed and unprepared is worse than not being armed at all.

[immoderate]

10. You are right, AFAIAC...

I have a Browning Hi-Power 9mm. I like the way it looks and it is fun to shoot it. I don't consider it protection under most circumstances. I don't keep it loaded and it is usually put away. My strong feeling is if this is a free country, then nobody has the right to tell me I can't own it.

I think the situation rarely presents itself where guns are good for defense. You'd have to have warning and the right space and position to defend yourself from an attack, which is frequently sudden. For people who want protection I usually tell them to learn bo-jutsu (stick fighting) and carry a cane or umbrella. It's a ready defense against most kinds of attack, except guns.

People underestimate the amount of training it takes to use a gun against people. And there are other cautions, involving legalities and bystanders.

--IMM

[ecstatic]

11. Tell that to all the women who are attacked, raped, and murdered in their own homes

Maybe you have the luxury of living in a low crime area. I don't have a gun, but if someone bought me one and trained me in using it I definitely wouldn't mind. I just don't necessarily have the drive (yet) to go out and buy one myself.

[NorthernSpy]

49. ... by their gun-owning husbands and boyfriends!

For women, their own intimate partners are the people most likely become their victimizers.



(I'm all for people owning guns. Just tossing in a little reality, tho.)

[Mojorabbit]

12. Personal choice

is good. Don't want one, don't buy one. If you do want one, learn to use it and feel free to own one.
Problem solved.

[jpgray]

14. I just don't like the dishonest argument that we're at the mercy of a horde of violent criminals

And only gun ownership can stem their hateful tide, etc.

[Mojorabbit]

17. In orlando

violent crime is actually up not down. Everyone has their reasons for owning a gun. It is not up to me to decide if their reasons are legitimate or not. I like to target shoot and my husband hunts. My husband buys me a handgun or rifle for my birthday every year so I have quite a few.Each gun is different and I love shooting them all. I love your parrot pic btw.

[jpgray]

18. I'm not jgraz, but I'll pass that along

:D

I'm not claiming to speak for the ultimate objective truth here, I'm just saying that in my view our crime rate doesn't justify carrying a weapon on its own.

[Mojorabbit]

25. Oh heck

sorry. I am having one of those days...:)

[alfredo]

19. Muggers don't play fair. They won't jump you unless they have the

advantage. For sure, they can pull the trigger faster than you can pull your heat, undo the safety, aim and shoot. Only in the movies can a person get the drop on a guy who has a gun at your head.

[jpgray]

20. I couldn't find any statistics on how many violent crimes would be prevented by a gun

Since so many are committed by someone the victim knows, and at least a substantial proportion go down as you say, I imagine there are many situations where a gun would not make a difference. I don't -know- this, however.

[alfredo]

56. My friend diffused a road rage incident by point his gun at the guy

as he approached his car. My dad backed off two muggers by swinging his bowling ball and declaring that he can't kill both of you, but he will get one.

I prevented a mugging by being aware of my surroundings and as soon as the guy made a move, I walked out into the street.

Being smart about where you go, and being aware of your surroundings is your best defense.

A gun can be useful in a small percentage of situations, and if you have children its danger could outweigh its utility. I remember the ad that showed a hand gun, and the words "It took your kid six years to find it."

[murray hill farm]

22. Well.....

I am a 66 yr old woman, living alone...in a high crime area. My house has been broken into 3 times since i moved here 3 yrs ago. The last time occured about 6 mos ago a little after midnight..and I was here. When I would not open the door when the guy was banging on it, he began to try to kick it in....I was leaning against it while I set off my alarm. It was the alarm that scared him away, but it still took the police 20 mins to get here. Now I have a gun....and I would use it to protect myself. The police did catch the guy, but not before he kicked in another womans door, beat her almost to death and took her car to get away. I think I will keep my gun.

[Xithras]

23. Yeah, well my wife is a "virtually nil" statistic then.

She was raped in our own home, and the attack was ended by my own gun. Look up my posts about it in the archives if you want the gory details (it was discussed many years ago). I don't feel like dredging up that particularly dark event right now (I will tell you that he did get shot, but he didn't die...she might have if not for the gun).

[jpgray]

26. That's the difference between "virtually nil" and "none at all"

Any general overview of risk has to ignore the tragedies that do happen, which are no less awful for being statistically rare. :( I'm sorry this happened to you.

[wicket]

47. My god I'm sorry

:hug:

[Xithras]

51. It occurred 12 years ago.

Long enough ago that it's no longer a part of our lives. I've discussed it twice here on DU...once many years ago during a discussion about violent crimes, and again about a year and a half ago when her attacker was released from prison.

[NeedleCast]

24. If I understand correctly

your basic argument here is that the chance of needing a hand gun for self defense is so low, that there's really no reason to worry about it.

Your argument assume that what you consider an acceptable level of risk is the same for everyone. Your argument is that because the chance of me being a victim of a crime or situation in which a hand gun might improve my odds of escaping unharmed is low, I shouldn't have one. How about you let me be the judge of whether I'm willing to assume that risk or not?

You also seem to think that the majority of gun owners have no idea how to handle their weapons. I can't speak for the nation, but of the two dozen or so people I know who own guns, all but one of them know how to clean, load, unload and accuratly fire their weapon.

Who are these "average gun owners" you know? They are vastly different from the "average gun owners" I know.

Out of curiosity, what sort of weapons do you consider a resonable response to risk, if any? Would it be more acceptable for me to walk around with a broad-sword? Perhaps some sort of tazing device? Your post seems to be directly in response to hand guns, yet your argument is based around your idea that so few of us will face situation in which we'll have to defend ourselves that carrying a gun isn't worth it. If this is the case, why single out hand guns?

[jpgray]

37. You don't understand correctly. My conclusion isn't "therefore people shouldn't have guns"

I'm just saying crime risk isn't a very valid justification for gun ownership.

[NeedleCast]

43. Perhaps not for you

but for some people, it's a very valid reason. You may be willing to assume the risk, but your implication is that because you don't consider it a valid justification, that everyone else should feel the same. I knew a guy in rural east Texas who carried a chain saw around in his car. I thought it was weird. Right up to the point that a tree fell across the one lane gravel road leading off of his ranch. Then I thought, that's a pretty damn good reason to carry a chain saw! As someone pointed out up-thread...you don't need to carry a hand gun right up to the point where you need a hand gun. Then it's awful handy to have.

I'll ask again...if you feel that the instances of needing a gun are so small, do you think people should carry any form of self defense? Pepper spray? Tasing device? Pocket knife? Any of these things can be turned on an unwary person. Why single out hand guns?

[karlrschneider]

27. Few houses burn down, therefore fire insurance is stupid.

Got ya.

[NeedleCast]

28. Polio is pretty rare now

why bother to immunize?

[jpgray]

31. Houses burn down, therefore they should be constructed of wholly fireproof materials

Reductio ad absurdum cuts both ways, and in either case brings nothing useful to the discussion.

[NeedleCast]

35. Why isn't it relevant?

Your entire argument in the OP seems to stem from your conclusion that because it's unlikely something will happen, one shouldn't take means to prevent or reduce the chance of it happening.

Later in the thread, you post that if the majority of the populace were to be involved threatened with damage to their person/property, that's the point where you'd consider the carrying of a hand gun as a means of self defense worthy of discourse. From that, one could extrapolate that you'd figure 50%+1 houses that are built need to burn down before you'd buy insurance that protected against fire.

[jpgray]

36. Because fire insurance doesn't prevent the fire. The gun is supposed to prevent the crime

Fire insurance doesn't -add- day-to-day risk to a house during the times where no fires are present, whereas carrying a gun around -does- add risk. Fire insurance doesn't allow a fire another possible opportunity to inflict damage, whereas if you carry a gun and get surprised by a mugger, that mugger is now a mugger with a gun. The two simply aren't very comparable.

[NeedleCast]

46. Fair enough

but I'm curious as to why you single out hand guns? If the number of situations in which they'll be useful as a crime deterrent is so small, I assume you would feel the same way about pepper spray, a taser, a pocket knife?

[wicket]

45. Nice one

:thumbsup:

[CT_Progressive]

29. How do you know that the legality of guns isnt what causes low crime rate?

Bend your mind around that one.

[jpgray]

30. How do I know my pen doesn't keep tigers away? There aren't any tigers around here.

[CT_Progressive]

32. You don't. Pens could be tiger repellents.

You'll never know unless you do a scientific analysis.

Kinda proves my point, eh?

[jpgray]

33. Right--barring evidence, assuming a causation there doesn't hold much water

[karlrschneider]

34. That you know of.

:P

[Tejas]

38. some of us prefer not leave it to chance.

"Violent crime is at an all-time low."

Even if that were true, which it isn't, it matters not. One & a half million violent crimes is still one & a half million violent crimes, just ask someone living in DC or Detroit.

FBI - Crime in the United States
1.36 million violent crimes in '04
1.39 ...................... in '05
1.41 ...................... in '06
(see a trend?)

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html

"For the average gun owner, therefore, carrying a weapon is not a reasonable response to risk, nor does it protect against that minute risk without adding significant risks of its own."

Airbags and seatbelts don't guarantee you walk away either. Me, I'd rather have them than not.

hope this helped.

[BlackVelvet04]

39. There really is no need for justification......

it's simply none of your business. Owning a gun is legal. Most states have concealed weapon permits that one has to go through a procedure for and thus is legal which again means it's none of your business and I, or any gunowner, don't need to justify it to you or anyone else. I have my own reasons for owning a gun, none of which are anyone else's business.

[jpgray]

41. No, I don't demand a justification, I just disagree with this particular one

[BlackVelvet04]

44. Unless you know a person's particular

situation as to where they live, what the actual crime rate is in that area, where they have to drive at night, etc. etc. your disagreement is based on a bunch of meaningless statistics.

[BBradley]

50. I agree, and it's good to see that more and more dems and liberals

are taking a realistic standpoint on this issue. Say what you will about militias , but the constitution as it's interpreted gives us a right to own weapons. If I want to own a god damned hand gun, who cares what my reason is. If I'm not committing a crime then mind your own business.

[NutmegYankee]

55. Best response yet.

I'm getting so sick of these threads.

My take:
So you don't like guns? I don't give a fuck.
Don't like 'em, don't own one.

I'm sick of these generalized threads always arguing in a generalized neighborhood that is low crime (read as Rich Republican Suburbia) while forgetting that many of us live in less than ideal places.

[CRF450]

52. Its one of the true honest reasons to own a hand gun.

Other reasons can be that its maybe just a hobby, just like it is for my brother, he likes to go out to fun ranges sometimes when he gets a chance.

Just because the crime rates are low doesn't mean it cant happen. But crime rates in my town of Elizabeth City NC has been on a slow steady rise. Life is full of surprises, and a surprise you can possible get is some mad man who can gun you down in a heartbeat.

Several month ago their was a shoot out in town about a 1/4 mile from where my brother lives. He stood up on his bed with his gun drawn and just stood their listening for anything or anyone rushing around the area of his house. In that neighborhood their used to be alot of good people 20+ years ago, now its turned into the ghetto, as is many parts of the city. Glad I dont live their.

[Irreverend IX]

53. The old "cops are highly trained" myth again.

Cops do not have godly skill with firearms that a civilian can never hope to achieve. Most cops are lucky to keep all their shots on paper at a couple yards' distance. Their firearm qualifications consist of shooting targets for half an hour every six months to a year. Half an hour of practice once or twice a year will not lead to mastery of a skill. SWAT officers do tend to have pretty intensive weapons training, but they are a small minority of police.

The average dedicated civilian shooter who goes to the range often is a much better shot than the average cop. Most cops train with guns because it's part of their job, not because they have a particular interest in shooting, while civilians train because it's a hobby they enjoy.

[jpgray]

54. Training to identify hostile situations and appropriate force

Not training to hit an X-ring--any idiot can do that. Your ability to hit a target well becomes moot if you have no training in how to properly identify the -right- target and assess threats properly. Cops do have training in that, and they fuck up all the time.