Kind of feel like I'm getting ganged up on here. Not that I didn't ask for it, but would be nice to have something like an electronic 12 gauge in situations like this. Just kidding, but yes I do own a couple guns, too. Still think something needs to be done in this country about gun control, and sooner rather than later.
Maybe not the complete story..... Here's a little balanced reading on this "SERIOUS Statistician" :
http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-liesk
I'm just saying how other scientists and statisticians view this guy, isn't overly favorable. He's not exactly picking the winning horse. It's kind of like backing the Scientist that skewed his data to make it look like Vaccines cause autism...Not the best of voices to listen to, on either subject.
Thanks for the link! That's a ton of reading, but will take a look at it.
I get it you don't like the message, but you really should read the book? In it he points out that places (like Florida.....) that 'weaken' their laws to allow law abiding citizens access enjoy a drop in violent crime... Good guys shoot 7 times more bad guys than cops. Bad guys fear armed prey, not the heat, just ask 'em. Prison surveys also back up Lott.......
OF
I hear you, and got the same from your previous post. But, think if you look you'll find most of the serious Lott supporters are people who agree with his what I would still call somewhat subjective analysis. And, please be careful with the kool-aid drinker bit. IMO, he's on the kool-aid now - not then.
I haven't read any of his books in their entirety, though I have read a good many excerpts and many commentaries from those who refute his theories. Maybe not the best perspective to battle him head on, but I think certainly enough for a discussion such as this. Whether some of his points or figures are spot on or not, the conclusion that more guns lead to less gun violence is not. That IMO is illogical. Even if only because of suicides and domestic homicides - though I would certainly say more. And, who said we need to take guns from law abiding citizens - even handguns if they choose to own them? What I'm saying - and have been saying - is that we need more restrictions in place and more responsibility from legal gun owners.
Number crunching aside, let's look at just one instance in Florida where this wasn't the case. Do you think Trayvon Martin would be dead if George Zimmerman wasn't carrying a handgun? I'm not even talking about the fact that he couldn't have shot and killed him (tho agree this is obvious and where it ended up). What I'm getting at is do you think Zimmerman would have tracked him down in backyards in the dark if he didn't have that Kel Tec confidence strapped on? I don't. And there are many similar instances in Florida and elsewhere where having your gun on you, legally, gives confidence and asshole-ishness that wouldn't exist if you were just carrying your Buck knife. How many people do you think are shot in bar parking lot fights that would never have occurred if someone didn't have the same confidence of knowing their snub nose is right under the front seat? I think you'd agree that many more similar instances of this occur daily. Where or how does Lott, or anyone else touting his figures, account for this?
Good guys aren't always the good guys when shooting, though many think they are. And, I think the reason they shoot more "bad guys" than cops is because the vast majority aren't trained other than from movies. There are times when deadly force is truly necessary. I wonder in how many of the 7 times more than cops, it wasn't necessary either. Even if the bad guys are truly bad, I don't think they deserve to die for it - or even be shot - most of the time. In Lott's eyes, none of this seems to matter. Somebody is stealing the gnome out of my garden? Shoot that bad guy in the ass! Seem fair? Not to me, but don't think we have to ponder too long to figure Lott's take on something like this. Or, am I attributing things to him that in your estimation would be reported differently in his statistics?
I hear you about bad guys fearing armed prey. I live pretty far out in the sticks, and know it would take troopers a good 10 - 15 minutes to get to me if they were really trying. That's why I'm armed. Not with a handgun, though. I don't believe in shooting to kill unless it is me or them - and unless you're taking out kneecaps in a gangster movie, or holding up a liquor store, that's about as useful as handguns get - fun though they may be to shoot. And, not like I feel like having a quick draw western style shoot out in my living room. Shoot to scare, shoot to stop, shoot to maim? Hopefully will NEVER come down to that, but if it does I don't want to have to aim. That's why a shotgun is my preferred home protection. And, if it doesn't turn them around and send them running, it will sure as hell slow them down enough to finish the job with the other chamber. Plus, I figure the distinct sound of chambering a load ought to be enough in most situations.
Not everyone on that list faced tanks, in fact most didn't. The Tutsi only faced machetes. Not all means of defense come from a gun cabinet, resistance takes many forms. Tanks don't like fire for instance...
Very true. And, that's why I asked what the relevance was to the discussion at hand. We're talking about what is wrong with AMERICA and gun control. You really think you, me and everyone way more armed to the teeth stands a snowball's chance in Hell if OUR government decides to do anything similar, and at least some - more likely most - in the military (with all the big toys) don't join us? The reason these genocides and other government killing sprees were able to take place with lesser weapons is that the citizenry wasn't as armed as they were - no matter the level of arms. If the government had small arms and the citizenry had small arms, they probably wouldn't even try to do it. And if they did, they wouldn't succeed. First rule of genocide is to have more firepower than your target. Think that's chapter one, page one of the manual.
What I'm saying is that people who claim we need our guns to protect against government tyranny (and not saying this is you at all) are lost in fantasy, be that driven by movies or believing we're still in the late 18th century. You're right, tanks don't like fire. But if you can survive a nearby nuclear attack in an Abrams (and supposedly you can), it's gonna take a Hell of a lot of molotov cocktails to even slow it down. And, don't forget those overwhelming numbers in Korea had some serious firepower behind them, with air support to boot, and still only managed a draw, not a win. There is simply no realistic logic in believing our personal weapons - especially handguns of all things - will be much more effective than rocks if shit goes down this way.
I'm not saying there isn't a place for handguns or that people shouldn't be able to own them. What I am saying is that there are solid, reliable things that can be done to mitigate the violence that comes from them. 3 days is not enough time to properly process a background check on handgun purchases. This has become obvious again with the Charleston shooting. The kid shouldn't have legally been able to buy a handgun, but snafus in the process, and having to complete the background check in 3 days, allowed him to get one. And, even if time limit is extended no gun should be sold until it is cleared by FBI (or whoever is doing the check). It shouldn't be a matter of, "If you don't hear back from us in 3 days, you're fine to sell it."
There is no legitimate reason in Hell someone should need to buy more than 2 weapons in a month, unless a legitimate collector or a licensed reseller. Only registered, very vetted and monitored individuals should be able to do so. And, if they get caught screwing around with it, that privilege should be revoked. If they sell weapons without going through the same process as any gun shop, and that weapon is used in a crime, they should be charged with conspiracy of that crime AND the illegal gun sale. Straw purchasers should be sent to JAIL, no probation, no second chance.
Gun show loopholes should be closed immediately! And, guns shouldn't be able to be transferred between individuals without submitting paperwork and going through a registered gun dealer (similar to what you have to do now for most internet/interstate purchases).
All handguns and rifled arms should have registered ballistic information in a reliable database. One stray bullet, or in most cases one on target, would be able to identify the weapon and who owned it.
A police report and at least cursory investigation should take place anytime a weapon is fired at someone (not on a range or for practice). This information should be in a national database listed by owner, and weapon serial number. You get caught not complying, you lose your right to own firearms - that one and any others.
There are more, but this would be a good start! I know some will complain that this is too restrictive and the government shouldn't be this deep in our personal gun business - but really how much is too much in the face of gun violence today? With so many people being killed and seriously injured by bullets something must be done.