Oh, here was me thinking the thread was about the evidence. Noteing Obama or whatever his 'ilk' is supposed to mean, I'm not interested in defending your straw man argument.

The combination of your evidence and mine show that firearms are both more often chosen and more likely to be successful than suffocation.

It makes sense that if potential suicides are less able to obtain a firearm that they will be less likely to successfully kill themselves. Pointing that out is not the same as advocating a total ban. If you have an arument that is about the evidence, rather than some proxy for what you believe to be the agenda of others, I'd be happy to see it.

One question, however, about using a gun in self defence is who is being defended against? And how often are they also using a firearm? Also, who is measuring the threat being defended against - could some of these 'defensive' uses actually be a result of unfounded fear leading to threat to use a gun?

does it really matter what the other person is using when defending yourself with a gun?
Self defense pretty much trumps all these other issues, we have a gun problem no doubt about it! But to protect yourself from a gun the best defense is ...having a gun yourself.

danivon wrote:Oh, here was me thinking the thread was about the evidence. Noteing Obama or whatever his 'ilk' is supposed to mean, I'm not interested in defending your straw man argument.

Your "straw man" complaint is a straw man argument. President Obama and his acolytes want to eliminate the right to bear arms. They can say whatever they'd like, but I watch what they do--and the consequences of their actions. It is still nigh-on impossible to buy 9mm ammo.

The combination of your evidence and mine show that firearms are both more often chosen and more likely to be successful than suffocation.

The numbers, I'm sorry, are fairly small. And, you've adduced zero proof that any currently proposed laws would reduce suicide. I am against suicide, obviously, but restricting the rights of everyone to make it more difficult is not the way to go.

I'm sure I could prove that many deaths are the result of easy divorce laws. Should we get rid of them too? After all, some parents get so distraught they kill themselves, their children, or both. Children are kidnapped as a result of child custody disputes. If we eliminated the no-fault divorce, those would be reduced.

We should engineer society to live in a way we believe is best for all, right?

It makes sense that if potential suicides are less able to obtain a firearm that they will be less likely to successfully kill themselves.

What number of people kill themselves within 24 hours of obtaining the gun with which they killed themselves? That would prove your case.

One question, however, about using a gun in self defence is who is being defended against? And how often are they also using a firearm? Also, who is measuring the threat being defended against - could some of these 'defensive' uses actually be a result of unfounded fear leading to threat to use a gun?

I go back to the case in Oregon. A woman's ex-boyfriend is pounding on the door. She calls 911 because she knows he's going to get violent. The cops, because of budget cuts, can't respond. So, the dispatcher tells her to do what she can--not to defend herself, but to cooperate and hope the man won't hurt her. He raped her.

If she had a gun, might things have been different?

I read instances every single month of intruders who either flee or are shot by people who could not defend themselves were it not for a gun. You can have your utopia. I'll cling, bitterly, to the Constitution.

You can poo-poo this, but I'd rather have a gun than some other defense against hatchets:

LAPORTE COUNTY, Ind. – One person is dead in what the LaPorte County Sheriff’s Department is calling a home invasion.

Deputies say Monday around 9:15 CST, the sheriff's department received a phone call from a homeowner who said his home had just been burglarized and he had shot the intruder.

Deputies arrived to the home in the 6700 block of County Road 1000 North.

Inside the home, they found the suspect dead with a single gunshot wound to the chest.

“When officers arrived, detectives and myself, we found one male victim deceased from an apparent gunshot wound,” said La Porte County Sheriff Mike Mollenhauer.

During the investigation, deputies learned the homeowner was asleep when he awoke to the sound of breaking glass.

He armed himself with a pistol and found the intruder in his home.

Deputies said the suspect was armed with a hatchet and during a confrontation with the homeowner, the suspect was shot in the chest.

The homeowner then called 911.

“We are still in the investigation to make sure that what he's telling us substantiates all the fact here at the scene,” said Mollenhauer.

The suspect entered the house after breaking a window in the rear of the house.

Again, we live in a country where we don't have to be victims. Your country can do as it pleases.

fate

Again, we live in a country where we don't have to be victims.

And yet you have more victims. And a higher violent crime rate than most countries with strict gun laws.
So guns effectiveness as prevention, measured on the macro level as an actuary would ... suggests it nets out negatively. .

According to the report, “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”

So the question is are the benefits of easy access to guns greater than the costs?

from the study:

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively.

This is an interesting claim. And i don't really doubt it. I'm certain there are lots of grumpy old men chasing "thugs" off their lawns ala Clint Eastwood.
But the question is why? Is it simply becasue they have their weapons that they decide to brandish them?
Does the mere presence of a firearm accelerate people resorting to their use? Is risky behaviour increased when people carry a firearm? is aggressive behaviour increased?
The actuarial numbers are quire clear that the presence of hand guns in a household will greatly increase the risk that someone in the household dies or is injured from a handgun.... So the probability is that the mere presence of guns, and particularly hand guns, will generate

Would George Zimmerman been out as a self appointed vigilante if he didn't have a gun with him?

rickyp wrote:fate

Again, we live in a country where we don't have to be victims.

And yet you have more victims. And a higher violent crime rate than most countries with strict gun laws.
So guns effectiveness as prevention, measured on the macro level as an actuary would ... suggests it nets out negatively. .

Stay in Canada. Problem solved.

According to the report, “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”

So the question is are the benefits of easy access to guns greater than the costs?

First, we don't have "easy access" to guns. In fact, it's easier to beat a drunk driving rap in the Commonwealth than to get a weapon.

Second, homicides include suicide, self-defense, etc.

Third, how many murders are committed with registered guns, possessed by the original owner who went through a background check?

Fourth, gun violence has been declining for decades. Even the great "assault weapons ban" had no effect.

rickyp wrote:from the study:

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively.

This is an interesting claim. And i don't really doubt it. I'm certain there are lots of grumpy old men chasing "thugs" off their lawns ala Clint Eastwood.
But the question is why? Is it simply becasue they have their weapons that they decide to brandish them?
Does the mere presence of a firearm accelerate people resorting to their use? Is risky behaviour increased when people carry a firearm? is aggressive behaviour increased?
The actuarial numbers are quire clear that the presence of hand guns in a household will greatly increase the risk that someone in the household dies or is injured from a handgun.... So the probability is that the mere presence of guns, and particularly hand guns, will generate

Would George Zimmerman been out as a self appointed vigilante if he didn't have a gun with him?

Stay in Canada. Zimmerman can't get you there.

We're not banning guns. We will have a civil war before that.

Fourth, gun violence has been declining for decades. Even the great "assault weapons ban" had no effect.

Crime generally has been in sharp decline across the western world since the mid 90s. It's an interesting fact in that while the figures are quite clear, the public perception is totally different. All the polling of people consistently points to a perception that the streets are getting more dangerous when the reality is the opposite.

Personally I'm a little suspicious of the figures for 'defensive gun use'. It strikes me as a very vague term and it can't be verified by any recorded statistics. Last time I looked into this all I found was a lot of studies with a fairly small sample where people were asked about their experiences that had then been extrapolated more widely to try and come up with a national figure. This kind of thing is fraught with potential for error, not least in the fact that it's not clear what the definition of a defensive gun use actually, or indeed how many of these situations could just as easily have been resolved without needing to draw a firearm. I'm guessing that an awful lot of them will be situations like, for example, two guys getting involved in a minor traffic accident, one of them comes out of his car yelling and cussing at the other one, who feels threatened and so he draws his gun to scare the other guy off. Technically this would be a 'defensive gun use'. Certainly it would be in the mind of the guy who drew the gun, and this is all that matters because he's the guy who answers the survey that the data is ultimately drawn from. It doesn't mean that it was a necessary use of that gun though, or that the situation couldn't have been quite easily resolved without it.

Obviously not all defensive gun usages will be like that, but I'm willing to bet that a large number, possibly a clear majority, would fall into the unnecessary category. Fact is that the overall figures for rape, robbery, burglary and other forms of crime are broadly similar in the US to those found in countries with stricter gun controls. I looked it up once and while I can't be bothered to do it again, what I found was that when you compare the US and the UK you find that some forms of crime are less prevalant than the UK but some are moreso. Overall there didn't seem to be a lot of difference. As such you do have to question quite what all these guns are defending against. Is it really that Americans are that much more criminal than Brits and the only thing preventing an outright crimewave is defensive guns ? I tend to doubt it. We're pretty similar people overall.

GMTom wrote:does it really matter what the other person is using when defending yourself with a gun?

I'm asking for background - are we seeing fear of guns prompting the use of guns as a deterrent, leading to more fear, and so into a vicious cycle.

Kind of like how a hundred years or so a go people were convinced that the best defence against battleships like the Dreadnought was more battleships like the Dreadnought...

GMTom wrote:Self defense pretty much trumps all these other issues, we have a gun problem no doubt about it! But to protect yourself from a gun the best defense is ...having a gun yourself.

Not a bullet proof vest? A knife at close quarters is probably more effective as a weapon.

Doctor Fate wrote:

The combination of your evidence and mine show that firearms are both more often chosen and more likely to be successful than suffocation.

The numbers, I'm sorry, are fairly small.

I make it, based on the figures you provided and the BMJ study, nearly 2000 extra deaths (that's using the adult rate of 6.5%). That may be trivial to you, in which case, what can we say?

Doctor Fate wrote:And, you've adduced zero proof that any currently proposed laws would reduce suicide. I am against suicide, obviously, but restricting the rights of everyone to make it more difficult is not the way to go.

I thought I'd been making it clear that I wasn't playing the 'proof' game, and was not defending whatever proposed laws (or the laws/measures you believe that the eevul Obama has up his sleeve) there may be. Enjoy the dead end...

Doctor Fate wrote:I'm sure I could prove that many deaths are the result of easy divorce laws. Should we get rid of them too? After all, some parents get so distraught they kill themselves, their children, or both. Children are kidnapped as a result of child custody disputes. If we eliminated the no-fault divorce, those would be reduced.

When people kill each other with the decree nisi you'd have a point. But if you want to make such a case, can I suggest the following:

1) Gather some evidence
2) start up a seperate thread on divorce

Doctor Fate wrote:

It makes sense that if potential suicides are less able to obtain a firearm that they will be less likely to successfully kill themselves.

What number of people kill themselves within 24 hours of obtaining the gun with which they killed themselves? That would prove your case.

I'm not trying to 'prove' anything, just to get the evidence out there (and if you like, help you to see it as something to consider, instead of attacking because it doesn't comply with your cosy worldview).

Before we get to your challenge, let's look at a wider statistic - is there a correlation between gun ownership and suicide? If other methods were just the same, you would expect not - people who are suicidal and can't access a gun would just use another method. However, studies show that gun access is linked to suicide - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923 - access to a gun increases the risk by up to 10 time the average.

But to your question - I can't find anything for 24 hours. What I can find is this - http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/245.full

BMJ wrote:A study using information from handgun purchase applications found that the rate of firearm suicide in the first week after the purchase of a handgun was 57 times as high as the rate in the general population.3 A study based on ATF trace data for suicide firearms in Wisconsin also demonstrated a sharp increase in risk of suicide within one week of firearm purchase.

. Can I get numbers? No. But it is clear that not only is having a gun correlated with a higher risk of suicide, buying a gun increases that risk by a factor of over 5 in the first week.

Doctor Fate wrote:I go back to the case in Oregon. A woman's ex-boyfriend is pounding on the door. She calls 911 because she knows he's going to get violent. The cops, because of budget cuts, can't respond. So, the dispatcher tells her to do what she can--not to defend herself, but to cooperate and hope the man won't hurt her. He raped her.

If she had a gun, might things have been different?

Sure. She may have been able to shoot him. Or, he may have wrested the gun from her, and shot her. I think the interesting part here is the "cops, because of budget cuts, can't respond" part. Quite why a dispatcher would tell someone not to defend themself I don't know (perhaps she could have used a kitchen knife instead).

Doctor Fate wrote:I read instances every single month of intruders who either flee or are shot by people who could not defend themselves were it not for a gun. You can have your utopia. I'll cling, bitterly, to the Constitution.

I think you are falling for bias. How do you know that they were unable to use another form of defence if the gun had not been there? No-one can be certain - particularly not from brief reports then hyped up second hand by activists - what would have happened if things were different. The assumption is also that people need to defend themselves from an intruder. Many times all burglars want is property, not to cause bodily harm.

Doctor Fate wrote:Again, we live in a country where we don't have to be victims. Your country can do as it pleases.

I do love your jibes. However, while you "don't have to be victims" in theory, your murder rate is about 4 times higher than ours, so it seems even with guns, you are more likely to be victims of murder.

danivon wrote:I make it, based on the figures you provided and the BMJ study, nearly 2000 extra deaths (that's using the adult rate of 6.5%). That may be trivial to you, in which case, what can we say?

I never said it was trivial. However, I'm confident I could find 2000 crimes that are prevented annually by gun owners. Is that trivial?

Doctor Fate wrote:I'm sure I could prove that many deaths are the result of easy divorce laws. Should we get rid of them too? After all, some parents get so distraught they kill themselves, their children, or both. Children are kidnapped as a result of child custody disputes. If we eliminated the no-fault divorce, those would be reduced.

When people kill each other with the decree nisi you'd have a point. But if you want to make such a case, can I suggest the following:

1) Gather some evidence
2) start up a seperate thread on divorce

No, because you don't care about evidence. You just said as much. There are plenty of "love gone bad" murders every year--many don't include guns. Children drowned in their bathtubs by their mothers--I suppose banning tubs would be a good start there?

Doctor Fate wrote:

It makes sense that if potential suicides are less able to obtain a firearm that they will be less likely to successfully kill themselves.

What number of people kill themselves within 24 hours of obtaining the gun with which they killed themselves? That would prove your case.

I'm not trying to 'prove' anything, just to get the evidence out there (and if you like, help you to see it as something to consider, instead of attacking because it doesn't comply with your cosy worldview).

So, we agree again: you don't care about evidence. Nice.

Before we get to your challenge, let's look at a wider statistic - is there a correlation between gun ownership and suicide? If other methods were just the same, you would expect not - people who are suicidal and can't access a gun would just use another method. However, studies show that gun access is linked to suicide - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923 - access to a gun increases the risk by up to 10 time the average.

Wait. That looks like you're trying to prove something???

But to your question - I can't find anything for 24 hours. What I can find is this - http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/245.full

BMJ wrote:A study using information from handgun purchase applications found that the rate of firearm suicide in the first week after the purchase of a handgun was 57 times as high as the rate in the general population.3 A study based on ATF trace data for suicide firearms in Wisconsin also demonstrated a sharp increase in risk of suicide within one week of firearm purchase.

. Can I get numbers? No. But it is clear that not only is having a gun correlated with a higher risk of suicide, buying a gun increases that risk by a factor of over 5 in the first week.

But, as always, is it the gun? Let's say guns are not available. Those people are suddenly going to want to live?

Doctor Fate wrote:I go back to the case in Oregon. A woman's ex-boyfriend is pounding on the door. She calls 911 because she knows he's going to get violent. The cops, because of budget cuts, can't respond. So, the dispatcher tells her to do what she can--not to defend herself, but to cooperate and hope the man won't hurt her. He raped her.

If she had a gun, might things have been different?

Sure. She may have been able to shoot him. Or, he may have wrested the gun from her, and shot her.

Sexist.

I think the interesting part here is the "cops, because of budget cuts, can't respond" part. Quite why a dispatcher would tell someone not to defend themself I don't know (perhaps she could have used a kitchen knife instead).

Or, flee out the back? Through a window? Any suggestion would have been better than what was actually said.

Doctor Fate wrote:I read instances every single month of intruders who either flee or are shot by people who could not defend themselves were it not for a gun. You can have your utopia. I'll cling, bitterly, to the Constitution.

I think you are falling for bias. How do you know that they were unable to use another form of defence if the gun had not been there? No-one can be certain - particularly not from brief reports then hyped up second hand by activists - what would have happened if things were different. The assumption is also that people need to defend themselves from an intruder. Many times all burglars want is property, not to cause bodily harm.

And, your bias is that there's always another way. Sometimes, there isn't.

I would venture to say I've spoken to more burglars than you. Here's what they want: an empty house. Those who go into an occupied home are not going in there just for the property.

Doctor Fate wrote:Again, we live in a country where we don't have to be victims. Your country can do as it pleases.

I do love your jibes. However, while you "don't have to be victims" in theory, your murder rate is about 4 times higher than ours, so it seems even with guns, you are more likely to be victims of murder.

I don't think that is correct. While our murder rate may be higher, it is nicely focused in areas with strict gun control and high populations.

Ok, now you are just being silly. I never said I don't care about evidence. I said I wasn't interested in your games of proof. What I said was I was interested in evidence (taking my cue from the original post)

Proof is not the same as evidence. Telling me I said things I categorically did not is lying. I'll leave you to your shabby behaviour.

Here's my problem with gun bans,
Yes, I know we are only talking about control but we all know this is a step toward banning assault weapons and then banning hand guns. I am no gun nut, I do not own one, do not want one, frankly, I am scared by the damned things!

That being said, stricter controls are not a bad idea! But how strict? Most liberal positions want far too strict controls and even those are first step controls and they want further and further steps. Assault weapon bans seem to be silly, we really don't have a problem with assault weapons, not in any real statistical sense anyways. Further, those who call for mental stability reports being accessed are being unrealistic. Having the government being able to access your medical files??? And if we allowed this, would we not then face a problem where people will refuse mental treatment if they fear government intrusion?

Further, Our British friends make some valid points. Our cultures are basically the same. Yes
But your near ban on guns may make sense over there, but on this side of the pond it's a whole different situation. You guys have almost always had strict gun laws and availability was always limited. Over here, colonists NEEDED their guns to defend against wild animals, to defend against people wanting to rob you (we had fewer police per mile of course!) to defend against the Native Indians, etc. We were raised on a gun culture and we have always had them readily available. Trying to now ban or vastly limit guns is simply not the same thing as doing it elsewhere. We have so many guns available illegally, if you make all guns illegal, then honestly, you really are empowering those who break the law in owning them! If I wanted to, I could easily buy a gun on a downtown street corner just as easily as buying drugs. Drugs are illegal yet they too are readily available. If we can't stop drugs from being available, how can we expect to keep guns from being available?

Best case situation, you ban guns, if banned long enough, the supply will eventually run out or get so expensive, obtaining one illegally will be hard to do? The problem there is it would take decades to do this and you leave people defenseless against those who do own them illegally. In some depressed urban areas, having a gun is absolutely required! I talk to some guys here at work who live in such bad areas, they talk as if it's only natural, EVERYONE needs a gun they feel. Sitting somewhere that has no such problem makes it very easy to say we should do what you do, you are frankly "ignorant" (I don't mean that in a mean way mind you) of the real situation elsewhere. And while our cultures are generally the same, maybe not quite so in these urban violent areas? We do have a whole gun/gang/drug culture that praises guns in songs and the way they grow up exposed to them! Can I ask if any of our Brit friends here have talked to people from US ghetto areas about guns? It would be an eye opening shock! Yes, nice touristy areas of US cities, nice and expensive areas of US cities, suburbs and even rural areas here have fewer problems with guns, but are we to ignore this section of society who feel the very real need for defense?

tom

Having the government being able to access your medical files???

So, you're okay with the NSA reading every email communication and phone calls, accordng to your defence of the Patriot Act .... but you draw the line at your appendicitis charts?

I don't know if states have these laws but known epileptics are barred from driving in Ontario... Doctors register these patients with the vehicle licensing branch in order to avoid having people prone to seizures behind the wheel....
It makes sense... no?
In the same way I'm pretty sure it makes sense to keep paranoid schizophrenics away from weapons.

But that would mean two things. registration and licensing of fire arms and firearms owners . Medical doctors having reporting responsibility for public safety concerns.. Other wise you don't have a workable system.

danivon wrote:Ok, now you are just being silly. I never said I don't care about evidence. I said I wasn't interested in your games of proof. What I said was I was interested in evidence (taking my cue from the original post)

Proof is not the same as evidence. Telling me I said things I categorically did not is lying. I'll leave you to your shabby behaviour.

And, I'll leave hair-splitting to yours.