Jump to content
As a DP proponent, it has no deterrent value for those the media lavishes the most attention on: DC snipers, marathon bombers, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Ft Hood, Va Tech shooters, etc. Whackjobs and zealots are gonna to what they do. All the more reason for the rest of us to armed.
Given Robert's belief in who women are likely to be vulnerable to, and his rhetorical “So, what do the law abiding people need guns in their house for?”, one wonders which of these two women he believes behaved inappropriately.
911 caller unarmed
911 caller armed
Worth noting that Mrs. Jackson (caller #2) is on the phone for 10 minutes pleading with the dispatcher to send help so she wouldn't have to do the unthinkable. But when seconds count, the police are minutes away. In the end, the authorities couldn't help. Her son the cop was powerless. Her big protective dogs didn't deter the intruder. If you & yours choose to live as prey, knock yourselves out. If you wish to impose that choice upon me, I have a two-syllable reply which decorum prevents me from disclosing to you here. And if this demonstration doesn't answer Robert's rhetorical, it cannot be explained.
You write: “...the pro gun crowd hangs onto the 2nd amendment as if it is a real threat that "the British are coming" or "Obama is coming". That argument doesn't hold water at all...” Another ridiculous canard. It's clear you believe in some of the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights, but not all of them. More power to you. But painting people like me as right wing militia whackjobs only underscores how ignorant you are of (or how little you regard) the values spelled out in the Second Amendment and Federalist 46 – which explains, I suppose, your derisive characterization of people like me.
You write: “So, what do the law abiding people need guns in their house for?” You can find that answer in the Bill of Rights; specifically the Second Amendment. Further, your assertion that “...80% of the people that are killed know their killer...” is misleading in terms of self/home defense. As Wiki points out: “”Few statistics are available on the crime of home invasion as such, because it is not defined as a crime in its own right in most jurisdictions. Statistics about home invasion found on the Internet are often false or misleading. Persons arrested for what the police or media may refer to as "home invasion" are actually charged with crimes such as robbery, kidnapping, homicide, rape, or assault.”
Additionally, there are no reliable stats available on defensive gun use (DGU) in general. The estimates range from 100,000 annually (according to the NCVS) to 2.5 million (according to researcher John Lott). Lott asserts that 98% of DGU are instances in which the gun is brandished but not fired, and no one is injured as a result (I have been personally involved in 2 such episodes). Those instances are frequently not reported, are not included in official statistical analyses, & receive no media coverage. But let's assume the low-end NCVS number is accurate. Would you have preferred that the victims (including me) in those 100,000 incidents had been been unarmed? If so, why?
Robert – addressing your points, in no particular order:
You used the horrific event in Stagecoach to assert, in very knee-jerk fashion, that "...the majority of homicides are people killing family members..." That's what's disingenuous because it's simply not true. Given that those on your side of the issue have been pushing that canard based on nothing more than Kellerman's deeply flawed survey, it's impossible not to view those espousing the argument as disingenuous at worst and ignorant at best.
As far as assailants knowing their victims, so what? In the vast majority of gang killings, the killers are known to their victims. Andrea Yates was known to all 5 of her kids. The DC snipers, on the other hand, were unknown to their 13 targets. It's a meaningless metric.
You write: “I believe that people especially women are much more likely to be killed by a family member (man) than they ever would be an intruder. ”
Your belief (and mine) is irrelevant absent anything to back it up. Let's look at women: The most relevant data I'm able to find comes from the FBI and the Justice Dept's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The FBI (from which the NCVS seems to derive its information on this particular subset) doesn't break down girlfriends killed by boyfriends, but does collate wives killed by husbands. 4.6% of all murders in 2010, or .0009% of all women in America. The FBI does not disclose the murder weapons used in that 4.6%.
Attacks on women overall: the NCVS finds that the probability of serious injury or death via aggravated assault is 2.5x greater for women who offer no resistance v. those who resist with a gun. From which I arrive at the following perspective: while both men & women benefit from gun ownership, the advantage for women is especially pronounced. Given that the vast majority of assailants are men, the physical advantage weighs heavily in favor of the attacker. Having a gun therefore makes a bigger relative difference for a woman than a man. So: Women, arm yourselves!
I've seen the summary you've linked to and there's nothing in it with which I disagree. But citing it in conjunction with the Stagecoach tragedy absent any context seems a little disingenuous.
You don't want to debate, yet here you are deriding the Founders (& presumably the 2nd amendment) as anachronisms. Whatever. More to the point, the Supreme Court agrees with me, and not with you and Mr. Blackett Jr:
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
I'd like to see Robert furnish some data in support of his assertion, but
a) I suspect he has none and is merely parroting a popular and erroneous talking point, and
b) I believe I may know from whence that talking point was derived.
As the NYT regurgitated again this year: “But there is a more fundamental problem with the idea that guns actually protect the hearth and home. Guns rarely get used that way. In the 1990s, a team headed by Arthur Kellermann of Emory University looked at all injuries involving guns kept in the home in Memphis, Seattle and Galveston, Tex. They found that these weapons were fired far more often in accidents, criminal assaults, homicides or suicide attempts than in self-defense. For every instance in which a gun in the home was shot in self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides, four accidental shootings, and 11 attempted or successful suicides. ”
The Kellerman study is so admired by the left that its very questionable methodology is never mentioned (but was nonetheless pointed out by the New England Journal Of Medicine a year after Kellerman released his “findings”). Here's how they arrived at that particular conclusion: whenever someone was shot to death in or near their home, Kellerman & Co would ask family members if a gun had been kept in the home. If the answer was yes, it was assumed that very same gun was the murder weapon - whether it was or not. Of the 444 cases cited in the study, there were only 8 in which “the investigating officer specifically noted that the gun involved had been kept in the home.” 8 out of 444. .018%. But one should never let the facts corrupt an agenda.
The windy city celebrates the holiday weekend with 6 dead & 22 wounded (so far). Clearly, authorities need to fund a public information campaign - the perpetrators appear curiously unaware that guns are banned in Chicago. Once apprised of the law, these illegal weapons will be abandoned and the violence will stop.
Boise's a great place to raise kids, and your paychecks'll go a lot further. Best to you and your family; you'll be missed.
Flouridation: the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face, to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.
Bill - there are 9 sanctuary cities in CO. Should the elected officials in those jurisdictions resign? If not, why?
Last login: Thursday, June 13, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.