You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Others Fear Being Placed at the Mercy of Criminals
by JOHN R. LOTT JR.
Hardly a day seems to go by without national news coverage of yet another shooting. Yet when was the last time you heard a story on the national evening news about a citizen saving a life with a gun?
Few people realize that civilians use guns defensively to stop about 2 million crimes a year, five times more often than guns are used to commit crimes, according to national surveys.
Last week, a police officer received national attention for stopping a school shooting in El Cajon. Where was the similar national news coverage when equally heroic civilians used their guns to stop other school shootings, such as the ones in Pearl, Miss., and Edinboro, Penn.?
Some of this lopsided coverage is understandable. An innocent person's murder is more newsworthy than when a victim brandishes a gun and an attacker runs away with no crime committed. Unlike the crimes that are avoided, bad events provide emotionally gripping pictures. Yet covering only the bad events creates the impression that guns only cost lives.
Even the rare local coverage of defensive gun use seldom involves more than very brief stories. Newsworthiness also dictates that these stories are not the typical examples of self-defense, but the rare instances where the attacker is shot. In fact, in 98% of the cases, simply brandishing a gun is sufficient to stop a crime. Research at Florida State University and at the University of Chicago indicates that only one out of 1,000 defensive gun uses results in the attacker's death.
Here are some of the 20 defensive gun use stories that I found reported in their respective local media in a single week, March 11-17:
* Clearwater, Fla.: At 1:05 a.m., a man started banging on a patio door, briefly left to beat on the family's truck, but returned and tore open the patio door. At that point, after numerous shouts not to break into the home, a 16-year-old boy fired a single rifle shot, wounding the attacker.
* Columbia, S.C.: As two gas station employees left work just after midnight, two men attempted to rob them. The sheriff told a local television station: "Two men came out of the bushes, one of the men had a shovel handle that had been broken off and began to beat [the male employee] . . . about the head, neck and then the arms." The male employee broke away long enough to draw a handgun from his pocket and wound his attacker, who later died. The second suspect, turned in by relatives, faces armed robbery and possible murder charges.
* Little Rock, Ark.: By firing one shot with a rifle, a 19-year-old man defended himself against three armed men who were threatening to assault him. One of them was treated for a flesh wound.
* Detroit: A mentally disturbed man yelled that the president was going to have him killed and started firing at people in passing cars. A man at the scene, who had a permit to carry a concealed handgun, fired shots that forced the attacker to stop shooting and run away. The attacker barricaded himself in an empty apartment, fired at police and ultimately committed suicide.
* West Palm Beach, Fla.: After being beaten during a robbery at his home just two days earlier, a homeowner began carrying a handgun in his pocket. When another robber attacked him, the homeowner shot and wounded his assailant.
* Grand Junction, Colo.: On his way home from work, a contractor picked up three young hitchhikers. He fixed them a steak dinner at his house and was preparing to offer them jobs. Two of the men grabbed his kitchen knives and started stabbing him in the back, head and hands. The attackers stopped only when he told them that he could give them money. Instead of money, the contractor grabbed a pistol and shot one of the attackers. The contractor said, "If I'd had a trigger lock, I'd be dead."
* Columbia Falls, Mont.: An ex-boyfriend is accused of entering a woman's home and sexually assaulting her. She got away long enough to get her handgun and hold her attacker at gunpoint until police arrived.
* Salt Lake City: Two robbers began firing their guns as soon as they entered a pawn shop. The owner and his son returned fire. One of the robbers was shot in the arm; both later were arrested. The shop owner's statement said it all: "If we did not have our guns, we would have had several people dead here."
* Baton Rouge, La.: At 5:45 a.m., a crack addict kicked in the back door of a house and went in. The attacker was fatally shot as he charged toward the homeowner.
What advice would gun control advocates have given these victims? Should they have behaved passively? Unfortunately, by making it difficult for law-abiding people to get the most effective tool to defend themselves, gun control often puts victims' lives in jeopardy.
John R. Lott Jr. Is a Senior Research Scholar at the Yale University Law School and the Author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2000)
Todd, that article seems to imply that there are only two camps: pro-gun and anti-gun. In reality, many people (including active gun enthisiasts) support the 2nd Amendment but also support reasonable regulation on gun ownership. In my opinion, those who want to ban all types of gun ownership are as extreme as those people who want an "anything-goes" right to weapon ownership. I think a sensible position is anything in between those two extremes.
There are countries where it is MANDATORY that each household has a weapon. I believe that the Swiss are required to have a fully automatic weapon in their house. They don't seem to have any problems with illegal use of guns though. I have mentioned in previous posts that criminals have no problem obtaining weapons. They can get them much easier than I can here in CA.
__________________ NISMOS / WORK VSXX/PILOT SPORTS/ BORLA/ GTM SHIFT KIT / VORTECH/ ROTORA/ HAWK/ DC /DEFI/KurumaZ
You want some other interesting statistics on gun ownership preventing crimes, take a look at the increases in:
1) murders by firearm
2) armed robbery
3) assault
in Great Britain and Australia after they both banned handguns. In both cases they experienced rapid increases in all violent crimes. Even gun crimes have gone up. After all, if you have to break a law to own a gun, and your are a criminal, you probably will, after all, its part of your job description (to paraphrase Terry Pratchett). Even worse, now a portion of your police, who have more than ever on their plates to deal with, are tied up enforcing gun loaws on otherwise law-abiding people.
Besides, if a pistol weighs about 2 pounds, and is worth $1000 in a place where they are banned, it becomes more valuable by weight than some drugs that people smuggle, and is smaller and easier to conceal (no "gun dogs)". Thus, if you ban guns, people will start smuggling them as soon as the prices goes high enough, which will be almost immeadiately.
The framers of the US Constitution clearly intended for Americans to not just have firearms, but military spec weapons available to them. There was a case early in the US history (I'd have to look up specifics to cite the actual names) about a man who had installed cannon at his fortified home. The state had ordered him to remove them, but the Supreme Court, after testimony from several of the Founding Fathers, upheld his right to own them.
As to the Swiss, yes they have automatice weapons in their homes since they are required to serve in their equivilant of the National Guard, and are trained in the use of such weapons.
Finally, the lowest violent crime rates in Europe are possessed by the Swiss and the Fins, who also have the highest gun ownership rates.
bahahha you beat me to the post on that one DrDrilZ.
*edit* WhoNeedsAnM3, there wasn't such a thing as military grade weapons when it was written. Somehow I don't think they'd want every tom, dick, and harry to have a fully Auto AK-47 or a RPG.
Originally posted by Poison123 bahahha you beat me to the post on that one DrDrilZ.
*edit* WhoNeedsAnM3, there wasn't such a thing as military grade weapons when it was written. Somehow I don't think they'd want every tom, dick, and harry to have a fully Auto AK-47 or a RPG.
which is why we have laws agaisn't those such weapons. what i don't agree with is trying to pass laws to further regulate what i as a citizen can get my hands on.
www.awbsunset.com is a great website for the fight and to make sure no other laws are passed which further restrict what we can and can't purchase. it also goes to show that how a gun looks does not mean that it's any more dangerous than the next.
fully automatic guns have been regulated since the 1940's and for good reason along with many other weapons which no one should have any use for. RPG's being one of them along with hand grenades and many other explosive devices. i'm a firm believer that this law is a good law.
i do believe the 2nd amendant is a privelage though as not everyone has the right to own a firearm (convicted felons and so forth) and i do believe that is a lot harder than what most people make it out to be to purchase a gun legally. i do believe that further regulation is not needed though.
Originally posted by Poison123 bahahha you beat me to the post on that one DrDrilZ.
*edit* WhoNeedsAnM3, there wasn't such a thing as military grade weapons when it was written. Somehow I don't think they'd want every tom, dick, and harry to have a fully Auto AK-47 or a RPG.
Warships, cannon and grapeshot pretty much counted. The founding fathers (or at least some of them) pretty clearly wanted the populace to have weapons parity with the government. I do think that modern weapons have changed the complexion of this, and that there is no justification for allowing WMD's, cruise missiles, and maybe even automatice weapons into the hands of civilians. All I was saying was that the 2nd amendment was hijacked. Instead of the restrictions being added as they should have been (by amendment), they were merely slipped in through a Supreme Court that no longer serves as a check on the other branches.
hey skooly you'r a lawyer - please point out to these NRA supporters that the gun argument is not about owning a gun, but about selling the guns on gun shows where anyone can get a gun without a check required by law otherwise.
As a woman I believe in home protection. Smith and Wesson .357 4 1/2 inch barrel does just fine for me...I know how to use it safely and I dare anyone to break into my home! Thanks for sharing those stories of people who defended themselves w/in their rights. I do believe, however, that the 7 day waiting period is a good idea, and that backgrounds should be checked carefully b4 someone can purchase a gun. Just my $.02
you didn't care to respond to my post about gun shows before, so i will post the same data back up here for everyone to read again...maybe this time we can have a discussion about it. Your facts are a little scewed, or at least your presentation of the facts...below is my posting in response to your first gun show post....
Quote:
Just a little side note in case you were not aware of it...the only sale at gun shows that goes without background checks are the sale of a weapon between one private citizen and another. Each state has different rules governing this sale. For example. In Ohio, we have a "free gun trade" policy, which means, that I as a private citizen can sell my firearm to any other private citizen without having to record the sale, license the new owner to the gun, and pay tax on the sale. The fact is that gun shop owners own guns themselves, i know this is a surprise. So if they choose to sell their private selection of guns at the shows to other private citizens, outside of their business, they are perfectly abiding by the laws of their state. No loophole and no problems.
Knowing this, how then would you propose to regulate the sale of privatley owned guns from one individual to another? You would have to change your states legislation first. Then, you would have to go after each person that made an illegal sale individually, thus knocking out the gun manufacturers all together, which is exactly who people want to blame for these types of sales. The bottom line is that if a criminal wants a gun, he or she doesn't have to go to a gun show to buy one. The true fact is that less than 1% of guns used in connection with a crime were purchased at a gun show. It is simply an intimidation tactic by those against our constitutional right to keep and bear arms to argue that all of these criminals are getting their guns at gun shows. Take a look at what the department of justice concluded...
I am not opposed to background checks. Quite frankly, I am not so sure about Vermont's CCL laws. It makes it all the more difficult for an officer to identify whether a person carrying is a cirminal or not. So let me carify quickly. I am not opposed to background checks for people purchasing firearms from a dealer. They can do it over the phone. I DO however, support the PRIVATE sale of firearms from one law abiding citizen to another without the intervantion of government in any way. Note that I said law abiding citizen. If I have a gun that I want to sell my friend, I shouldn't have to pay to have a criminal background check run on him and then get the police involved in the transaction. All that would do is waste the state's time and money, as the criminals aren't going to bother to follow the law to begin with.
So to summarize...I have no problem with background checks when the firearm is being purchased from a dealer...I DO have a problem with any sort of regulation about the private sale of firearms from one law abiding citizen to another.
>> I've always interpreted the 2nd amendment to defend states' rights, not individual rights, but that's just me.
The bill of rights is about individual rights, not states' rights.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It just says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as it happens to be necessary to the security of a free state.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
you didn't care to respond to my post about gun shows before, so i will post the same data back up here for everyone to read again...maybe this time we can have a discussion about it. Your facts are a little scewed, or at least your presentation of the facts...below is my posting in response to your first gun show post....
EDIT:
I am not opposed to background checks. Quite frankly, I am not so sure about Vermont's CCL laws. It makes it all the more difficult for an officer to identify whether a person carrying is a cirminal or not. So let me carify quickly. I am not opposed to background checks for people purchasing firearms from a dealer. They can do it over the phone. I DO however, support the PRIVATE sale of firearms from one law abiding citizen to another without the intervantion of government in any way. Note that I said law abiding citizen. If I have a gun that I want to sell my friend, I shouldn't have to pay to have a criminal background check run on him and then get the police involved in the transaction. All that would do is waste the state's time and money, as the criminals aren't going to bother to follow the law to begin with.
So to summarize...I have no problem with background checks when the firearm is being purchased from a dealer...I DO have a problem with any sort of regulation about the private sale of firearms from one law abiding citizen to another.
I must have missed your other post. I did not know about the data you presented - and I hope it’s valid. My argument comes from different politicians giving interviews where they are arguing how numerous attempts to put the gun shows under the law that would require checkup is voted down over and over again thanks to NRA lobbyists. And the law suit against manufactures is directed at those specific segments of gun shows where NRA members (gun manufacturers) are excluded from background checks (this is again according to how I understand the argument per various interviews and rallies on TV)...
Personally - I do not care if you have a tank in your house as long as the person having it is not criminal or has violent tendencies.
>> Todd, that article seems to imply that there are only two camps: pro-gun and anti-gun. In reality, many people (including active gun enthisiasts) support the 2nd Amendment but also support reasonable regulation on gun ownership. In my opinion, those who want to ban all types of gun ownership are as extreme as those people who want an "anything-goes" right to weapon ownership. I think a sensible position is anything in between those two extremes.
I don't think anyone is for "anything-goes." Anyone who commits a crime using a gun should be punished severly for it. For something to be reasonable, it has to be effective. This is the most effective use of our taxpaying dollars to prevent crime and save lives. It's reasonable legislation. There's nothing extreme about it.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
Originally posted by nbdyfcnsqnc >> I've always interpreted the 2nd amendment to defend states' rights, not individual rights, but that's just me.
The bill of rights is about individual rights, not states' rights.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It just says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as it happens to be necessary to the security of a free state.
I understand but I interpret the 2nd amendment to defend states' rights to maintain a militia (or some such public force), and that standing armies (in the federal government sense) were a threat to liberties and freedoms. It's a check on the power of federal government.
Originally posted by skooly Todd, that article seems to imply that there are only two camps: pro-gun and anti-gun. In reality, many people (including active gun enthisiasts) support the 2nd Amendment but also support reasonable regulation on gun ownership. In my opinion, those who want to ban all types of gun ownership are as extreme as those people who want an "anything-goes" right to weapon ownership. I think a sensible position is anything in between those two extremes.
I'm an anything goes type. You want a tank...buy one.
But I am also in favor of:
a) Extensive registration of firearms, AT LEAST at the level of homes, cars, boats, and planes. Each firearm should have a distinct, clearly identifiable owner.
b) Strict liability. If your gun kills someone, you get to be responsible. If it was stolen, YOU should have safeguarded it. The military takes GREAT measures to safeguard its arms. Why should you be allowed to leave your gun lying on the coffee table.
c) Hard time for gun offenses.
d) Psychological and marksmanship testing. You don't hand a driver's license to just anyone. Why should just anyone have a gun?
e) Gun locks. Doesn't this make sense? Every gun should have an armory when it is not in use.
I like the idea of an armed populace, both for the resistance of foreign invaders, and to keep our politicians honest. With the patriot act, Lincoln's oppression, and FDR's suspension of civil liberties in wartime, it's not hard to envision our government becoming an oppressive dictatorship.
Rome, Germany, and Italy were all Republics before a dictator took over. It can happen here, and when and if it does, I'd like to think we could resist it.
Plus tanks are cool. I'd love to have one (and a MIG) in my backyard someday. If I don't bomb anyone, what difference does it make?
Pete (is admittedly juvenile but it's so endearing, don't you think)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
"I understand but I interpret the 2nd amendment to defend states' powers to maintain a militia (or some such public force), and that standing armies (in the federal government sense) were a threat to liberties and freedoms. It's a check on the power of federal government."
Only individuals can have rights. States don't really have rights, but powers, like the federal government. (But I know people write that all the time.)
Even without this extraneous check on power and statement of our individual rights, we have the right to keep and bear arms as long as we don't use them to threaten others, and as long as we only use force in self-defense.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
A gun debate
