There are about 215 million guns of all types owned by Americans. With our population of 300 million, this amounts to two guns for every three people. And with total murders in the US by gun annually, at just under eleven thousand, it is a fact that about one in every 21,000 guns is used to commit murder. And that is about as far statistically as the Brady Bunch & Co. are ever willing to go.
But wait – there’s more! According to wikipedia, there are 243,023,485 registered passenger vehicles in this country. Now, we don’t seem to have any statistics as to how many of those vehicles belong to multiple-vehicle owners, but then again, we don’t know how many of the guns belong to multiple-gun owners, either.
According to unitedjustice.com, there are about 42,000 automobile deaths in this country every year. This amounts to one automobile death for each 5,770 motor vehicles on the road. That is a rate FOUR TIMES AS HIGH AS GUN-RELATED MURDERS!
No one has a constitutional (or other!) right to drive an automobile. Everyone has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Automobiles are registered, inspected, controlled by speed and other limits, and darn near CONTROLLED to death! Automobile DRIVERS are trained, taught, examined, given road tests to determine their competency, and can lose their license for traffic infractions. And yet, the death rate for passenger vehicles is FOUR TIMES as high as the murder rate for weapons!
So, given the obvious abject failure of such over-regulation to control automobiles, why is the anti-gun crowd so anxious to control firearms out of existence? IMHO, the Brady Bunch, and the rest of the gun-haters seeking to disarm America would find their time far better spent trying to prevent automobile accidents, than trying to circumvent my Second-Amendment rights.
I’m pretty sure even gun owners probably spend more than four times as much time driving their cars than they do brandishing a weapon. If everyone used their gun for 5 to 20 hours a week I think you’d see those statistcs change drastically.
I carry . . . all kidding aside, I spend several hours a week at the range. But seriously, what has usage to do with anything? If twelve million people have CCW permits, and pack, why aren’t there more gun deaths, more murders, etc.?
<
p>
Also, why do anti-gun people use the term “brandish” when discribing display of a firerarm, and “show” or “exhibit” for all other objects? The first synonym in the Thesaurus for “brandish” is “threatening gesture.” If you are threatened by the sight of a firearm, you obviously don’t know very much about them, and are thus less qualified to speak to the issue than if you were more familiar with firearms.
<
p>
And in a final note, I cannot find ONE SINGLE STORY from the fair and balanced arch-liberal media discussing the story. Got any references? I had to get it from (Horrors!) the NRA, of all places.
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
… you’re kidding right?
<
p>
The amount of use a car gets versus the amount of use a gun gets and you can’t see that as having anyting to do with the 4x number of deaths?
<
p>
I think you are smart enough to understand this and are dismissing it in the hopes it will just go away. You do no service to your arguments by casually dismissing relevent information.
<
p>
And right… why would anyone feel threataned by the sight of a weapon? After all weapons arn’t supposed to hurt anyone right? BTW isn’t that implied threat of force exactly the mechanism behind the deterence you hope to create? So which is it? Are weapons supposed to create an implied threat and generate deterance or are we all supposed to just get comfortable with a general increase in potential lethality in the public sphere.
makes legitimate sense, unless you consider that you are not addressing the fundamental question: If between three and twelve million people are packing, why aren’t there more gun deaths?
<
p>
This is why I answered as I did; readily available weapons exist in our holsters, on our persons, and it is really easy for an individual to get upset at being cut off in traffic, forced into the median, and perhaps damaging his vehicle, all on account of some stupid in an SUV who needs to be driving ninety MPH, and forces you into an off-road excursion as a result.
<
p>
So why aren’t WE killing people at an alarming rate?
<
p>
Can you say “Reality-Based Responsibility?”
<
p>
Perhaps you could do a PhD on just why packers don’t kill more idiots more often. It would probably be more accurate ir you started with no foregone conclusions!
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
… to bolster your position. What I pointed out is that car accident rates don’t actually bolster your position.
<
p>
Thats it.
I used vehicle deaths to illustrate a point, not to “bolster a position.” The point is, regulation does not prevent death, now, does it?
Cars serve a very useful purpose that has nothing to do with threatening or killing people — they enable people to get from point A to point B much faster than they otherwise could. The fact that they are licensed, regulated, etc., helps keep the accident rate down, but of course it does not and cannot eliminate the fact that, despite all that training and regulation, accidents happen. If we didn’t have road tests, licenses, speed limits, rules against drunk driving, etc., the accident rate would be a lot higher.
<
p>
I would venture that the number of intentional killing with an automobile per year is no more than a handful. If you want to kill someone, there are much more effective ways of doing it than trying to run them over.
<
p>
So comparing the rate of deaths caused accidentally in the course of using cars for something else tells you next to nothing about the rate of deaths from guns, whose primary purpose is to kill (either animals or people).
<
p>
My own view is that there are good reasons to question whether current approaches to gun control are working, and whether we lefties shouldn’t be more open to a different approach. However, the death rate from automobile accidents simply has nothing to do with it.
little related to threatening or killing people. Different folks with differing statistics (DAMN! where do I send you to get reality about THAT?!?) illustrate that up to two and a half MILLION crimes are prevented each year by armed citizens. Between three and twelve million of us (original post citations apply) go abroad each day packing.
<
p>
My personal experience has required two defensive gun uses to date, to prevent MY life from being erased. (You could probably get book from some folks on whether that’s a good thing, but my wife and family are rather relieved.)
<
p>
Actually, the use of the vehicle illustration was a bit of a silly-illoqy on the gun issue, and it was with a large grain of humorous salt that I used it. But there is some seriousness to that use, given that, in spite of all you say, the over-regulation does NOT prevent MORE deaths from occurring. Automobile licensing and use regulation may be the SECOND LEAST-YIELDING type of regulation we have (next to WOESHA!), in recognized benefit terms.
<
p>
I maintain that gun control is in first place in that category!
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
Uh, Chuck? How, exactly, did you use your gun to prevent your “life from being erased”? I’ll answer my question: you threatened the guy who was threatening you. So argue all you want for the defensive value of owning a gun, but don’t pretend that defensive use of guns is “little related” to threatening or killing. It’s precisely because your attacker was threatened, and presumably afraid of being killed, that your defensive action was successful.
and then there’s THREATENING. My gun was not used to INITIALLY threaten anyone, it was rather used to prevent a threat by a gunman from becoming the reality of my death. Semantics notwithstanding, I do not perceive the two as equal. I perceive the first as a threat, the second as a counter to the threat.
<
p>
Probably, you have to experience the threat to understand the subtle difference. With respect, David, I have experienced the threat. It was almost as much fun as lockjaw, and a shitpotfull more frightening. I would not wish either experience on anyone.
<
p>
Hopefully, mon ami, you will never have to experience such a moment.
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
<
p>
Yeah, where do you get reality about that? Citation please.
Missing your post originally. Chalk it up to my developing cataracts . . . As to your query, Google up “Kopel,” or “John R. Lott.” Then, follow the sites.
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
yeah, i feel really safe that you’re armed. when you find you’ve shot someone because your cataracts lied to you about what the “perp” was doing, how will you take the bullet back? i can’t believe your level of irresponsibility. not only are you angry, but you’re visually impaired and you like to pull guns. i’ll enjoy reading about your sentencing hearing, when they throw you in prison for your twilight years for manslaughter. what effect will that have on your grand kids, do you think?
in our usual Monday Afternoon timed-fire playtime, I fired a credible 940/1000/80X. I did this in heavy-calibre handgun competition, using a .44 Magnum. This means that, using a pistol target that scores rings from inside-out, 10, 9, 8, etc., I hit the 10-ring 94 out of 100 times, 80 of them in the bulls-eye “X-ring” center section of the ring, which is small enough at 75 feet to appear larger than the front sight width on my .44 Magnum. I did not use a scope, or any magnifying device, just notch-and-ramp sights, with which my Ruger Super Blackhawk revolver is equipped.
<
p>
.44 Magnums are rather difficult to control, which is what keeps the competition limited to those who can.
<
p>
I can. Every one of my shots not only hit the target, but hit an area less than half the size of a human head. I can fire from the hip with results not much less than cited above.
<
p>
This is not to brag, this is to illustrate how little the Brady Bunch knows about gun control, which has less to do with regulation than with training, practice and experience.
<
p>
I would never fire a pistol except in a defensive situation, outside a 25-yard environment. And I would not miss. Nor would my mildly developed cataracts cause me to misjudge inordinately agressive behavior.
<
p>
I’m surprised at your willingness to judge with so few facts, Barrister. Hopefully, you do not do this in court?
<
p>
A fresh crow, dressed and packed in dry ice, is on its way to your office. I suggest medium-well, as overcooked, they tend to be hard to chew.
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
we’ve already reviewed why Lott is a liar and a fraud .
<
p>
While Dave Kopel (I assume that’s him) doesn’t appear to be either insane or mendacious, I don’t actually see anything on his home page about
<
p>
I have to admit that it’s not impossible that somebody somewhere published a peer-reviewed study sometime that would back up such a claim. Can you point me to it?
You seem to have problems with research. If you wish to argue, research is a good place to start. It tends to lend credibility to your POV.
<
p>
As to “peer-reviewed,” my experience is that that sort of belongs in weighty new mathematics theorems and new element discovery. Having worked in the area of the former is a bit of a help to me.
<
p>
I also think that, if someone backs his statements with research and positive conclusions supported either scientifically, or statistically, that is sufficient to the cause. This is why Lambert and that goofy Aussie have no credibility with the differently winged right.
<
p>
But, having been tasked with an uninvited request to do someone else’s research, I herewith provide a website you SHOULD use as a point of departure, as you will automatically deny them cred:
<
p>
http://www.nraila.or…
<
p>
You could also go to Google, and type in “Crimes prevented by armed citizens.” Works every time. Have fun.
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
I want to root for you sooo bad. I love guns. I look forward to owning and carrying them on my person in the future, but you make the worst argument ever invented for them.
<
p>
This really is all about usage. You carry a gun, great, but as far as using it…the times you’ve pulled a gun on someone (situations the police agreed with) twice in your years. THAT is usage. Now, assume that you had to pull a gun on someone 5-20 hours per week. Multiply that usage by 52. Now, are you going to tell me that in those 260-1040 hours per year that your rate of weapon discharge didn’t go up considerably given the circumstances of gun usage?
<
p>
Write a post about why you’ve pulled your gun on people justifiably. Write a post about how responsible you and your children (assumptions) are with them. Write a post about how important individual weapon ownership is to the identity of a nation that can fight back against a government if tyranny rules.
<
p>
Please, PLEASE! Don’t write a post about how we should be more afraid of getting into our cars than of someone who has Colt .45 pointed at us.
“Please, PLEASE! Don’t write a post about how we should be more afraid of getting into our cars than of someone who has Colt .45 pointed at us.”
<
p>
I hope you are not afraid to get in to your car. I also hope you are not afraid that some sunuvabitch is going to blow you away and take your daughters hostage, and rape and murder them, after they off you.
<
p>
I believe this blog is subtitled “reality-based.” Therefore, I will share that I am not afraid of any of the above, because I know, from experience, that I can stop the attacker. So far, I have been able to do that without killing him, but would I if I had no choice?
<
p>
You bet your ass! And that is what makes the difference. Where are YOU at with that?
<
p>
It is not necessary to be willing to defend yourself against folks that the police “should” be there to prevent them causing you harm. It IS necessary to both understand and internalize, that the police probably can’t do what you think they “should” be able to do. A chat with them would be most enlightening, I should imagine.
<
p>
Like most, I pack to survive, not hurt. I’ve been lucky to do that thus far.
<
p>
If it works, don’t fix it.
I notice that on Friday night, three teenagers stabbed someone in downtown Middleboro. No word yet on motive, but the victim will live.
<
p>
Imagine if they had access to one of the guns Chumpy wants to flood our state with. Think the victim would still be breathing?
<
p>
Of course, Chumpy would prefer that all four people in the conflict were armed and carrying — how many perps and bystanders would have been shot dead in such an eventuality?
NOT be armed. Problem is, they are.
<
p>
Are you? And if not, and you confront a perp who is, will you still be breathing?
<
p>
I was. I did. I am.
<
p>
Twice.
<
p>
Well, maybe the police will come and save you. Maybe if you just give them your wallet, they will go away and not bother you any more. Maybe if you give them both your wallet and your car keys, they will leave, and not hurt you.
<
p>
Maybe the sun will come up in the West. Have a nice evening.
<
p>
Best,
Chumpy
Because a regular guy only becomes a perp when he pulls the trigger, under your “guns-for-all” regime. So either you think “Minority Report” was a documentary, or you simply don’t care about that whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing. Giving out more guns means giving more guns to criminals too, or people who don’t intend to be criminals until hijacked by their emotions. You can have all the cops and guns you want, but somebody who pulls the trigger in an instant will end your life the same. You want a firefight you hope you can win; I don’t want any firefights at all.
A perp becomes a perp when he decides to cross to the wrong side of the law, and takes overt action to stay there. I don’t even know what “Minority Report” was, because I seldom watch films, as I consider them a large waste of time, but apparently it was a left-wing science fiction piece designed to inflame the liberal left, as so many Hollywood pieces of shit are these days. In your case, Hollywood seems to have achieved their purpose.
<
p>
I don’t know about all that crap you wrote about, but I do know that (1) there are bad people who manage to latch onto guns; (2) You can go google up statistics about crimes committed by CCW permit holders, and find that they are miniscule; (3) Permitted CCW folks stop more crimes than get committed (do your OWN damned research!) and (4) I have stopped two attempts on my life and property with a nine-millimeter stainless-steel automatic handgun, legally registered to me, and legally carried in pursuit of self defense.
<
p>
How about your experience, other than watching Hollywood fantasy?
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
You must miss the day when movies were only about fake cowboys shooting people with dark skin, so I’ll break it down for ya, Chumpy. Minority Report was based on a story by the same name of Philip Dick first published in 1956. So that would be, um, well before your librul conspiracy moved into Hollywood. Granted, it does advance the radically non-conservative idea that cops can make mistakes.
<
p>
I will repeat my point in the hope that you missed it, rather than ignored it: not all perps have guns, tv shows to the contrary. I offered the recent news item (which you ignored) about a guy in Middleboro who is alive because his attacker had a knife, instead of a gun. You’re looking to turn every casual criminal, emotional miscreant, and desperate druggie into a murderer with your effort to turn our state into a free-fire zone. Instead of a broken bottle or kitchen knife, yo uwant them to hold a gun! Awesome! How’s that working out in Cape Town, Rio de Jainero, or Tikrit? Those are three cities with tons of guns, and no real public safety. I know this is an emotional topic for you, the joy of having a powerful tube surge in your hands when you touch the right spot, but I don’t like the idea or urban combat, in Iraq or at home.
Since my semester wraps up in like 2 days and I’ll be back in middleboro all summer (shoot me, no pun intended) can you hook me up with a link to the stabbing thing?
The Middleboro thing was on the news (Google up “Middleboro Stabbing;” should pop up).
<
p>
Enjoy your summer. Get a tan. Chase girls — hard. Eat pizza for breakfast. Wash it down with beer.
<
p>
I did :-)!
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
You need help. I have indeed used a gun twice to disarm and hold for the police (who showed up as soon as the situation was well in hand), someone who wanted my car, or my wallet, or both, bad enough to shoot me.
<
p>
I have yet to shoot anybody outside authorized combat. And I don’t like urban combat either, which is why I am prepared to ward it off.
<
p>
And you?