liberal ding-dongs

[spacemanspiff]

so i got this friend who came up for a short vacation, shes from baltimore, going to hopkins, and we've had our debates before about every topic imaginable, including firearms.

her parents raised her with guns, so she knows how to use a rifle, has limited exp with a pistol, but knows gun safety. shes not against gun ownership, but she would like there to be more stricter regulations on what a person must do before purchasing a firearm.

we're talking about crime up here in alaska and shes trying to talk me into visiting her in baltimore. so i pull out my CHL and tell her "when your state reciprocates this, i'll visit you."
she asks what i had to do in order to obtain the CHL, if i needed to PROVE i needed it. according to her, the only people that are in any danger of becoming victims of crime are those involved with gangs/drugs, and the "occasional" domestic violence situations.
she says that "random crime" is a rarity, and is exaggerated by the media that seeks to propogate fear. (i asked if shes a michael moore fan, but she said 'no'....she sure preaches like he does though.)
she feels that society is at risk when people are provided with CCW's when they have "no need whatsoever" for it. she says we are 'living in fear'.
i agreed with her that yes, we are fearful, but its a healthy fear that keeps our sense sharp. its not paranoia that keeps us locked in our homes 24/7, but its a means to deal with the threats all around us.

she goes on to say how she gets her statistics from the NRA website, and how there are, get this!, "More accidental gun deaths than Homicides". she also says that "all defensive uses with firearms are merely anectdotal".

kinda weird, cause aside from being a liberal, she is quite intelligent. intelligent enough not to fall for my advances, anyways.

 

[BigG]

Hard to raise em oncet they're grown.

 

[Mark Tyson]

A quick check of the statistics from the FBI and CDC will show that accidental gun deaths are very low and dropping.

she says that "random crime" is a rarity, and is exaggerated by the media that seeks to propogate fear.

Then there's little to fear from responsible people owning and carrying guns, isn't there?

 

[Langenator]

Re: liberal ding dongs

For a second there I thought he was talking about Hostess snacks that had sprouted political opinions.

Dangit, now I'm hungry...

 

[Brigrat]

real numbers will prover her wrong, perhaps doing a little research, and presenting a good educated counter argument will not only convince her you are right, but convince her of other things as well

 

[Mark Tyson]

Mmmmmmm . . . Liberal Ding Dongs.

 

[spacemanspiff]

i will give her the links to the data i found at the CDC website, and it would be great to find a link to the actual DOJ study that shows there are anywhere from 1.5 million to 4 million defensive uses with a firearm each year.

anyone have that saved somewhere? all i can find is excerpts from it.

 

[Slimjim]

Now adays in the media, the only good news is bad news. Meaning, a story about crime will get you more notice then a story about someone stopping crime. sad world eh?

 

[artherd]

Ask her if she's ever heard of Poly Klass, and if she thinks Poly is an 'exagerated media scam' too.

Heck, let her talk to me.

I live less than a mile from Poly's house, both neighborhoods average around $600k for home prices (not a bad area at all. Very quiet and middle-class (for CA))

I KNEW her, we went to the same JrHighscool.


I may have known her in High School as well, but I never got that chance.


Now tell me, to my face, that Poly and I as ordinary citizens 'have no conciveable need' for a firearm. (a gun may not have guarenteed her survival, but it could have given her a fighting chance.)

 

[Standing Wolf]

...aside from being a liberal, she is quite intelligent...

I'll, uh... take your word for it.

 

[Wildalaska]

according to her, the only people that are in any danger of becoming victims of crime are those involved with gangs/drugs, and the "occasional" domestic violence situations.

Actually, and correct me if I am wrong, but she is probably right as the rate of stranger/stranger crime is very low...

Regardless spiff, ya should have started signin kumbaya and torn up yer permit. After the deed was done, ya could have gone back to the bad ol gun owner we know you are.

WildinvitemeoverAlaska

 

[spartacus2002]

As discussed in another thread on THR (I think), criminals are starting to figure out there is no money in robbing poor folks, but lotsa potential income from robbing rich folks in nice safe neighborhoods where there is no need to own guns because, hey, it's a nice rich safe neighborhood

 

[another okie]

"she says that "random crime" is a rarity, and is exaggerated by the media that seeks to propogate fear. (i asked if shes a michael moore fan, but she said 'no'....she sure preaches like he does though.)"

Well, that's kind of the opposite of what Michael Moore says. He says we have lots and lots of crime, which is caused by easy acess to guns.

Actually the statement quoted by her is correct, though obviously the word "rarity" is not precise. But the reply to that is to ask this: Who should decide whether I am at risk or not? Should it be a government bureaucrat or me? I am better situated to decide whether I need a gun than some idiot in Washington.

She does sound like an intelligent person who has evaluated the odds and thinks the odds are better for most people if there are more restrictions on guns. I disagree, and obviously you do too, but weighing the relative dangers is inherently subjective and cannot really be overcome by "facts." The problem is when such subjective evaluations are written into the law and control everyone.

 

[bfason]

it would be great to find a link to the actual DOJ study that shows there are anywhere from 1.5 million to 4 million defensive uses with a firearm each year.

It would be even better had the Department of Justice actually conducted such a study.

 

[Langenator]

The study was done by a criminal justice (or something like that) professor down in Florida, wasn't it?

 

[spacemanspiff]

well standing wolf, shes a post grad student at hopkins, and they dont take just any ol hillbilly....

wild, to me, any ratio of stranger/stranger crime is enough to justify being prepared. for me anyways, since i have zero social life, and few family members that i give a goddam about, all i really am at risk for is strangers attacking my fat savage butt.

okie, moore also goes on to say how crimes are exaggerated in the media, and even his own followers try to say that the media lies about the number of crimes that occur, so that they can continue making people more fearful, and this fear in turn drives more people to buy guns.
so his argument is that this country is full of gunowners who are paranoid about crime that doesnt exist. in one statement he related how higher income neighborhoods that are populated by whites have lower crime and higher rates of gun ownership. his contention though, is not that there is a connection between gun ownership and lack of crime, but that those higher income residents dont NEED those guns because there is no crime.
which is not only ironic in the surface sense, but it could be argued that he is trying to say that lower income areas need more gun ownership as well, thus contradicting himself with the whole 'more guns equal more crime'....
but i digress.....

i'll see what snippets i can dig up of the supposed DOJ study.....

 

[Zundfolge]

The study was done by a criminal justice (or something like that) professor down in Florida, wasn't it?

There have been several studies done on self defensive uses of firearms ... the first big one that gave us the "1.5 to 2.5 million" figure was from Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University read this: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

I believe John Lott also did such a study.

It would be even better had the Department of Justice actually conducted such a study.

uh ... hmm ... read this http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf

 

[bfason]

Thank you for the reference. Cook and Ludwig review studies conducted by others - not the DoJ - regarding estimates of defensive gun uses.

While Kleck and Gertz estimate that there are between 1.5 to 2.5 million and defensive gun uses each year, I find it hard to rely very much on that conclusion. The the range of one million right away speaks to the imprecision of the Kleck study. In their review of Kleck and Gertz and the NSPOF studies, Cook and Ludwig explore problems in attempting to determine the annual number of defensive gun uses. Little weight should be placed on any of those figures.

What if the most perfectly-designed, lavishly-funded study confimed the findings of the National Crime Victimization survey that there are "only" 108,000 annual defensive uses of guns? What would it mean anyway? That you no longer have the right to keep and bear arms to defend your own life, family, property and community? As Jeff Snyder asks in his excellent book,_Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control_, should your personal decision to own a firearm "be justified by the results of a rigorous statistical analysis of whether the benefits of gun ownership outweigh the costs of gun ownership and misuse?"

Kleck's numbers do not prove that guns provide protection, just as Kellerman's numbers do not prove that guns cause crime. "Kellerman's statistics merely establish that guns are often used in, and are very useful and effective for, homicide. Kleck's statistics merely establish that guns are often used in, and are very useful and effective for, self-defense. So it has been and ever will be. Only the numbers will change from year to year, state to state, county to county, culture to culture. It is we, however, who determine whether guns are used for good or for ill in our lives, not the guns."

 

[BigG]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...aside from being a liberal, she is quite intelligent...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'll, uh... take your word for it.

Snicker!

It's pretty hard to prove a negative, i.e., any deterrence will not show up in the numbers. Don't mean Mr. Horsespatoot didn't back down when met with a handful of aces.