Suicide is more common in places with more guns

[LeafByNiggle]

A study ordered by the CDC (of current news about the virus) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and The National Research Council in 2013 found that “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence.” Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive use by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

What counts as a “defensive use of guns?” If some kids are vandalizing trash cans or mailboxes, and a homeowner goes out and brandishes a weapon and they all run away, does that count? Were any lives saved? Before we can apply this statistic to a quantitative cost/benefit analysis, we need to know what the benefit is, not just how many times someone said they used their weapon defensively. I don’t think we can assume that innocent lives are saved every time a gun is used in a manner that one might report as a defensive use.

 

[farronwolf]

Let’s not go to extremes.

If someone is pulling a gun on kids messing up trash cans that is not a defensive use of a gun. Most places that will get you thrown in jail for a bit.

I have carried a gun every day for about 15 years and never pulled it once. Most of the people I know who do the same have not had to either. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Just that folks aren’t out there pulling them for stupid reasons.

 

[otjm]

What counts as a “defensive use of guns?” I

Defensive use of guns can be from reaching back to get a weapon (for someone, e.g. with a concealed carry permit) to firing in self defense.

If some kids are vandalizing trash cans or mailboxes, and a homeowner goes out and brandishes a weapon and they all run away, does that count?

No. Not according to self defense laws in any state I am aware of.

Were any lives saved? Before we can apply this statistic to a quantitative cost/benefit analysis, we need to know what the benefit is, not just how many times someone said they used their weapon defensively. I don’t think we can assume that innocent lives are saved every time a gun is used in a manner that one might report as a defensive use.

That is entirely possible that some people would not say that they have used a gun defensively, and did; and some people might, in an interview say they did, and didn’t. Some of that at least could be sorted out by the interview. There are, however, many reported cases, including those where an armed individual either was attempting a robbery or had broken into a private residence. Sometimes the criminal will surrender when confronted; sometimes they flee; some times showing the gun is sufficient to prevent completion of the crime, sometimes the criminal is shot; some die, some are wounded.

One of my brothers, and in another incident a friend of mine were approached on a street in a threatening manner. Both reached back; my brother did not draw but upon reaching back the two people threatening him immediately fled. My friend did not draw as he had no weapon; the individual also immediately fled.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So…You don’t really know for sure what was counted in the statistic on defensive uses. How can you estimate the benefit of guns?

 

[jeannetherese]

Statistics are not the only source of information.
Qualitative research, involving interviews or personal accounts is also considered valid research-by research universities.

 

[otjm]

The first benefit of a gun may be that one has a means of self defense if needed.

 

[Catholic_Guy1]

When push comes to shove in places with government oppression, the citizenry that is unarmed cannot take back the power from the government.

They throw rocks and don’t stand a chance against an armed government.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Statistics are not the only source of information.
Qualitative research, involving interviews or personal accounts is also considered valid research-by research universities.

Well, that certainly does not describe the anecdote by an anonymous Internet poster that I cited above. And even when anecdotes are well-researched, they are no substitute for statistics when forming public policy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

When push comes to shove in places with government oppression, the citizenry that is unarmed cannot take back the power from the government.

They throw rocks and don’t stand a chance against an armed government.

Even with the 2nd Amendment, the citizenry in a place like the US doesn’t stand a chance against the combined forces of the US military, State National Guard , State police, and city police. There safer and more effective ways to change government, as I hope we will see in November.

 

[farronwolf]

Catholic_Guy1:

When push comes to shove in places with government oppression, the citizenry that is unarmed cannot take back the power from the government.

They throw rocks and don’t stand a chance against an armed government.

Even with the 2nd Amendment, the citizenry in a place like the US doesn’t stand a chance against the combined forces of the US military, State National Guard , State police, and city police. There safer and more effective ways to change government, as I hope we will see in November.

This is based on a false assumption that the members of the military/guard/police will simply follow orders.

If orders are given to take action against the populace as a whole there are some in those groups that would follow them, but most would not.

Orders are only to be followed if they are lawful.

 

[jeannetherese]

And even when anecdotes are well-researched, they are no substitute for statistics when forming public policy.

Stuff and nonsense. Even now, medical staff are interviewing those showing up at hospitals, and asking them to describe how they are feeling and what has been happening in their lives recently: their comings and goings.
The anecdotes they collect become the statistics you are touting.
Many statistics are derived from anecdotes.
Qualitative research and quantitative research are both respected in universities as forms of research and are often linked-sometimes quite obviously and other times less so.
Either together or separately, they can form a basis for public policy.

 

[jeannetherese]

Indeed, we’ve witnessed several quiet revolutions over the past decades in which citizenry with less firepower have rearranged political systems.
And, without taking a side in the matter, one can see how neither the Russians nor the United States, both respected for their military might, have been able to exert and maintain dominance in Afghanistan. (or several other countries.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is based on a false assumption that the members of the military/guard/police will simply follow orders.

If orders are given to take action against the populace as a whole there are some in those groups that would follow them, but most would not.

Orders are only to be followed if they are lawful.

If that is the case, then those well-trained and well-armed police and State militias will be a lot more effective than a random assortment of unorganized citizens with civilian weapons. If the official police need civilian help, they can recruit from the citizenry and give them superior weapons. However this whole nightmare scenario would take months to develop, if not years. It won’t happen tomorrow. And in a nation like ours, it is an extreme long shot.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The anecdotes they collect become the statistics you are touting.
Many statistics are derived from anecdotes.

When they are collected in an unbiased manner from a large group , anecdotes become statistics. But when cherry-picked to prove a pre-existing biased position, an anecdote or two or three are just anecdotes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Indeed, we’ve witnessed several quiet revolutions over the past decades in which citizenry with less firepower have rearranged political systems.
And, without taking a side in the matter, one can see how neither the Russians nor the United States, both respected for their military might, have been able to exert and maintain dominance in Afghanistan. (or several other countries.)

That’s resisting a foreign adversary, not your own democratically elected government. Remember, if you couldn’t even get a majority of people to vote out the “scoundrels”, chances are that half of the armed citizenry is going to be on the side of the government and fighting against your revolution.

 

[farronwolf]

Ok, so those well armed police and militias. Most of them are using some form of the AR platform and several options of handguns.

How many AR’s are in the hands of the rest of the population? A whole, whole bunch.

They can recruit from the civilians they are trying to suppress? Really. BTW, police are civilians. They can walk away from their job at any time without repercussion. The military/guard are not civilians. If they walk away from their job, they are AWOL and subject to imprisonment.

Again under any of these scenarios you are assuming that the police will follow orders to put down the citizenry which they are part of. Not really going to happen. I can tell you the cops that I know certainly aren’t going to follow orders to round up the people in this town in mass.

Please refer to jeannetherese’s thread about how things work when trying to suppress a society that has no desire to be suppressed. Didn’t/hasn’t worked in the middle east. Certainly didn’t work in Vietnam, and as we are an example of it certainly didn’t work for England during the founding of this country.

A lot of these scenarios sound really good on paper, but when the bullets start to fly and blood starts to spill, sometimes the paper plan just gets tossed in the trash.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Ok, so those well armed police and militias. Most of them are using some form of the AR platform and several options of handguns.

How many AR’s are in the hands of the rest of the population? A whole, whole bunch.

And half of them are going to be fighting against you and siding with the government. Remember, we have a democratically elected government and supposedly “your side” in this “revolution” already tried and failed to vote out the scoundrels.

Again under any of these scenarios you are assuming that the police will follow orders to put down the citizenry which they are part of. Not really going to happen.

And under the scenarios that you are assuming, all of the citizenry is going to be united against the government. Not really going to happen.

Please refer to jeannetherese’s thread about how things work when trying to suppress a society that has no desire to be suppressed. Didn’t/hasn’t worked in the middle east. Certainly didn’t work in Vietnam, and as we are an example of it certainly didn’t work for England during the founding of this country.

And in all those places where it didn’t work, the government was not democratically elected.

 

[farronwolf]

Not certain where you live, but where I live in East Texas, yours is a dreamers scenario.

In other parts of the country might it happen, not certain, but I doubt it. The more rural the area the less likely.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not certain where you live, but where I live in East Texas, yours is a dreamers scenario.

In other parts of the country might it happen, not certain, but I doubt it. The more rural the area the less likely.

Even in East Texas, I think you are dreaming if you think all the gun owners will take up arms against a government that they could not defeat at the ballot box. The rest will take up arms in defense of that government, if it came to all-out civil war.

 

[Aquinas11]

Even with the 2nd Amendment, the citizenry in a place like the US doesn’t stand a chance against the combined forces of the US military, State National Guard , State police, and city police.

those well-trained and well-armed police and State militias will be a lot more effective than a random assortment of unorganized citizens with civilian weapons

If the official police need civilian help, they can recruit from the citizenry and give them superior weapons.

Wow you’ve just conceded that the citizenry (with inferior “civilian weapons”) needs to be given access to far more “superior weapons”, in order to be capable of defense against government and thus fulfilling the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

I think you are dreaming if you think all the gun owners will take up arms against a government that they could not defeat at the ballot box. The rest will take up arms in defense of that government, if it came to all-out civil war.

Not to mention that the citizenry may have to defend against the government and pro-government citizenry! Further evidencing that the citizenry require more superior weapons. You’re actually now saying citizenry require greater weaponry than mandated by the 2nd amendment, since they need to defend against the government and pro-government citizenry!