NRA reasoning

[buttercup]

The NRA's main line of reasoning is, given the police are always at least twenty minutes away, citizens need to be able to defend themselves against intruders /robbers, using their own resources. In other words, the ordinary innocent citizen needs a gun.

Has anyone seen any actual statistics on the number of ordinary people who have in fact successfully defended themselves, with a gun, against an intruder /robber?

I can see the statistics being quite favourable when only the householder has a gun.

But the NRA position, very clearly, is that the robbers always do have guns. The reason the householder has to be armed, is so that he/she can take part in a gunfight with the robbers, on an equal footing.

The NRA position is that the householder, being armed with a handgun, can take part in a gunfight, and can have a good chance of winning.

Now, such a favourable outcome must occasionally have happened, in the whole history of the world. But it's the cornerstone of the NRA policy, so presumably the NRA can prove that it has happened time after time.

Presumably, the NRA executive and members have studied these statistics, and have have found them highly convincing. So, why don't they publish the statistics, and convince the rest of us?

Now, I can remember several news items where a householder shot and killed what he thought was a robber, but it turned out to be an (unarmed) innocent person, even a loved one.

But I never have seen a news item where a householder took part in a gun fight with armed intruders /robbers, and won.

That's not to say it never happened. Perhaps such a result is so commonplace that it's not news (but can you imagine yourself killing the robbers in a gunfight, and the newspapers don't bother to report it?) -- or perhaps it has never happened.

Over to you, NRA. The statistics must be available /derivable. Of all the gunfights that actually have taken place (in recent years) between armed robbers and armed householders, what percentage of these gunfights have been won by the householders?

 

[lenharper]

The standard response seems to be that these events happen all the time but because it doesn't fit with the LIBERAL media's AGENDA it goes unreported. So it is standard CRAZY PERSON reasoning.

 

[dtjohnst]

The reason the NRA argument carries any weight at all is because of Stand Your Ground laws and Castle Doctrine. If you take away these archaic forms of vigilante justice, the entire argument falls flat. In Canada, just because someone forces their way into your home doesn't mean you can shoot them. Here you need to have legitimate fear for your life or the life of another and no other recourse. The idea that a citizen can shoot someone for refusing to step off their porch is ludicrous and lies at the heart of the NRA logic. While a ban on assault weapons WILL help (and I won't engage in that debate again, my comments in the other thread suffice) and is possible without a revamp of the current legal system, any law that goes more restrictive than that will require removal of Stand Your Ground and retooling of how Castle Doctrine is applied. But that requires rewiring how most Americans think. Telling them they aren't allowed to defend their property is counter to the very principles upon which their nation was founded and which is enshrined in their way of thinking about property and rights.

 

[fun-guy]

LaPierre has often stated that in those states where there are no gun laws, crime has gone down, but in those states that have gun laws, crime has actually gone up, so in their view gun laws don't work. Let's arm everyone, including teachers in schools, so they can engage in a shoot out with anyone trying to pull a Newtown again.

 

[GPIDEAL]

The reason the NRA argument carries any weight at all is because of Stand Your Ground laws and Castle Doctrine. If you take away these archaic forms of vigilante justice, the entire argument falls flat. In Canada, just because someone forces their way into your home doesn't mean you can shoot them. Here you need to have legitimate fear for your life or the life of another and no other recourse. The idea that a citizen can shoot someone for refusing to step off their porch is ludicrous and lies at the heart of the NRA logic. While a ban on assault weapons WILL help (and I won't engage in that debate again, my comments in the other thread suffice) and is possible without a revamp of the current legal system, any law that goes more restrictive than that will require removal of Stand Your Ground and retooling of how Castle Doctrine is applied. But that requires rewiring how most Americans think. Telling them they aren't allowed to defend their property is counter to the very principles upon which their nation was founded and which is enshrined in their way of thinking about property and rights.

Yes, they're wired differently! It's an up hill battle. Well said.

As for statistics, I posted a link that someone emailed me with a few examples of lives saved. The webpage states that 2 million lives were saved due to gun ownership in a year alone.

A google search just now led to a gun lobby article where it was stated that 1,000,000 lives were saved in a year by gun owners defending themselves.

However, statistics should be reviewed for accuracy and objectivity.

 

[mrsCALoki]

If our boat is ever attacked by pirate bobbing coconuts I know we have the guns and skills to sink them !

 

[Mervyn]

What they argue actually is, if everyone is armed, crime will go down as no criminal would want to take the risk of being shot, basically it's the old M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) theory, in order for that to work of course, more people need to have guns.

In cases where the perpetrator is insane, the NRA doesn't believe guns will stop the crime,but if everyone is armed, the actual results will be less deaths, for example in the school shooting thew would argue the gunman would be shot dead long before he had a chance to shoot as many children as he did, or possibly before.

 

[mrsCALoki]

What they argue actually is, if everyone is armed, crime will go down as no criminal would want to take the risk of being shot, basically it's the old M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) theory, in order for that to work of course, more people need to have guns.

In cases where the perpetrator is insane, the NRA doesn't believe guns will stop the crime,but if everyone is armed, the actual results will be less deaths, for example in the school shooting thew would argue the gunman would be shot dead long before he had a chance to shoot as many children as he did, or possibly before.

They I was told in school MAD worked surprisingly well

 

[fuji]

The reality is that gun policy makes very little difference to crime. Neither draconian gun control nor going the other way and allowing concealed carry by the general public matters nearly as much as social policy.

Gun violence depends a lot on how many people become criminals in the first place and that is linked to inequality, poverty, lack of education, lack of meaningful jobs, broken families, racial discrimination, and even just population age.

If you compare the US to Canada or Europe those things matter a lot more than differences in gun policy.

Figuring out whether gun policy made a difference or whether it was just better social support or even just the population getting a little older is very difficult.

 

[esoterica]

LaPierre has often stated that in those states where there are no gun laws, crime has gone down, but in those states that have gun laws, crime has actually gone up, so in their view gun laws don't work. Let's arm everyone, including teachers in schools, so they can engage in a shoot out with anyone trying to pull a Newtown again.

After years of pain over the senseless destruction of lives because of the preponderance of weapons in the US, I have come to the conclusion that they want this to happen, so fuck them. I hope they all shoot each other to extinction in that crazed country.

 

[shack]

The standard response seems to be that these events happen all the time but because it doesn't fit with the LIBERAL media's AGENDA it goes unreported. So it is standard CRAZY PERSON reasoning.

Actually, it's a very reasonable question.

NRA loves quoting stats.

 

[IM469]

As for statistics, I posted a link that someone emailed me with a few examples of lives saved. The webpage states that 2 million lives were saved due to gun ownership in a year alone.

A google search just now led to a gun lobby article where it was stated that 1,000,000 lives were saved in a year by gun owners defending themselves.

I have never heard such absolutely insane statistics as the NRA has thrown up in their debates. They aren't even plausible to any thinking man but I think they are directed not to ration thinkers but the existing base who they simply want to feel as comfortable as possible from the barrage of overwhelming proof that the US gun psyche is killing more Americans that the enemy can in the wars that they are fighting.

Think how ludicrous the figure 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 lives saved is. If there are no guns - 1,000,000 people would have been strangled, knifed, etc ???? If there are no guns - mass murders are going to have their work cut out for them. What group of people will stand by patiently waiting as the people beside them are knifed or strangled ?

After a shooting spree that cost 35 lives and 21 wounded from a man equipped with two assault rifles ,Australia put in strict gun laws that included the buy back of over 630,000 fire arms - their death rate dropped and mass murders became non-existent. The NRA argues that it would have gone down anyway. Japan has a huge gaming industry that include the most violent on the market - yet with strict gun laws they have a small fraction of the USA gun mortality rate.

There is really no rational argument that the NRA can make so they are wildly distorting facts and promoting fear.

 

[Aardvark154]

But I never have seen a news item where a householder took part in a gun fight with armed intruders /robbers, and won.

That's not to say it never happened. Perhaps such a result is so commonplace that it's not news (but can you imagine yourself killing the robbers in a gunfight, and the newspapers don't bother to report it?) -- or perhaps it has never happened.

As already posted in other threads I'm personally aware of several such cases, now understand they occurred over 800 km from Toronto, however, that doesn't make them any less real.

 

[fuji]

Think how ludicrous the figure 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 lives saved is.

Absolutely ludicrous. But so are the claims by the anti side are equally ludicrous.

The only position supported strongly by the data is that gun policy is at best only very weakly linked to crime rate, and neither anti gun bans nor pro gun ccw schemes make much of a difference.

It is one of those polarizing debates where people have strong opinions and everyone expects it to matter, but in fact it just doesn't matter much one way or another.

The data does not support the claim that widespread gun ownership deters crime and it does not support the claim that banning guns helps either.

It supports the claim that the problems and solutions to violent crime are all related to social policies and not gun policies.

Whether or not people choose involvement in crime matters a lot. Once they have chosen that life controls and deterrence are both pretty ineffective.

After a shooting spree that cost 35 lives and 21 wounded from a man equipped with two assault rifles ,Australia put in strict gun laws that included the buy back of over 630,000 fire arms - their death rate dropped and mass murders became non-existent. The NRA argues that it would have gone down anyway.

Which is true. Australian crime rate, like Canada and the US, has been dropping, and continued to drop at the same rate before and after. Their suicide rate went up after that policy, and kept on going up. It had been going up previously and continued going up.

Japan has a huge gaming industry that include the most violent on the market - yet with strict gun laws they have a small fraction of the USA gun mortality rate.

I believe that. It indicates that video game violence, like gun policy, is not one of the major causes of violent crime. Sweden allows private ownership of automatic weapons, but also had a fraction of the US crime rate. In Canada we used to have unrestricted ownership of automatic weapons and widespread handgun ownership, and our crime rate then was also a fraction of the US rate.

Conclusion. None of these things are major causes of violent crime.

There is really no rational argument that the NRA can make so they are wildly distorting facts and promoting fear.

So is the anti gun side with its incessant fear mongering about "high power military style", bogus studies, demonization of gun owner, and wild rhetoric about "even one life".

Take a step back, the truth is different than either side claims.

 

[buttercup]

But I never have seen a news item where a householder took part in a gun fight with armed intruders /robbers, and won.
Of all the gunfights that actually have taken place (in recent years) between armed robbers and armed householders, what percentage of these gunfights have been won by the householders?

As already posted in other threads I'm personally aware of several such cases

Just so I'm clear -- are you saying these several cases were gunfights between armed robbers/intruders and armed householders, in which shots were exchanged, and the householders won these gunfights?

My definition of "won" would be = after the exchange of shots, the householders were ok, and the robbers were either (a) disarmed and captured, (b) killed or wounded by gunfire, or (c) ran away. (By all means, re-define "won", as you wish.)

 

[Keebler Elf]

Militarizing schools is not the answer.

Period.

 

[michael_to29]

Here is Archie Bunkers arguement for gun control and hijackings. The same arguements they are using today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Aardvark154]

Just so I'm clear -- are you saying these several casesowere gunfights between armed robbers/intruders and armed householders, in which shots were exchanged, and the householders won these gunfights?

My definition of "won" would be = after the exchange of shots, the householders were ok, and the robbers were either (a) disarmed and captured, (b) killed or wounded by gunfire, or (c) ran away. (By all means, re-define "won", as you wish.)

One as you put forth; two where bad guy had a firearm but opted to attempt to beat good buy with a metal bar, good guy was able to shoot bad guy in one case killing bad guy and also shooting bad gal; one where bad guy shot good guy, good guy was able to return fire, and wound bad guy seriously enough that he wasn't able to shoot good guy again.

 

[fun-guy]

Here is Archie Bunkers arguement for gun control and hijackings. The same arguements they are using today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Sad, but Archie's character is typical of the redneck mentality in the US where everyone should carry a gun, nothing's changed since 1812.

 

[blackrock13]

If the NRA are so sure that what they say is true, then why this; http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2012/12/nrainspired-con.html

[h=2]NRA-Inspired, Congressionally Enacted, Funding Ban Stymies Gun Safety Research[/h]
In the wake of the Connecticut elementary school massacre, scientists in a number of disciplines are probably wondering how they can put their expertise to work finding ways to prevent such horrors from happening again. But it appears they shouldn't look to the federal government for help funding any firearm-injury-related research. That's because "in the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA [National Rifle Association] attacked researchers for publishing data on firearms research," reports Slate. "For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research."
"From 1986 to 1996, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sponsored high-quality, peer reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence," wrote Jay Dickey, a former Arkansas Republican congressman and NRA spokesperson, and co-author Mark Rosenberg in the Washington Post in July 2012. Findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, disproved the gun lobby's orthodoxy about supposed safety benefits of gun ownership.



As a result, "the National Rifle Association moved to suppress the dissemination of these results and to block future research into the causes of gun injuries. ... In 1996, an amendment to an appropriations bill [placed there by Dickey] ... removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the amount the agency's injury center had spent on firearms research in the previous year. This amendment, together with a stipulation that 'None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control' sent a chilling message."

"Since that legislation in 1996, the United States has spent about $240 million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries," Dickey and Rosenberg add.

Dickey has since changed his views and no longer supports squelching science. In fact, he now believes that "scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearms injuries" and can "help reduce the toll of death and injuries from gun violence." Federally funded research has, of course, greatly increased safety on the highways and in many other realms of life.

Clearly, it's way past time to bring science's power to bear on our nation's horrendous problems with gun violence. That means it's time to break the gun lobby's disgraceful grip on both our politics and our science.