Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Use of Guns
Myths About Guns Need Clarifying
Facts about guns can be slanted and fudged to make a political point. Here are some hard facts that the gun control addicts usually ignore quite deliberately.
The number of reported defensive uses of firearms to police in the US during 2009 was in an estimated range from 760,000 to 3,600,000. Sources: LA Times, Gallup, Peter Hart Research, John R. Lott, Richard Poe, author, “The Seven Myths of Gun Control”. Further, FBI crime statistics for 2009 show that:
Violent crimes Total: 1,318,198
Property Crimes Total: 9.320,971 (a ratio of about 1 to 10)
Using this ratio of Violent Crimes to Property Crimes of approximately 1 to 10, this strongly implies that the number of saves from violent crimes by victim firearm use ranges from about 76,000 to 300,000!
This is a sensational statistic that clearly shows the advantages of using firearms for defense.
The crime categories of murder, rape, armed robberies, and aggravated assault are where the most heinous crimes are found, around 15,000 per year for murders and rapes alone, thus given the chance to prevent or halt such crimes surely ranks gun use at the top of the possible immediate reactions. The police, of course, are 5 to 15 minutes away from the crime scene at best, and taking the time to call 911 immediately could mean the difference between life and death. Citizens should therefore be trained, ready and willing to cope with crime long before the police can arrive.
Given the ratio of murder and rape cases to armed robberies and aggravated assault cases to be again about 1 to 10 from the FBI statistics on these subsets of violence (not included here for economy), this implies that on the order of 10,000 murders or rapes would be prevented each year, and a potential for 130,000+ serious injuries to be avoided were all citizens to be armed and ready. (This number can only include those rapes that are reported, of course, so it is a very conservative estimate. )
Suicide accounts for roughly half of all gun deaths in the nation, or about 18,000 per year, out of about 30,000 gun-related deaths per year. The question here is whether the troubled person would resort to other means than a gun should guns be unavailable?
There are many other means to commit suicide, including: self-hanging; poisoning; overdose of drugs; bleeding to death from wrist cuts; jumping from a very high place; stepping in front of a speeding vehicle, crashing your car at 90 mph; and on and on. If the will to die is really strong, the person will find a way. I find it rather difficult to blame the possession and use of a gun for the purpose of suicide as the fault of the availability guns in general, as opposed to blaming the individual in trouble and possibly the lack of help for him. It is also true that banning handguns is not a fully satisfactory solution for the suicide statistic. A rifle or shotgun will serve just as well.
Given that the person is unalterably committed to taking his life, possibly the most efficient means is a gun, as the other methods are much more likely to result in non-fatal, but with terrible, life-debilitating injuries to be coped with by an already seriously troubled individual. This is hard for Christians and others to accept, including myself, but it is true.
I am not counting the property crimes at all here, but the halting of thefts does have a measurable and salutary effect on the quality of life of potential victims. While any deaths are to be greatly regretted, that only about 680 accidental firearm deaths occurred in 2009 out of the well over 200,000,000 firearms then in the nation, with about 60,000,000 registered gun owners (source: NRA), shows the extremely low risks of gun ownership and use for self-defense by citizens.
Myths About Guns Need Clarifying
Facts about guns can be slanted and fudged to make a political point. Here are some hard facts that the gun control addicts usually ignore quite deliberately.
The number of reported defensive uses of firearms to police in the US during 2009 was in an estimated range from 760,000 to 3,600,000. Sources: LA Times, Gallup, Peter Hart Research, John R. Lott, Richard Poe, author, “The Seven Myths of Gun Control”. Further, FBI crime statistics for 2009 show that:
Violent crimes Total: 1,318,198
Property Crimes Total: 9.320,971 (a ratio of about 1 to 10)
Using this ratio of Violent Crimes to Property Crimes of approximately 1 to 10, this strongly implies that the number of saves from violent crimes by victim firearm use ranges from about 76,000 to 300,000!
This is a sensational statistic that clearly shows the advantages of using firearms for defense.
The crime categories of murder, rape, armed robberies, and aggravated assault are where the most heinous crimes are found, around 15,000 per year for murders and rapes alone, thus given the chance to prevent or halt such crimes surely ranks gun use at the top of the possible immediate reactions. The police, of course, are 5 to 15 minutes away from the crime scene at best, and taking the time to call 911 immediately could mean the difference between life and death. Citizens should therefore be trained, ready and willing to cope with crime long before the police can arrive.
Given the ratio of murder and rape cases to armed robberies and aggravated assault cases to be again about 1 to 10 from the FBI statistics on these subsets of violence (not included here for economy), this implies that on the order of 10,000 murders or rapes would be prevented each year, and a potential for 130,000+ serious injuries to be avoided were all citizens to be armed and ready. (This number can only include those rapes that are reported, of course, so it is a very conservative estimate. )
Suicide accounts for roughly half of all gun deaths in the nation, or about 18,000 per year, out of about 30,000 gun-related deaths per year. The question here is whether the troubled person would resort to other means than a gun should guns be unavailable?
There are many other means to commit suicide, including: self-hanging; poisoning; overdose of drugs; bleeding to death from wrist cuts; jumping from a very high place; stepping in front of a speeding vehicle, crashing your car at 90 mph; and on and on. If the will to die is really strong, the person will find a way. I find it rather difficult to blame the possession and use of a gun for the purpose of suicide as the fault of the availability guns in general, as opposed to blaming the individual in trouble and possibly the lack of help for him. It is also true that banning handguns is not a fully satisfactory solution for the suicide statistic. A rifle or shotgun will serve just as well.
Given that the person is unalterably committed to taking his life, possibly the most efficient means is a gun, as the other methods are much more likely to result in non-fatal, but with terrible, life-debilitating injuries to be coped with by an already seriously troubled individual. This is hard for Christians and others to accept, including myself, but it is true.
I am not counting the property crimes at all here, but the halting of thefts does have a measurable and salutary effect on the quality of life of potential victims. While any deaths are to be greatly regretted, that only about 680 accidental firearm deaths occurred in 2009 out of the well over 200,000,000 firearms then in the nation, with about 60,000,000 registered gun owners (source: NRA), shows the extremely low risks of gun ownership and use for self-defense by citizens.
Labels: Guns
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Gun Control Yet Again
The fight seems to never stop.
Once again we are faced with the problem of defending our Constitutional rights as given in the 2nd Amendment. This new battle is shaping up within the United Nations as an International Arms Trade Treaty, and it has been endorsed or supported by President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and our Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice. This treaty calls for confiscation of civilian firearms among other odious provisions that flaunt our 2nd Amendment rights, and it is a clear attempt by the current administration to end-run our Constitution and the will of the people if they are elected to a second term.
We must see that this does not happen.
Once again we are faced with the problem of defending our Constitutional rights as given in the 2nd Amendment. This new battle is shaping up within the United Nations as an International Arms Trade Treaty, and it has been endorsed or supported by President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and our Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice. This treaty calls for confiscation of civilian firearms among other odious provisions that flaunt our 2nd Amendment rights, and it is a clear attempt by the current administration to end-run our Constitution and the will of the people if they are elected to a second term.
We must see that this does not happen.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Tucson Fallout
Yet another rush to ban guns from the public.
State and national representatives are ginning up another round of gun laws designed to make guns harder to own, carry, and shoot for ordinary citizens. They are using the events in Tucson as an illustration of the dangers of gun ownership, just as they have done after each shooting by crazed people. We do have too many shootings; one cannot deny that. But, is outlawing guns the right solution?
I say no. I say no for a number of cogent reasons:
1. It is a Constitutional Second Amendment right to own and use rifles, shotguns and handguns.
2. Guns of all types have been highly effective in preventing crimes--over three million criminal incidents in 2007 were prevented by gunowners from becoming tragedies, many of them potentially fatal to the victims. An estimated 3,000 of these incidents were destined to end in killings and rapes without strong intervention by the victims themselves. This number of gun related crime preventions completely outweighs the losses from crazed shootings and any other reason to deny handguns and rifles to the public.
3. Guns will be available to criminals regardless of the laws. It makes no sense to disarm the general public in the face of such threats as criminals pose today.
4. Most calls for help to the police take at least fifteen minutes before an officer or two arrives at the scene, and with the economic cuts on services we are receiving, perhaps a lot longer. That is a long enough time for major mayhem to take place in the home, on the family, and on the children. I cannot and will not stand by while intruders have their way with my family so long as I am able to respond effectively.
So, I say to all of the anti-gun people--come try to take my weapons!
Labels: Guns
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Guns, Guns, Guns
How can we silence the gun lobby-- permanently?
The answer is simple--we can't! The best we can do is to make their task--banning all personal weapons--far, far harder. The best way to do this is to elect pro-gun legislators, and hope that they are also conservative in the rest of their thinking as well.
My beliefs are that:
1) guns save lives every day, far, far more then lose lives.
2) every citizen should be able to own and use guns to defend themselves and their families.
3) an armed citizenry is an insurance policy against an unwanted takeover of the government.
4) gun owning states have far less crime than gun regulated states.
5) shooting is a grand hobby, whether for sport or game.
6) gun discipline in the home is easy to manage, and is a necessity for the young to learn.
7) in the event of war, having trained marksmen available is a huge asset, and saves money.
Labels: Citizenship, Guns
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Bad Timing
The Assault Begins:
0200: The front door crashes in with splintering and cracking sounds. The burglar alarm sounds off immediately, which, contrary to the publicity, does not deter the burglar. He recovers from his two-footed ramming handily, and races up the stairs, heading for the payoff places for a house burglary. He knows that he has at least 5 minutes to rob the house, since the police response time is that slow.
At the top of the stairs he meets with Jay, the homeowner. One look by the burglar and Jay stands aside, not willing to be pummelled to the floor or shot. Judy, his wife, joins him, and they watch, huddled in each other's arms, as the burglar ransacks their bedrooms for money or small valuables. The burglar turns to them and demands their hidden money...or else! Judy runs to the bathroom and recovers their vacation cash, then hands it to the burglar.
0205: The burglar, with a grin, runs out of the house and makes his escape.
0209: The police arrive and make a big show of searching the house and neighborhood and radioing in a description of the burglar, but they are far too late and they know it. The alarm company sends out a representative to soothe their feelings and to sell them additional and obviously useless alarm capability. The homeowners are out perhaps several thousand dollars in cash and jewelry, plus a new door for another thousand or so. Jay and Judy are very, very lucky that they weren't assaulted physically, and sent to the hospital as a result of their injuries. An assault occurs in about 1 out of 5 or so burglary cases, with serious injuries occurring, mostly head traumas, each time.
The Alternate Scenario:
0200: The front door crashes in, and the burglar runs through and up the stairs. Jay hears the crash, grabs his gun, and rushes to the head of the stairs and stands there with his 9mm pointed firmly with both hands at the burglar. The burglar, gun and all, turns and runs out faster than he came in. No one is injured; no one is shot; and there is a fair likelihood that the burglar will be picked up eventually and prosecuted.
0209: The police arrive and do their thing, and so does the useless alarm representative. The loss is one door, plus a good scare.
This scenario (and similar variations) is repeated many times per year and goes almost totally unreported by the media. John Lott estimated from reading police blotters that it happens about 3 million times all over the US per year. The simple message being that having a gun in the home saves lives, and injuries (and of course, property) far, far in excess of any self-inflicted gun injuries or deaths the gun's presence in the home may cause.
Thank God for the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution!
Labels: Guns
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Guns, God, and Likeminded People
Clinging to the last!
There is an elitist idiot out there that used the word "clinging" to describe Middle American people and their definite preferences for God, Guns, and Likeminded People. Thus, in his mind, there are only two types of Americans: God and Gun lovers, and Elitists like him.
I pray to God that this Obama idiot does not get one vote from Middle Americans.
Labels: Elitists, God, Guns, Obama
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Say Bye Bye to the UN
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Gun Control Up Again
Virginia Tech Killings Will Spark New Bills
The killing of 32 students and wounding 17 more by a Nutcase from South Korea had obviously been planned for some time. So now the gun control lobby will go into high gear to champion anti-gun legislation up to and including disarming the public. This legislation will not be constitutional, of course, but that has a way of not stopping Liberals. They read into words what they want.
Let us play a mental game though. Suppose that the Nutcase could not go to a gun store and purchase guns or ammunition. He still has a rage to kill many people in classrooms, so he casts about for a different tool with which to execute the students. What can he use?
1) He can make a bomb or several bombs from readily available chemicals, and if he doesn’t know how, he can look it up on the internet.
2) He can make a noxious, deadly gas bomb from available chemicals also, the instructions for which are on the internet.
3) He can make a spray mixture that would cause terrible disfigurement or death to all hit by the stream from a pressure garden sprayer. Yes, the instructions for this are on the internet too.
4) He can also rob explosives such as dynamite, fuses and caps, from any of a number of construction sites in the area.
5) If he needs the intimidation factor of a gun, he can buy a replica of a gun from a number of places. These guns look extremely real; they even have clips and slide actions; they just cannot be fired. Or, he could simply steal a gun.
The scenario plays out rather closely to the real thing, with the Nutcase chaining the doors and then lobbing explosive bombs or gas bombs or sprays into the classrooms. In fact, these deadly weapons are cheaper to make, and far more injurious and death-dealing in a crowd than the 9mm autos the real nut used. Thus Nutcase will make his statement, and it may well be a much more deadly one using one or more of the methods pointed out earlier.
Conversely, had any professor or older student been carrying a concealed weapon, in either scenario, real or mental, much of the carnage if not all could have been prevented by killing the Nut.
So now if we ban guns everywhere, especially on campus as has been done already, we will have closed off the most likely preventative--a gun--from being available, and at the same time ensured that the Nut would have to use even more potent killing tools. Tools that would wipe out perhaps three or four classrooms full of students, and leave many more disfigured and crippled for life.
What this says is that we must also ban all potential weapons from public use, including many commercial chemicals and explosives that are essential to the economy, else the Nut will succeed!
Oh, just guns, you say? Why just guns? Maybe it isn’t the weapons we should be concentrating on at all, but the people that are living Nutcase lives and invariably leave tip offs to that fact lying around, if only some bright people picked up on them in a timely manner.
(I am carefully not identifying here the specific chemicals that may be employed, but any first-year chemistry student knows them well.)
Labels: Guns
Friday, March 16, 2007
Guns and Gun Rights—Revisited
References: 2nd Amendment, and “Guns don’t shoot people, people shoot the guns.”
Now that we have a DC court decision recognizing the right of citizens to have and use guns in self-defense, we gun owners have a new protection line. This is welcome, but I am certain that this line of defense will be under massive attack just as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
So now I could live in DC with my small arsenal, and make use of it if the occasion arises. I already have that right here in Virginia, and even the right of concealed carry. It is also true that I can wear a gun visibly while on the street, except in a few locales, such as in the vicinity of a school, in restaurants where the owner has banned the practice, and in certain public buildings. Given that this is about how it should be, what may we do with these rights?
First, I am a strong advocate of gun safety, of keeping guns safe from accidental use by children and others, and of training owners in the use and safety practices they should know and abide by.
But I do have a few other practices I believe in as well, that are not for the newbie gun owner, nor for the family man with children.
Since I am elderly, and afraid of being defenseless when accosted in my home or on the street, I believe in being armed or having a weapon nearby virtually all the time.
A weapon is useless unless it is loaded and ready to shoot in seconds. My weapons are loaded and on safety.
A small caliber weapon is not useful for protection, although it just might scare some thugs away by its very presence. I have noted that in 1998 over three million crimes were thwarted by the victim producing a weapon, at which point the criminals ran. (The Seven Myths of Gun Control by Richard Poe, 2001)
What is needed, however, is something larger than a .32 – a 357, .38, 9 mm, or .45 would be far preferable. I have found the 9mm automatic to be just right for me, and it has considerable knockdown power and number of rounds available (13). I can handle it without discomfort, and I can shoot it reasonably accurately out to about 75-100 feet. (All bets are off after that!)
Then too, my carry weapon is also a 9mm, but smaller, shorter, and holds a few rounds less. This gun is accurate out to 50 feet for me, but my groups are rather wide at that range—about 9 or 10 inches—which is fine by me.
Do not even think about firing a warning shot. You will have lost the advantage by that, and stand to be hit yourself by your adversary. Do not shoot to wound in an arm or leg. You will probably miss, and again hand the initiative over to him. So if you decide to shoot, and that is a difficult decision, shoot at the bulk of the man you are aiming at.
If you keep guns around and intend to use them for defense, you must become totally informed about the laws in your locality and about the proclivities of the prosecutors as well, since many of them bring suit against the gun user on trivial charges, possibly to burnish their political image with the Left. This is a long and involved story that you should be aware of before the fact. It makes it hazardous to use a gun even in the most legal manner.
But, if you need to use your gun in a serious life or death situation, you have little choice.
Labels: Guns
Who says we need the UN?
The world's nations are not democratic, by and large-- at least half have some form of dictatorship, or total control by way of adding religion to government. This means that at the government level we have antithetical, amoral or immoral voices working against the common good within the UN much of the time, and constantly focused on how to capture more money-- from the US--legally, or not.
To give up any part of our sovereignty to such a gang is playing the fool. To fund this mess is also foolish, in my opinion. Corruption in the UN has become an art form, it seems.
Of what good was the UN to us in the case of Iraq? Tell me what good it has served in the GWOT. Of what good has it been in the case of Iran and its thrust for nuclear weapons? Of what good would it be if China decided to invade Taiwan, or Russia went into one of its former nations? My take is that it would be zero. Huge discussions, votes and sanctions in the UN Security Council would not change the facts on the ground, even if they had a quorum on the issue.
We delude ourselves that UN approval of our actions conveys legitimacy, when the members themselves are not actually legitimate, in the sense of being rational, relatively altruistic players, and democratic in their very nature.
We delude ourselves that having such a forum prevents war. It didn't prevent the Korean War; it didn't prevent the Vietnam War, and it didn't prevent the first or second Gulf Wars. The UN most certainly does not prevent a nuclear war, if it comes to a major conflict between two nuclear powers. The power to halt such a conflict, by diplomacy and threats of retaliation, comes from each major nation acting in its own interest and banding together at the time. Normal diplomatic channels serve this end quite well, and they are not cluttered with tens and hundreds of pipsqueak diplomats from amoral nations that want a say, or want a delay for their own benefit.
The UN is a failure, and its participants are at fault, including the US, for giving their trust to gangsters and thieves for, among all the other problems, handling massive sums of money that simply disappear without adequate accounting.
The UN wants to extend its control over the US, if my reading of their proposed gun control measures and their LOST treaty are any indication.
I vote NO!