The Right Way to Keep Bare Gubs

[kladner]

@retina: Well Said, Sir.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by retina

I see people comparing gun death stats from one US state to another US state and coming to conclusions based upon differing laws between the states. But this is the wrong approach IMO. Do a much different comparison. Compare one country to another. Let's say we compare any of the other "four eyes" countries (where gun laws are much more sane) to the USA. We find that gun deaths in the USA are similar to the road deaths. But in the other four countries gun deaths are much lower than road deaths. That is a much fairer comparison. <snip>

Comparing traffic deaths depends on the yardstick. Figures are listed at this Wikipedia page. Of course, absolute numbers of deaths depend on how many people there are, and how many are driving.

If you go by deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, the US rate is highest. If you go by "per billion vehicle-km" ("vehicle miles") the USA is second to New Zealand among Five-Eyes allies.

However, in the other four of the Five-Eyes allies, the "vehicle-mile" rate is higher than the "per 100,000 inhabitants" rate, while in the US, it's lower. Perhaps people in the US tend to drive longer distances than in the other four countries. And driving on controlled-access highways is generally safer than in town.

By far, the traffic death toll is greatest in China and India, but other countries also have absolutely appalling carnage on the road. Alas, the "vehicle-mile" rate is not available for most of them. But in China and India, the per 100,000 inhabitants figures are 60%-80% higher than for the USA, and the per 100,000 vehicles figures are 8-10 times higher.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

Comparing traffic deaths depends on the yardstick. Figures are listed at this Wikipedia page. Of course, absolute numbers of deaths depend on how many people there are, and how many are driving.

If you go by deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, the US rate is highest. If you go by "per billion vehicle-km" ("vehicle miles") the USA is second to New Zealand among Five-Eyes allies.

However, in the other four of the Five-Eyes allies, the "vehicle-mile" rate is higher than the "per 100,000 inhabitants" rate, while in the US, it's lower. Perhaps people in the US tend to drive longer distances than in the other four countries. And driving on controlled-access highways is generally safer than in town.

By far, the traffic death toll is greatest in China and India, but other countries also have absolutely appalling carnage on the road. Alas, the "vehicle-mile" rate is not available for most of them. But in China and India, the per 100,000 inhabitants figures are 60%-80% higher than for the USA, and the per 100,000 vehicles figures are 8-10 times higher.

I was comparing gun deaths to driving deaths within each country. I wasn't trying to compare driving deaths between countries. But anyhow, thanks for the comparative analysis of driving deaths.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by retina

I was comparing gun deaths to driving deaths within each country. I wasn't trying to compare driving deaths between countries. But anyhow, thanks for the comparative analysis of driving deaths.

I just wanted to make sure the US road death figures weren't seriously out of whack with those of the other 4 countries. The greatest discrepancy is between the US and the UK, where the rates by whichever yardstick differ by a factor of nearly 2. But that's nowhere near the difference between gun death rates. This seems to me to validate comparing gun deaths to traffic deaths.

[xilman]

Suffer the children

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by xilman

Suffer the children

Wow. I would love to hear someone explain how more people with guns would help prevent such a crime

That story had a link to another story I hadn't heard about. Made my blood boil, it did:

#ThisIsOurLane: Doctors hit back at pro-gun group NRA

The National Rifle Association's tweet on Wednesday sparked anger.
It came just hours before a gunman killed 12 people in a California bar.
"Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane," the NRA tweeted.

This also reminded me of a book I bought many years ago. It was done by photographer Eugene Richards who had, with permission of physicians and staff of the ER at Denver General Hospital, taken photographs to help tell stories of what went on there. The name given this ER by locals is the book's title: The Knife and Gun Club.

[Dr Sardonicus]

So, it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad good guy with a gun.

Fun and games at the Thanksgiving mall shooting in Alabama!

Alabama police say black man’s gun ‘heightened’ threat Like the guy said in Lethal Weapon II: "Because -- you're black!"

HOOVER, Ala. (AP) — Police in Alabama offered sympathy Monday to the family of a black man fatally shot by an officer responding to gunfire at a shopping mall, but said the man’s decision to pull out a weapon “heightened the sense of threat” to police in an already chaotic scene.

Hoover Police initially described its officer as “heroic” for bringing down Emantic “EJ” Bradford Jr. after two people were wounded at the Riverchase Galleria mall outside Birmingham Thanksgiving night. Then they retracted the statement, saying he was likely not the gunman responsible for the initial shooting, who remains at large.

Bradford’s father said his 21-year-old son had a permit to carry the handgun. The family’s lawyer said witnesses told them Bradford was trying to help by waving people to safety, and was shot “within milliseconds” by an officer who didn’t say a word to him.

“It doesn’t matter if you’re a good guy with a gun, if you’re black the police shoot and kill you and ask questions later,” attorney Ben Crump said Monday on CNN, one of several national media appearances with Bradford’s parents.

The bad guy with a gun is still at large. Beautiful!

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by retina

So you are saying that guns are dangerous to those that are just trying to help. Say it ain't so.

In the hands of the too-young, grossly irresponsible, insane, or violently criminal, yes. I was responding in an absurd way to Dr. Sardonicus' absurd statement about arming the "so-young-our-society-treats-them-as-disposable-tissue" unborn/infants. Those so young you would not trust them around matches or stove controls or forks near electrical outlets also need our protection from getting their hands or other body parts on sharp things, flame, and things that may go bang, as well as prevented from doing headstands in water containers or operating the family car or mower in any way and a number of other modern hazards. I don't know how many forum participants have children, but it is amazing how many ways they find to jeopardize themselves and sometimes others too.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by retina

I see people comparing gun death stats from one US state to another US state and coming to conclusions based upon differing laws between the states. But this is the wrong approach IMO. Do a much different comparison. Compare one country to another. Let's say we compare any of the other "four eyes" countries (where gun laws are much more sane) to the USA. We find that gun deaths in the USA are similar to the road deaths. But in the other four countries gun deaths are much lower than road deaths. That is a much fairer comparison.

If you make guns illegal for everyone then ...

• It is easy to spot bad actors with guns since there won't be any "good guys" with guns
• The price and availability of black market guns puts them out of reach for most people (black market prices for guns are very high and not easy to find)
• The police don't act like dicks at simple traffic stops (telling you to remove your hands from your pockets slowly) because the expectation of violence is very different
• The citizens are not forced to be all obedient and subservient and kowtow to police for fear of being shot because of a misunderstanding about what is in their pockets
• You can walk around the streets without having to worry about some random crazy idiot deciding to shoot you (and, no, black market gun purchasers won't be random crazy idiots, they are decidedly non-random and won't be interested in you unless you have direct dealings with them)
• People earn respect, rather than demand it with a gun pointed at you.

There is no way to defend the argument that somehow, magically, more guns would make everyone safer and we'd have less violence and fewer deaths. The comparisons across countries shows the figures; fewer guns overall leads to fewer deaths overall. Seems quite clear to me.

There is no way to defend the argument we'll all be safer if we just finish disarming the ordinary citizens and ask the predators in our society to please be nice to us now, for a change; that's magical thinking. Less deterrence means less restraint on the part of the criminally violent who are frequently impulsive.

The comparisons across countries with vast differences in demographics, culture, history, economics, etc. are worse than useless, they are misleading. One does not have a viable way of reducing the impact of criminal violence (which is most of gun death and injury after subtracting out suicides) by remaking the US into Japan in every respect. There aren't enough Japanese to repopulate the US after removing Americans, or even maintain Japan's population. There is not currently the political will to allocate the resources, or medically effective approach in the US to identify, capture, remove, incarcerate, treat effectively, etc. enough of the criminally violent. The criminally violent Americans will not suddenly begin acting like some other nationality or personality type after passage of yet another law requiring it in some way. Things like Project Exile work. Consequences, and if it fails to deter, imprisonment after a crime interferes with the opportunity to commit more crime among the public.
The correct way to study the effect of permissive or restrictive change in gun policy is longitudinal studies; THIS population, THIS territory, THIS culture, made THIS change, and did violent crime increase or decrease? (Holding demographics, culture, history, economics, etc as constant as possible by studying the same area over time, changing the one variable that's being studied, policy change.) That is what Lott did. That is what you choose to ignore because it contradicts your position.

Much of south and central america contradicts your alleged benefits. Highly restrictive nations there are some of the most violent in the world. The drug cartels and others have no problem obtaining illegal weapons in nations like Mexico. Drugs, money, people, and weapons are smuggled across national borders in large quantities routinely. The police there routinely go around in large groups with serious weaponry, because although firearms ownership by citizens there is essentially illegal, the police are routinely outgunned. I recall passing slowly and politely through a checkpoint at a rural crossroads on vacation in Mexico with the GF years ago, seeing 4 men with full auto rifles in hand in a jeep. Even marches of thousands of avowed border violators televised internationally for weeks continue, apparently with organized ASSISTANCE!

You've also ignored my previous point about plainclothes police getting presumed to be bad guys. "It is easy to spot bad actors with guns since there won't be any 'good guys' with guns" How do you propose to spot them; metal detectors everywhere? And once you do, you're ill equipped to do anything about it "since there won't be any 'good guys' with guns". Presumably that means mall and hotel security, small business owners, customers, travelers, homeowners, etc are disarmed. It's about as useful as outlawing vaccinations.
Your last bullet point sounds like you don't believe people deserve a reasonable initial starting point of respect. "Earn respect", like they start from zero. In my life, people I meet start somewhere in the middle of the respect and courtesy scale and then it gets adjusted up or down according to their behavior.

You seem to have a fixed idea of a police state existing in "citizen has right to be armed" areas, that could not possibly exist in "citizen is disarmed by regulations" areas, which is in practice backwards, the opposite of how the psychology works. Rural areas are typically well armed and policed by deputies of a sheriff, an elected official with usually a good understanding of who his real bosses are (the voters), and their/our inherent rights, and generally a good respect for them and their rights. Urban areas are policed by underlings of a police chief, generally hired or appointed by some politician or group of them, too frequently a condescending snob about guns; a philosophy of "fine for me but none for thee". Madison WI had a problem some time ago with almost daily shots fired. They worked the problem, identified and apprehended the 7 criminals responsible, and the area, with a population of hundreds of thousands, was quiet for several months. Same problem developed, with different handful of individuals, same approach worked. Screwing with the rights of the other 300,000 people in the area was not necessary and would have been a waste of time better spent finding and dealing with the few problem individuals. Typically it is a group of criminals with a dispute with another group of criminals. Those that survive the mutual hostilities get dealt with by law enforcement.

A friend of mine was a policeman in a nearby community in the 1980s. It made no difference that concealed carry was illegal not only in this state, but in nearly all the nation at the time. He still had to be aware of the possibility and ready to deal with it. (On one occasion he was dealing with several people, as sole officer at the scene, in a bar parking lot, and one whispered in his ear that another was illegally carrying concealed.)

In the UK, the rank and file officers were upset with their leadership's directives after further gun restrictions were put in place. The leadership understood that the resulting rising crime statistics were making them and their policies look bad, so were pressuring the street officers to lower the severity or charge count per encounter systematically, to make it look as if the gun restriction was helping reduce crime, when it was actually predicate to increasing crime. In other words, the rank and file bristled at being ordered to cook the books. And despite that effort to fudge the stats in favor of gun control, the charts _STILL_ show increased violence there.
In the US, the people who actually have to do the law enforcement in contact with the public overwhelmingly support a responsible armed citizenry. (Numbers like 86 and 91% in polls) https://www.policeone.com/gun-legisl...-gun-violence/ "What checks the sociopath from completing his act is fear. Fear of the unknown or known gun carrier who is going to punch his ticket to hell right then and right there. This has an immediate effect on reducing violent criminal activity." Often crimes are prevented by the mere showing of a weapon, or even the manner of the carrier, not intimidated by the criminal's opening gambit.

Some (WI) police and other law enforcement act like dicks. Most don't, because that's not who they are. I repeat, I was not offended or alarmed by the request to remove my hands from my pockets slowly in that long ago encounter. I was surprised, amused, and sympathetic. What I was was friendly, and compliant with a clearly expressed request by an officer with a civil manner just doing his job, not "obedient, subservient, kowtowing" to a dickish officer. The shift toward Gestapo attitudes in law enforcement seems to go with gun restriction and prohibition. Contempt for the rights of citizens seems to trickle down from the legislature to the beat cop.

I'm amazed at how many people are so afraid, of being fully an adult responsible for their own safety (and perhaps of others they care about), that they want to deny it's possible or the moral thing to do, and want to push off all the responsibility onto some uniformed stranger, who is VERY unlikely to be in the neighborhood or aware of the need when it arises. One of the challenges all law enforcement face in almost all encounters is they're called in when there's already trouble afoot and are forced to quickly try to determine who/what the problem is (or it's already over and their role is like a reporter; "tell me what happened"). The persons there from the start already know if they were paying attention. Too often, there is not time or opportunity to get an officer there in the moments he or she's most needed.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

Wow. I would love to hear someone explain how more people with guns would help prevent such a crime

• It sometimes happens that such a man knows or suspects his contemplated target or her new SO are able to repel an attack and he decides not to use violence.
• It sometimes happens that a woman successfully defends herself from such a person. (These women tend to be armed and familiar with use.)
• It sometimes happens that a woman is killed by such a person while waiting weeks or months for a gun permit to be issued as a preparation for self defense from someone, often an ex, that she has reason to believe is dangerous, or after her application to the restrictive state she lives in for permission to acquire the means to protect herself is denied.
• It sometimes happens that people obtain and depend on restraining orders. The police are not liable for failure to enforce such restraining orders after issuance and request for enforcement, even when it results in the death of all the children of the person who obtained it, or the person who obtained it.
• It sometimes happens that a person chooses to rely on the police to respond in time, and they don't, and bad things happen. (Search Brittany Zimmerman. The 911 dispatcher hung up on that promising young medical student, during a home invasion, did not send help, did not call back, and Brittany's body was found in their home by her fiance hours later. Years later, her murderer has never been identified publicly or charged. Or read about the case Warren vs. DC. The police have no duty, absent a special relationship, to protect any individual citizen, and have immunity from liability if they fail to protect or even respond, even when help has been promised, repeatedly, and the ongoing reported crime spree continues on for many hours.)
• It often happens that people go about their lives nonviolently. I like that one the best.

But it only takes one bad actor to throw a monkey wrench in that last one. Then, which of the other scenarios will become more likely depends on certain choices, which may have been made long before. For most individuals, violent crime will target them sometime in their lives. I recall reading DOJ Bureau of Crime Statistics stats from a while back, for US females, 74%; US males, 89%. They've gone down some, during the period of increased gun ownership and increase of legal concealed carry.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

My memory was a little foggy on the most egregious case that had come to mind

(list of egregious cases omitted for brevity) There are some that truly are egregious, and others that are claimed to be based on verbal reports/claims of alleged witnesses that get contradicted by video and physical evidence.

With the advent of police dash- and body cams, and bystanders making their own videos, this may be changing.

That's clearly a good thing. Justice is supposed to be for all.

In US law, there is no verdict of "Innocent."

Depends on the jurisdiction and situation, per https://www.quora.com/Is-there-ever-...riminal-courts

I think it supports your overall point, while your statement of no innocent verdict is a bit too broad.