4 ms·

How many times has that "80-year-old grandmother" scenario happened? In all those countries with stricter gun laws, how many more times are those defenseless g

by dalke 10y ago

How many times has that "80-year-old grandmother" scenario happened? In all those countries with stricter gun laws, how many more times are those defenseless grandmothers been assaulted than in the US? I believe it's a fraction, perhaps even a small fraction. In the US, how many times has a child picked up a gun and killed someone by accident? More times than grandmothers have defended themselves, or less? How many times has a police officer shot someone for worries that the officer's own life was in danger of being shot, only to find that the person had no weapon? How many times have SWAT and no-knock warrants been justified for worries that the person being served might be armed? And of those, how many people have died? And how many died when the police went to the wrong house? How come having a gun didn't help Clarence Daniels keep from being assaulted by Michael Foster? http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/01/black-man-gun-permit-walmart-florida-vigilante http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/01/black-man-gun... Regarding your last sentence, I think real estate titles have shown some of the advantages to having the government track who has purchased a piece of property, so I disagree with your blanket statement.

hga 10y ago
In the US, how many times has a child picked up a gun and killed someone by accident? More times than grandmothers have defended themselves, or less? Easily less, there are only ~600 accidental firearms fatalities a year, and we managed to get that number down from ~800 in 1980 in a period when both the population and and the number of guns it owns have increased by very roughly 50%. Those warrior cops you cite two examples of? We still had a huge gun owning population back when they were peace officers, it's not guns per se that have resulted in that change. Real estate titles are a very different thing, I submit to you, in that trying to take someone else's land has a much longer and greater pedigree than their weapons, and for entirely different motives.
- dalke 10y ago
  And how many grandmothers have successfully defended themselves with a weapon? That's the missing side. (And yes, the numbers for that vary from 55,000 to 4.7 million total home defense use - good luck on narrowing it down to kabdib scenario of 80 year old grandmothers.) I believe the higher number includes grandmothers who defended herself with a weapon without firing it, in which case the balance has to include all crimes which were committed with a gun. Really I'm annoyed with kabdib for using a hypothetical scenario to justify personal gun ownership, when for decades everyone has pointed out how meaningless such scenarios are for meaningful policy change. I never said it was "guns per se". I'm well aware of countries like Switzerland and Finland with a high gun ownership, though not as high as the US, and don't have the same sorts of gun-related violence. I agree that real estate and vehicle titles are different things. My point was that I disagreed with the blanket statement "It's no business of the government's what purchases I make."
kabdib 10y ago
> How many times has that "80-year-old grandmother" scenario happened? Substitute "aged grandma" with "anyone weaker than an attacker" being able to successfully make themselves an unattractive target, and it's going to be a pretty significant number. Figures are debated on both sides. Real-estate titles appear to be more about taxation and revenue generation than anything else. Take away that incentive and you'll find governments doing a crappy job of it.
- dalke 10y ago
  And substitute child killing someone by accident to child injuring someone by accident. You are the one who proposed that made-for-TV scenario as if it should justify anything. Since the law have been set up to prohibit the government from gathering that information, of course it's uncertain - the law was designed so there's a grey area. So, since you don't have numbers (which is why you propose the scenario instead), what about answer the question which isn't subject to statistics gathering? How come having a gun didn't help Clarence Daniels keep from being assaulted by Michael Foster?
  - hga 10y ago
    First of all, the level of force used on Clarence Daniels did not clearly rise to lethal, so he wasn't necessarily allowed to use his handgun in reply in the first place (this can certainly be debated, but then you have to add the other people piling on before it was realized who was in the right). Second, is anyone on my side arguing guns are a panacea to all self-defense problems and situations? As it was, Daniels got roughed up, Foster was found guilty of battery, the system worked pretty well, didn't it?
    - dalke 10y ago
      By saying "did not clearly rise to lethal", you have changed the goalposts. You started by saying the grandmother needed it to defend herself against assault. I gave an example of an assault where a weapon proved worse than useless. You did not say the grandmother needed it to defend herself against manslaughter or attempted manslaughter, which is what it would have been had the level of force risen to lethal. You said a weapon was useful so ""anyone weaker than an attacker" being able to successfully make themselves an unattractive target." Yet here was a case where the presence of a gun made the victim an attractive target for assault.

by dalke 10y ago

hga 10y ago

In the US, how many times has a child picked up a gun and killed someone by accident? More times than grandmothers have defended themselves, or less? Easily less, there are only ~600 accidental firearms fatalities a year, and we managed to get that number down from ~800 in 1980 in a period when both the population and and the number of guns it owns have increased by very roughly 50%. Those warrior cops you cite two examples of? We still had a huge gun owning population back when they were peace officers, it's not guns per se that have resulted in that change. Real estate titles are a very different thing, I submit to you, in that trying to take someone else's land has a much longer and greater pedigree than their weapons, and for entirely different motives.

dalke 10y ago
And how many grandmothers have successfully defended themselves with a weapon? That's the missing side. (And yes, the numbers for that vary from 55,000 to 4.7 million total home defense use - good luck on narrowing it down to kabdib scenario of 80 year old grandmothers.) I believe the higher number includes grandmothers who defended herself with a weapon without firing it, in which case the balance has to include all crimes which were committed with a gun. Really I'm annoyed with kabdib for using a hypothetical scenario to justify personal gun ownership, when for decades everyone has pointed out how meaningless such scenarios are for meaningful policy change. I never said it was "guns per se". I'm well aware of countries like Switzerland and Finland with a high gun ownership, though not as high as the US, and don't have the same sorts of gun-related violence. I agree that real estate and vehicle titles are different things. My point was that I disagreed with the blanket statement "It's no business of the government's what purchases I make."

kabdib 10y ago

> How many times has that "80-year-old grandmother" scenario happened? Substitute "aged grandma" with "anyone weaker than an attacker" being able to successfully make themselves an unattractive target, and it's going to be a pretty significant number. Figures are debated on both sides. Real-estate titles appear to be more about taxation and revenue generation than anything else. Take away that incentive and you'll find governments doing a crappy job of it.

dalke 10y ago
And substitute child killing someone by accident to child injuring someone by accident. You are the one who proposed that made-for-TV scenario as if it should justify anything. Since the law have been set up to prohibit the government from gathering that information, of course it's uncertain - the law was designed so there's a grey area. So, since you don't have numbers (which is why you propose the scenario instead), what about answer the question which isn't subject to statistics gathering? How come having a gun didn't help Clarence Daniels keep from being assaulted by Michael Foster?
- hga 10y ago
  First of all, the level of force used on Clarence Daniels did not clearly rise to lethal, so he wasn't necessarily allowed to use his handgun in reply in the first place (this can certainly be debated, but then you have to add the other people piling on before it was realized who was in the right). Second, is anyone on my side arguing guns are a panacea to all self-defense problems and situations? As it was, Daniels got roughed up, Foster was found guilty of battery, the system worked pretty well, didn't it?
  - dalke 10y ago
    By saying "did not clearly rise to lethal", you have changed the goalposts. You started by saying the grandmother needed it to defend herself against assault. I gave an example of an assault where a weapon proved worse than useless. You did not say the grandmother needed it to defend herself against manslaughter or attempted manslaughter, which is what it would have been had the level of force risen to lethal. You said a weapon was useful so ""anyone weaker than an attacker" being able to successfully make themselves an unattractive target." Yet here was a case where the presence of a gun made the victim an attractive target for assault.