States Loosen Concealed Carry Laws, Stir Debate

Once again there whether a person is armed or unarmed typically has no bearing on whether they are the intended victim of an attack. The only difference is that an armed individual can protect themself from being an actual victim of robbery, rape or murder where an unarmed individual is at a distinct disadvantage and is far more likely to end up being a victim.

Let's put forward a simple situation by way of example. Only 5% of rapes are committed with the rapist in possession of a firearm. Does a woman have a better chance of stopping the rape if she's unarmed or if she has a handgun?

http://www.ocregister.com/news/gun-200911-homeowner-year.html

Sadly the 18 year old woman didn't have a firearm that she could have used to stop the rapist.

 

We are referring to risks. The evidence shows the gun possessors are more likely to be victims.

Note that you've presented no evidence in support, being too reliant on a secondary source that only made weak reference to the available literature. You won't be able to support any rape reduction hypothesis. Indeed, as has already been referenced, evidence into household gun use suggests that guns are more likely to be used against family members than in their defence.

No, let's make it even more straight-forward. Can you defend your opinion with evidence? Yes or no. As already remarked, the predicted effect is ambiguous. We have to factor in facilitate effects, where the probability of vicitimisation actually increases.

 

Question of relevance. Are these "gun owners" law abiding citizens with CCW permits or are they criminals engaged in criminal activities that are illegally in possession of a firearm?

 

Again, the analysis controls for these type of variables (given they impact on the risk measure)

Why can't you refer to any evidence in support of your rape claims?

 

Let's see. A 27 year old gang member breaks into a woman's home where the woman is unarmed and he rapes her. Immediately thereafter he breaks into another home and is confronted by the homeowner with a gun and flees in terror lucky to not be shot. The police applaud the actions of the gun owner stating he responded in the best possible manner to the break-in of his home.

Three crimes were committed. Two break-ins and one rape. The number of crimes could have been higher had the second homeowner not had a firearm as he and his family were in serious danger, possibly mortal danger, when the gang member broke into their home. Or the number of crimes could have been less had the 18 year old woman had a handgun to defend herself as she could have prevented the rape.

Facts, facts, facts.

 

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/missouri-mother-uses-gun-to-stop-rape-of-her-daughter/

How much evidence is really required? As noted just one case where a rape, murder or robbery is prevented establishes that the use of a firearm to stop crime is an effective means for the individual to defend themself and Self-Defense is an inalienable Right of every Individual.

 

Given we have 2 conflicting effects and therefore ambiguous effects, I'll settle for the obvious: an empirical study that supports your opinion. If you can't provide one just say so

 

There you go Reiver.

http://www.americanfirearms.org/statistics.php#35

Of the 61% of people who attempted to defend themselves from violent crime, only 1% brandished a firearm as part of that defense. Conversely, 25% of the adult American population owns a firearm, and 17 percent of the population owns a handgun. Clearly gun possession does not make the likelihood of violent crime increase.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm

 

That is rich and my laugh for the day. Demanding and imperical study yet not providing one yourself.

 

Nope. I asked for much more. I asked for evidence that, with gun possession, rape rates are lower. We know that the effects are ambiguous. We have to factor in facilitation effects. We already know that guns are more likely to be used in rape than in non-sexual assault. You'd have to show that deterrence effects dominate.

I'm of course being a little unfair. I've already perused the evidence and know that significant rape reduction effects aren't found.

 

Quid pro quo.

You said:

What evidence?

 

Referenced it earlier. See the Wilcox paper

 

I don't have access to the entire paper just yet, but in reading the abstract I find that the paper references "weapon carrying."

http://www.jstor.org/pss/20832160

You said that "gun possessors" are more likely to be victims. Where is your evidence for this please?

 

Wilcox considers all types of weapons, including of course guns

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIP6EwqMEoE&feature=related"]You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - YouTube[/ame]

I don't think you know what that really means.

 

You might also want to consider Branas et al (2009, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 99 Issue 11, pp 2034-2040):

"After we adjusted for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Individuals who were in possession of a gun were also 4.23 times more likely to be fatally shot in an assault. In assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 5.45 times more likely to be shot".

Different type of analysis of course, but broadly supports the Wilcox findings

 

What were the confounding factors? Did they exclude criminal activity?

 

They include numerous situational and individual characteristics. Situational characteristics include alcohol involvement, illicit drug involvement and geographic/demographic variables (racial breakdown, local unemployment rate, local income, alcohol outlets per mile, drugs arrest per mile etc). Individual characteristics include age, race, gender, occupation, class, prior arrests and education

 

..... so you are basically including deaths associated in criminal activity to conclude that carrying a using a concealed weapon will increase the odds of your own death?

 

No, we're controlling for criminal activity so that we aren't making spurious conclusion

 

Yes. Gun fights between gang members where all are armed are included.

 

I'll take those odds over simply submitting to be a victim. Let me go down fighting as opposed to being a willing victim.

Of course taking defensive firearms training greatly reverses those odds so they are fundamentally meaningless. It would be like saying someone that drives a car without learning how to is far more likely to be in an automobile accident. They are meaningless statistics if a person takes personal responsibility for not only owning a firearm but also in learning how to use it and being willing to use it.

These statistics also fail to segregate those that have CCW permits where in many states there is a requirement for the individual to qualify (be able to actually use) the firearm. I am not opposed to reasonable regulations that would require a person to show proof of training in the use of firearms before receiving a CCW permit.

 

Great! Your choice. However, your position is also about increasing coercion in general. This is clear-cut as you ignore the increase in victimisation created through gun preferences

You continue to make claims without providing any evidence in support.

 

I'm glad that no spurious conclusions are being made because if carrying a firearm is so dangerous then we really need to disarm the police. In the United States the People have virtually the identical power of the Police departments as we can lawfully arrest, detain and file criminal charges against a person that violates the law.

 

Yes, my choice and I oppose anyone taking that choice away from me. If a person chooses to not have a firearm to protect themself and instead chooses to be a willing victim then that is their choice. No one is forced to go out and purchase a firearm, take firearms training courses and be able to defend themself from attack.

No evidence has been presented to show that individuals with CCW permits are more likely to be victims of crime.

Try reviewing the training for police officers all of which receive training in the use of firearms. Obviously we're wasting the taxpayers dollars if this training is not effective in ensuring that our police officers are not safer because they're qualified in the use of firearms.