problems with concealed weapons

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: JimPghPA
To the Canadians: How many mass shootings have you had in Canada in the last ten years?

It would be interesting to know the number of deaths of innocent people per population numbers of Canada verses the United States for the last ten years.

Is an innocent citizen safer walking in a city in Canada or in the United States?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Per 100,000 people:

USA: 10.2
CAN: 2.13
GER: 1.10

Germany has an even lower firearms homicide rate than Canada

Though I will add that the UK is 0.25!!!!

 

[OVERKILL]

Jim, I don't recall any mass shootings. Firearms homicides for these years:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada

Canada:
2009: 173
2008: 200
2007: 188
2006: 190
2005: 223
2004: 173
2003: 161
2002: 152
2001: 171
2000: 184
1999: 165
1998: 151
1997: 186
1996: 207
1995: 168

Homicides per 100,000:
2009: 0.510
2008: 0.610
2007: 0.561
2006: 0.610
2005: 0.7
2004: 0.5
2003: 0.5
2002: 0.5
2001: 0.5
2000: 0.595
1999: 0.510
1998: 0.5
1997: 0.6
1996: 0.7
1995: 0.6
1992: 0.761

The United States:

2011: 11,101
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,829
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,801
1999: 10,828
1998: 9,2578

Homicides per 100,000:
2011: 3.65
2010: 3.596
2009: 3.756
2008: 4.01
2007: 4.19
2006: 4.29
2005: 4.18
2004: 3.97
2003: 4.11
2002: 4.116
2001: 3.98
2000: 3.846
1999: 3.886
1998: 3.378
1993: 7.071

 

[Trajan]

Mass shootings in the US 1982-2012.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

 

[clarkflower]

On PBS they had a speaker on it today.
He sited Harvard's anti gun Prof Hemenway who gives low end estimates of self defense gun use "approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

He said 80,000 is plenty of times alone.

I pulled a gun on a guy who charged my car with a bat. He saw the gun. Stopped and left. I never reported it. How many others don't?

 

[GenSan]

 

[grndslm]

Here ya go, Overkill....

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA
To the Canadians: How many mass shootings have you had in Canada in the last ten years?

It would be interesting to know the number of deaths of innocent people per population numbers of Canada verses the United States for the last ten years.

Is an innocent citizen safer walking in a city in Canada or in the United States?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Per 100,000 people:

USA: 10.2
CAN: 2.13
GER: 1.10

Germany has an even lower firearms homicide rate than Canada

Though I will add that the UK is 0.25!!!!


He asked if he was safe walking down the street. You focused on firearms statistics, but that doesn't answer his question. What is the overall violent crime rate? What is the rate of assaults? Of robberies? Of rapes?

The UK has a violent crime rate of 2,000 per 100,000.

The US has a violent crime rate of 466 per 100,000.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l...-of-Europe.html

Accounting for the differences in definitions and reporting, the UK still has a higher violent crime rate than the US.

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/201...nt-than-the-us/

So, the point is this: you are NOT safer on the streets of the UK than you are on the streets of the US.

Nor would it be true in Canada...

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11692-eng.htm#a20

The definitions of violent crime are similar to the UK, and the rate is roughly 1,200 per 100,000. Again, accounting for differences in definitions, the violent crime rate in Canada is not substantially lower than that of the US.

so, to answer the original question, you should be careful walking down the street in Canada and the UK, you're at least as likely to be robbed, assaulted or raped.

 

[GenSan]

Gun Facts Ad Nauseam

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

so, to answer the original question, you should be careful walking down the street in Canada and the UK, you're at least as likely to be robbed, assaulted or raped.



He asked three questions, I answered the first two.

With respect to your point, what I take away from that is that while you should be careful in any of the countries discussed, you are far less likely to end up dead in the UK or Canada.

It seems the UK has traded gun deaths for violent crimes, does it not?

There's always going to be a certain level of crime. How it manifests itself, either as assaults and robberies, or through fatal shootings, that's the rub. You are only trading one for the other. Though I must say, I'd much rather be robbed than be shot.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Astro14

so, to answer the original question, you should be careful walking down the street in Canada and the UK, you're at least as likely to be robbed, assaulted or raped.



He asked three questions, I answered the first two.

With respect to your point, what I take away from that is that while you should be careful in any of the countries discussed, you are far less likely to end up dead in the UK or Canada.

It seems the UK has traded gun deaths for violent crimes, does it not?

There's always going to be a certain level of crime. How it manifests itself, either as assaults and robberies, or through fatal shootings, that's the rub. You are only trading one for the other. Though I must say, I'd much rather be robbed than be shot.


Are we only trading one (firearms homocides) for the other (violent crime)?

We could look at the statistics: 10 firearms deaths (not homocides) per 100,000 in the US vs 1 for Canada and in exchange, you get nearly 800 more violent crimes for that same 100,000... And while I too, would rather not be dead, assault, rape, and robbery do tend to leave permanent injury.

But peel back the stats a bit, most of the gun deaths in the US are in our big cities, criminal on criminal, and the next largest category is suicides...

So, in reality, I would be trading 1 or 2 more gun deaths per 100,000 for 800 more violent crimes. You could make a pretty good utilitarian argument in favor of the small number of gun deaths as being the greatest good for the greatest number...

But all this does is compare crime...and that isn't the entire story...

The real issue is rights. Does a person have the right to self defense? The right is meaningless if you don't have the means...a smaller, older, or weaker person has the right, but only a concealed firearm grants them the means...why do you think the violent crime rate is so high in the UK? More than twice (normalized for reporting and other variables) That of the US...It's because against a strong, young, determined assailant, most people don't have the means for self defense...so their right becomes moot...

The police exist for the public good, not individual protection...they can't stop the majority of crimes in progress, only solve and aid in prosecution later...so the responsibility for the defense of a person can only rest with that individual.

The concealed carry of a weapon grants them the means.

The majority of defensive use of a gun cases do not result in a shooting...the presentation of the weapon is enough to cause an assailant to flee...though for the record, were I to draw a weapon, the shoot decision would likely already have been made (I've posted on threat definition, proportionality, and necessity several times, so lets skip over that part for now)... And CCW permit holders in the US are 20 times LESS likely to be charged with other crimes than the average citizen...it seems that, in general, they're a law abiding group...but of course, that's implicit in the structure of CCW...instead of resorting to criminality for protection, this group went through the trouble of getting permitted.

Interestingly, in the US, police shootings result in innocent bystanders being hit 11% of the time, while shootings by private citizens result in innocents being hit 2% of the time...

I am glad of my Constitutionally protected right to self defense, and I recognize my responsibility when armed...and yes, I have a Virginia CC Permit.

 

[clarkflower]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

I'd much rather be robbed than be shot.


Good
Then give me all your money.

Send it to: PO Box 111
AV DE LAS AMERICAS 411 -8,
Margaritas, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico 32300

 

[Astro14]

I'm with Ben Franklin on this whole debate: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

It's amazing how many folks, in this country, and in others, are willing to give up their freedoms for perceived safety.

It's also amazing how many politicians pander to them and gladly take their freedoms in exchange for a promise of safety...a promise that often cannot be kept...

I didn't give up any freedoms for the Consumer Product Safety commission, or car safety regulations, and those worked...but I've been asked to give up my freedoms for other promises of safety...promises that can't, or won't, be kept...and the answer from me, at least, is a clear: NO.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

Are we only trading one (firearms homocides) for the other (violent crime)?

We could look at the statistics: 10 firearms deaths (not homocides) per 100,000 in the US vs 1 for Canada and in exchange, you get nearly 800 more violent crimes for that same 100,000... And while I too, would rather not be dead, assault, rape, and robbery do tend to leave permanent injury.


In your earlier post, you mentioned some adjustment to this figures based on how these crimes are classified outside of the USA, does that not apply here?

Quote:

But peel back the stats a bit, most of the gun deaths in the US are in our big cities, criminal on criminal, and the next largest category is suicides...

So, in reality, I would be trading 1 or 2 more gun deaths per 100,000 for 800 more violent crimes. You could make a pretty good utilitarian argument in favor of the small number of gun deaths as being the greatest good for the greatest number...


That's why I specifically cited homicides earlier, not gun deaths. They seem to hover around the 4 in 100,000 mark. Ours are roughly 1/8th of that (.5 in 100,000) or 1 in 200,000).

Quote:
But all this does is compare crime...and that isn't the entire story...

The real issue is rights. Does a person have the right to self defense?


Yes, I would argue they should certainly have the right. I think of "with what" that is the question here.

Quote:
The right is meaningless if you don't have the means...a smaller, older, or weaker person has the right, but only a concealed firearm grants them the means...


Well, they could carry a blade and shank the person in the kidney

I know where you are going with this though.

Quote:
why do you think the violent crime rate is so high in the UK More than twice (normalized for reporting and other variables) That of the US...It's because against a strong, young, determined assailant, most people don't have the means for self defense...so their right becomes moot...


I think it partly has to do with the UK having 62.6 million people in an area half the size of Newfoundland, and subsequently with a population density of 661.9 people/sq mile (yours is 88.6 people/sq mile for reference).

The same reason that crime is more prevalent in the higher population density areas of the US and Canada.

Quote:
The police exist for the public good, not individual protection...they can't stop the majority of crimes in progress, only solve and aid in prosecution later...so the responsibility for the defense of a person can only rest with that individual.

The concealed carry of a weapon grants them the means.

The majority of defensive use of a gun cases do not result in a shooting...the presentation of the weapon is enough to cause an assailant to flee...though for the record, were I to draw a weapon, the shoot decision would likely already have been made (I've posted on threat definition, proportionality, and necessity several times, so lets skip over that part for now)... And CCW permit holders in the US are 20 times LESS likely to be charged with other crimes than the average citizen...it seems that, in general, they're a law abiding group...but of course, that's implicit in the structure of CCW...instead of resorting to criminality for protection, this group went through the trouble of getting permitted.


OK, but as noted earlier, it is the criminals with the handguns that are the issue, not the folks rockin' a permit.

Quote:
Interestingly, in the US, police shootings result in innocent bystanders being hit 11% of the time, while shootings by private citizens result in innocents being hit 2% of the time...

I am glad of my Constitutionally protected right to self defense, and I recognize my responsibility when armed...and yes, I have a Virginia CC Permit.


I'm allowed to defend myself too. I'm just not allowed to walk around with a hand gun. And I will take this opportunity to present a funny quote from a Canadian police officer: "If you shoot somebody who breaks into your house, make sure they are dead. Because things are a lot easier when there's only one side of the story to tell.".

I'm not anti-gun in any way. I love firearms! I'm just not a fan of the volume of handguns that the US has in circulation, as I believe the statistics support that fact that this has led to more gun homicides. Does CCW work to dissuade perps from committing violent crimes? I'm sure it does. But it also likely means that a criminal will be packing too. There is some relativity here.

 

[Astro14]

I think that we're close on a lot of issues...but there are a couple of key points on which we see things differently...

For instance; you say, "Does CCW work to dissuade perps from committing violent crimes? I'm sure it does. But it also likely means that a criminal will be packing too. There is some relativity here. "...I have to disagree...

But the perps, by definition, don't get a CCW, by definition, only law abiding citizens get a CCW...so there is no causality, no relativity, there. We're talking about 2 completely different groups of people...

In fact, after the gun ban in Australia, the number of firearms related murders has increased, and armed robberies and armed home invasions are increasing as well. (Shannow has posted on this at length). Those crimes, as well as armed assault, are on the increase in the UK as well.

Those crimes are on the decline in your country and mine, but where the average citizen is strictly denied a firearm, the criminals are increasingly armed. By definition, the criminals don't obey laws...to quote Sammy "The Bull" Gravano (mafia informant) “Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins.”

You're allowed to defend yourself...of course...but since you're not allowed to have a CCW, you haven't the means. Oh sure, you're likely in good shape, and a less likely target than the old, weak, or small...so, what are you saying; that you're fine? What about the other folks who lack your size or strength? Don't kid yourself on your ability either - a determined, experienced street fighter will take you out in seconds with his fists, or a blade, unless you've had extensive training and practice...but again, that training and practice is simply not realistic for the vast majority of the population.

It really is a question of means. And the bad guys know it...they can commit their crime against the best resistance their intended victim has to offer because they can overwhelm their victim, particularly if there are two or more assailants...

I disagree on population density being causal in the UK as well...the murder rate in Nunavit and NWT is 10 times that of Ontario or Quebec...and you certainly can't say that it's due to the population density up there...there is no correlation in your country by province, though, in both of our countries, the murder rate is far higher in the cities over 250,000 than it is in the suburbs or rural areas...

The number of firearms in the hands of good guys is clearly not the problem (back to the original post)...it's the firearms in the hands of the bad guys that is a problem.

But all the strategies that reduce the number of firearms in the hands of the good guys have failed to get the guns out of the hands of the bad guys. Gun buybacks, bans, registration, all of them have failed to deliver the safety that they promise...but those strategies have infringed on the freedom of the law-abiding...and that's where my objection lies.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
I think that we're close on a lot of issues...


Yes, I think we are

Quote:

But the perps, by definition, don't get a CCW, by definition, only law abiding citizens get a CCW...so there is no causality, no relativity, there. We're talking about 2 completely different groups of people...


I agree, but my point was about guns in circulation, not legal guns in circulation

Canada has a lot of guns. But I'd be willing to bet our handgun ownership is a small fraction of yours, legally AND non. Compared to Australia or the UK, Canadian gun ownership probably looks a lot like that of the US, which I think reinforces your point with respect to the heavily regulated countries having more issues. I'm not in disagreement.

The problem I see here, was that if Canada adopted a similar handgun policy to that of many of the US states, that we'd also end up with more handguns in circulation. And while they may certainly start out in the hands of legal owners, many of them may make their ways into the hands of criminals through theft. That's my fear. And once they are out there, you are pretty much screwed, as there's no taking them back.

 

[grndslm]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
There's always going to be a certain level of crime. How it manifests itself, either as assaults and robberies, or through fatal shootings, that's the rub. You are only trading one for the other. Though I must say, I'd much rather be robbed than be shot.

What's funny is that ROBBERS have this same mentality, as well. And so do the RAPISTS.

They'd rather give you the shaft than be shot at.

And this is why Americans love their right to self-defense... because police officers are under no obligation, requirement, or duty to protect any individual. Their only duty is to protect the general society. Only you can protect yourself.

I'd prefer it if my wife, sister, or mother lived in Vermont, where a permit isn't needed to carry a gun -- open or concealed. The criminal is always doubting his chances of living after a gun shot, so more than likely avoids the crime in the first place.

... or if they lived in Kennesaw, Georgia, they'd be even safer, because every homeowner is "required" to have a gun!!!

http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

 

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

You're allowed to defend yourself...of course...but since you're not allowed to have a CCW, you haven't the means. Oh sure, you're likely in good shape, and a less likely target than the old, weak, or small...so, what are you saying; that you're fine? What about the other folks who lack your size or strength? Don't kid yourself on your ability either - a determined, experienced street fighter will take you out in seconds with his fists, or a blade, unless you've had extensive training and practice...but again, that training and practice is simply not realistic for the vast majority of the population.


People up here that worry about being attacked carry bear spray, stuff works well enough to fend off an attacker and collateral damage is nil.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: Astro14

You're allowed to defend yourself...of course...but since you're not allowed to have a CCW, you haven't the means. Oh sure, you're likely in good shape, and a less likely target than the old, weak, or small...so, what are you saying; that you're fine? What about the other folks who lack your size or strength? Don't kid yourself on your ability either - a determined, experienced street fighter will take you out in seconds with his fists, or a blade, unless you've had extensive training and practice...but again, that training and practice is simply not realistic for the vast majority of the population.


People up here that worry about being attacked carry bear spray, stuff works well enough to fend off an attacker and collateral damage is nil.


It might make the person carrying it feel better, but it doesn't work well. Statistics on its effectiveness show that it works poorly, particularly if the attacker has experienced capsicum before...they are most often employed by rapists to incapacitate the victim...

The military has tried for years to come up with non lethal means of stopping someone, but none of those methods tried have demonstrated consistent effectiveness...

If we're talking about your life, you're better off using a method that is proven to be effective.

 

[JimPghPA]

Wow, thanks everyone.

Over a year ago, I was looking at some of the web sites that sell the high end LED flashlights. There was one sold mostly to people who live in countries where they can not get guns. The output was high enough to temporary blind a person at night, and the size was big enough and heavy enough to use as a striking weapon.

Thanks again.

 

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

It might make the person carrying it feel better, but it doesn't work well. Statistics on its effectiveness show that it works poorly, particularly if the attacker has experienced capsicum before...they are most often employed by rapists to incapacitate the victim...

It doesn’t need to be bear spray, pepper spray is much more effective (although I do believe it is illegal here)

Originally Posted By: Astro14

The military has tried for years to come up with non lethal means of stopping someone, but none of those methods tried have demonstrated consistent effectiveness...

If we're talking about your life, you're better off using a method that is proven to be effective.


The police and military have a bundle of non-lethal weapons but there is no perfect weapon.

Also in any conflict situation, if they know what they are doing the person who gets the jump on the other is going to have their way with the other person, doesn’t matter who is packing what.