IS ARMED PARISHIONERS THE SOLUTION TO CUTTING DOWN ON DEATHS IN MASS SHOOTINGS IN CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS SETTINGS
YES! DISCUSS!
19 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Yep. as the criminals don't obey "gun-free" zones. Ushers should be suspicious of anyone dressed unusually, like someone wearing a trench coat or winter clothing when it is 70 degrees outside (as it was yesterday in 30327), or someone standing when there are seats available in the pews. We have security at our Sunday Masses, sometimes up to 3 officers, though partly for traffic control and parking issues.
Heck, you wonder where you can go safely these days---not church, certainly not the local mall (we had a shooting at Lenox two weekends ago in broad daylight), not even driving around metro Atlanta.
The same "media" you blame for radicalizing impressionable people is to blame for "radicalizing" us into believing that the only way we can be safe today is for everyone to carry a gun. This is not Dodge City in the 1870's. Homicide rates are considerably LOWER now then they were throughout the 1970's and 1980's, but listening to the reports, you'd think it was far, far higher. In 2016, the homicide rate was almost exactly the same as in 1960.
High Impact / Low Probability (HILP) events are a cause for concern. But they are not a cause for overreacting. Business leaders have been considering HILP events for a long time and they do not urge "arming everyone." For that matter, neither do most law enforcement leaders.
Anon 30327 asks where we can go safely these days. I answer, "Everywhere we've been going in the past." I have lived for almost 62 years and have never - not once - been in a situation in which I needed a gun for protection of myself or others. I've lived in upper-class neighborhoods and, as you did, Allan, across the street from pretty dicey government housing in Olde Towne Augusta. I have worked in rural churches and urban churches.
I go to the mall, to movies, to church, to sporting events, to concerts, to all of the types of places where mass shootings have taken place, and I do it without a second thought.
The first time a member of your "Security Force" discharges a gun inappropriately or, God forbid, hits and kills an innocent bystander, the lunacy of arming the populace will be tragically evident.
Only the right ones. The ones trained and coordinated. But I do think the entire parish should be trained on how to shelter in place, call for help, seek better shelter and evacuate.
That was one heck of a shot and a lucky shot, instant stop on a moving opponent at that range, and general doctrine is doubletap (anybody worth shooting once is worth shooting twice) as once is often NOT enough, or even 5.....they got off lucky, but heartwarming were the other armed parishoners who rushed to the downed shooter.
Large protestant churches have had security teams for my entire lifetime, there nothing holy there and only a meeting hall where hated ex spouse and family sit together on Sundays as an inviting target, and them knowing shunned members known to cause problems.
Many of us Catholic parishoners also carry, legal or not, depending on the state. Hardly any bishop will sign off on the idea of armed parishoners, they have to be Jesus, you understand, and tell parishoners to turn for another shot. Plus fears of liability which are real when a gunfight erupts and turns out some parishoners hit by parishoner fire.
That was one heck of a shot and a lucky shot, instant stop on a moving opponent at that range, and general doctrine is doubletap (anybody worth shooting once is worth shooting twice) as once is often NOT enough, or even 5.....they got off lucky, but heartwarming were the other armed parishoners who rushed to the downed shooter.
Large protestant churches have had security teams for my entire lifetime, there nothing holy there and only a meeting hall where hated ex spouse and family sit together on Sundays as an inviting target, and them knowing shunned members known to cause problems.
Many of us Catholic parishoners also carry, legal or not, depending on the state. Hardly any bishop will sign off on the idea of armed parishoners, they have to be Jesus, you understand, and tell parishoners to turn for another shot. Plus fears of liability which are real when a gunfight erupts and turns out some parishoners hit by parishoner fire.
But, what other choice?
As for Mr Kananaugh comment above, betting the shark attacks the OTHER fish is what empowers most mass shooters, them knowing the school is helpless, and can only be thankful the same Mr Kavanaugh did not have pull at that church in TX and them as disarmex as the Jews in NY and Jersey.
Sorry for double post with additional text, as I thought I was on a clean slate. I should very much like to see nay-sayers, regarding armed parishoners, and spouting corporate best business practices (instituted to maximize profits and the heck with personnel losses), and their corporate ideas of high impact/low probability events, trot over to TX and speak at that church as to just how stupid the members were in making sure they were not helpless...perhaps the members could be talked out of such risky and foolish behavior. And, I would like to be there when they do. But do not count on any help as my gun will be in the car.
Bob, when it comes to a crowded church (or mall, or theater, or concert venue) can we rely - SHOULD we rely - on one "lucky shot" to take out an aggressor? If numerous shots must be fired, are we ready for the likelihood of injured or killed bystanders? I am not.
I am also not "betting" that the shark attacks other fish. First, I know that the chances of being in a position in which I need a gun to protect myself or others is extremely unlikely. It is far more likely that I will have a house fire, so, yes, I do have fire extinguishers in my home to deal with that possibility, even though I do not expect it to happen.
Second, I am thankful that the death of Christ on the cross has broken the chain of evil that entrapped us. I know that if, by grace, I refuse steadfastly to engage in evil of any kind, that the freedom won for us on the Cross is renewed and the Reign of God is advanced. I know that when I give in to acting violently, I push back the hand of God, rejecting the freedom Christ won for me and for us. If I say, "Well, I MUST return violence for violence because that is the only way I will be safe" then I have given into the lie of the Master of Lies.
Third, I hope and pray that bishops will not sign off on a deal with the devil. I doing so they will stand in the freedom - the sometimes costly freedom - that Christ has won for this broken world.
Yes, there is another choice. Standing in that freedom and trusting the power of God and not the power of guns is the better choice.
I'm inclined to agree with Fr Kavanaugh. However, I think he will find that homicide rates in Dodge City in 1870 were lower than in modern American cities. The Wild West is mostly Hollywood myth.
When we hear of a mass shooting in the US the perpetrator either takes his own life or is shot dead by police. How often is he taken out by an armed civilian? Does anyone have statistics on this?
Homicide rates in Dodge City in the late 1800's were far higher than in modern American Cities.
"For instance, the adult residents of Dodge City faced a homicide rate of at least 165 per 100,000 adults per year, meaning that 0.165 percent of the population was murdered each year—between a fifth and a tenth of a percent. That may sound small, but it is large to a criminologist or epidemiologist, because it means that an adult who lived in Dodge City from 1876 to 1885 faced at least a 1 in 61 chance of being murdered—1.65 percent of the population was murdered in those 10 years. An adult who lived in San Francisco, 1850-1865, faced at least a 1 in 203 chance of being murdered, and in the eight other counties in California that have been studied to date, at least a 1 in 72 chance. Even in Oregon, 1850-1865, which had the lowest minimum rate yet discovered in the American West (30 per 100,000 adults per year), an adult faced at least a 1 in 208 chance of being murdered." (Table and Figures from “Criminologists and Historians of Crime: A Partnership Well Worth Pursuing,” and "Homicide Rates in the American West" by Randolph Roth Figures and Tables for Randolph Roth, “Criminologists and Historians of Crime: A Partnership Well Worth Pursuing,” Crime, History, and Societies (2017), v. 21, no. 2, pp. 389-401.)
The latest figures I found for Chicago (2018) is 561 homicides in an adult population of 2.2 million adults. If my math is correct, that gives a 0.02 chance per 100,000 adults.
In New York there were 293 homicides in 2019 with a population of 8.5 million. In Dallas, 220 homicides in 2019 with a population of 1.3 million.
While there is certainly some mythologizing associated with our Wild West ideas, the reality is that homicide was far more common in those days, as were rates of gun ownership.
I think most folk against guns should read Dr John Lott and his studies of gun violence with REAL data rather than cooked data gathered from anti-gun sources. The main reason non-gun owners have better odds of a house fire than those of a violent encounter is due to the violently inclined held in check by the possibility their target might be carrying a gun and why known unarmed large crowds nearly always the target of mass shooters rather than taking on a police station or military installation guard detail at front gate...they get in where they know where folk are unarmed.
As for the old west and gun availability as if tied to violence, the most common gun of the frontier was surplus muzzleloading gear from the War Between The States. A Colt SAA or Winchester cost about as much as an ounce of gold, something the average person could not afford, and the true most common weapon was a single-shot shotgun or muzzloader, purely for homestead defense and as game getter for the larder. The high murder rates were due to almost total lack of any law or law enforcement, and very low chances of apprehension.
As a combat veteran, I can tell you there truly are very few atheists when folk are trying to kill you, and just as few true pacifists willing to die rather than commit violence in lawful defense of life. I pray no anti-gun type ever need face watching those they love gunned down in front of them by way of testing that pacifist resolve, but the truth is today that most victims and survivors fall into that camp. My Church even tells me that defense against deadly aggression is lawful, so, I have no qualms at all as to defending self or others, especially the poor others not so convinced of an afterlife or judgement awaiting, and who might need more time to ready selves for that judgement.
Re: Dr. John Lott: "But Lott’s recent successes belie a far more shadowy past. A little over a decade ago, he was disgraced and his career was in tatters. Not only was Lott’s assertion that more guns leads to more safety formally repudiated by a National Research Council panel, but he had also been caught pushing studies with severe statistical errors on numerous occasions. An investigation uncovered that he had almost certainly fabricated an entire survey on defensive gun use. And a blogger revealed that Mary Rosh, an online commentator claiming to be a former student of Lott’s who would frequently post about how amazing he was, was in fact John Lott himself. He was all but excommunicated from academia."
The NRC panel found Lott's analysis of statistics severely flawed and that he assumed a false identity and, using that identity, praised him(self) and his research.
Lott made claims about being published in a peer-reviewed journal that were untrue ("As the head editor of the journal explained to us, while Lott’s paper had initially been considered for publication, it was ultimately rejected. The issue of the journal Lott said he was published in has no trace of his paper.")
There are multiple false statements made by Lott that are referenced in "The GOP’s Favorite Gun ‘Academic’ Is a Fraud, Evan DeFilippis, Devin Hughes Aug 12, 2016, 4:45 pm at https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-john-lott-5456e83cf326/
Bob, I am not "anti-gun." I am anti-gun violence, and there is a huge difference.
Access to guns and ammunition is far too easy in our country. The rights granted by the Second Amendment, like the rights granted by every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights, can and should be limited, restricted, or otherwise qualified. We have a right to Free Speech, but you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
We have the right to peaceably assemble, but you cannot assemble on the plaza in front of the Supreme Court building, nor can you have an assembly such as a parade on 5th Avenue in New York without a permit.
We have a right to Free Press, but you cannot publish child pornography.
EVERY right is limited by law or policy for the Common Good.
No sales and/or transfers or guns without background checks AND notification of legal authorities. No gun show loopholes. We do it with cars, we can do it with guns.
Anyone who sells or transfers more than one gun a year must be licensed.
Any gun theft NOT reported within, say, 10 days, is a felony. (If guns are that important, you will know if they have been stolen.)
End all permit-less carry.
Enact stronger red-flag laws for people with violent or criminal backgrounds.
All ammunition should be manufactured with UPC bullet tagging so that law enforcement can, in the event of a crime, trace the manufacturer, distributor, retailer, and final purchaser of the ammo.
Smart gun technology must be advanced rapidly. If it's not your gun, it won't fire.
Before you or others start saying that new laws/restrictions won't stop gun violence, think about murder. We have laws against it, but do we abolish the laws because they don't stop all murder? Of course not.
Saying "It won't work" is an excuse for not trying.
Thanks for the statistics, which corrected my contention that homicide rates were lower in Dodge City in 1870 than in modern American cities. Homicide rates are expressed in terms of intentional homicides (murder and manslaughter) per 100,000. The quotation you give is actually copied verbatim from a longer article on the Quora website (dated 31/10/2018).
The article also made it clear that homicide rate statistics can be misleading. Your figures for Chicago indicate a rate of 25.5 per 100.000. New York has a rate of 3.4 (compared with the national average of 5.6). Does that mean that you are seven-and-a-half times as likely to be killed in Chicago than in NY? In 1874 the population of Dodge City was about a thousand, so just one murder would give it a homicide rate of 100.
The current homicide rate for the USA stands at 5.6 per 100,000. This is by far the largest in any developed country, and most outsiders would attribute this to lax gun control (ironically, Dodge City when Wyatt Earp was sheriff had stricter gun control than anywhere in Kansas nowadays). Yet, as you correctly point out, the rate has fallen dramatically; in 1980 it was just over 10. The rapid decline is not matched by a decline in the number of guns in circulation, so is there a correlation?
I think it was Mark Twain who observed 'There are lies, damned lies and statistics.'
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.
2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded. Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.
3. Across states, more guns = more homicide
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten-year period (1988-1997). After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide. Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92:1988-1993.
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide. Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
5. A summary of the evidence on guns and violent death
This book chapter summarizes the scientific literature on the relationship between gun prevalence (levels of household gun ownership) and suicide, homicide and unintentional firearm death and concludes that where there are higher levels of gun ownership, there are more gun suicides and more total suicides, more gun homicides and more total homicides, and more accidental gun deaths. This is the first chapter in the book and provides and up-to-date and readable summary of the literature on the relationship between guns and death. It also adds to the literature by using the National Violent Death Reporting System data to show where (home or away) the shootings occurred. Suicides for all age groups and homicides for children and aging adults most often occurred in their own home. Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearms and violence death in the United States. In: Webster DW, Vernick JS, eds. Reducing Gun Violence in America. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.
6. More guns = more homicides of police
This article examines homicide rates of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) from 1996 to 2010. Differences in rates of homicides of LEOs across states are best explained not by differences in crime, but by differences in household gun ownership. In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states. This article was cited by President Obama in a speech to a police association. This article will hopefully bring police further into the camp of those pushing for sensible gun laws. Swedler DI, Simmons MM, Dominici F, Hemenway D. Firearm prevalence and homicides of law enforcement officers in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105:2042-48.
Again, I am indebted to you for the wealth of statistical information you have provided. One argument made by those who oppose stricter gun control is that criminals are less likely to attack those whom they believe to be armed, and law enforcement officers are certainly going to be armed.
I have no particular axe to grind. The UK's gun laws are so strict that the Olympic shooting team has to go abroad to train. Aside from sporting weapons and shotguns, the only people routinely armed are the police and the criminal fraternity.
The idea of a shoot-out in a church seems bizarre. Apart from anything else, so few people actually go to church that any jihadist worth his salt would target a nightclub or a rock concert.
"One argument made by those who oppose stricter gun control is that criminals are less likely to attack those whom they believe to be armed, and law enforcement officers are certainly going to be armed."
Under "normal" circumstances this may be true. However, speaking with folks I know in law enforcement, a great majority of the criminals they encounter and the crimes they investigate involve people who are, due to alcohol or illicit drugs, in an altered mental state. An addict in withdrawal will not think much about whether the homeowner may be armed when he/she seizes a chance to dash into an open garage and grab a power tool or two that he/she can sell for ready cash.
On a grammatical note, since there can be no doubt that criminals (like politicians, pianists, or any number of generalized categories of people) may be of either sex, there is no need to write he/she all the time; the masculine pronoun will suffice.
When referring to a specific group of individuals (e.g. pupils in a school) the use of 'he or she' and 'his or her', though tiresome, is usually necessary to avoid confusion. The use of the third person plural, though common, is barbarous when the antecedent noun is singular, all the more so if it is placed too close to it.
19 comments:
Yep. as the criminals don't obey "gun-free" zones. Ushers should be suspicious of anyone dressed unusually, like someone wearing a trench coat or winter clothing when it is 70 degrees outside (as it was yesterday in 30327), or someone standing when there are seats available in the pews. We have security at our Sunday Masses, sometimes up to 3 officers, though partly for traffic control and parking issues.
Heck, you wonder where you can go safely these days---not church, certainly not the local mall (we had a shooting at Lenox two weekends ago in broad daylight), not even driving around metro Atlanta.
No.
The same "media" you blame for radicalizing impressionable people is to blame for "radicalizing" us into believing that the only way we can be safe today is for everyone to carry a gun. This is not Dodge City in the 1870's. Homicide rates are considerably LOWER now then they were throughout the 1970's and 1980's, but listening to the reports, you'd think it was far, far higher. In 2016, the homicide rate was almost exactly the same as in 1960.
High Impact / Low Probability (HILP) events are a cause for concern. But they are not a cause for overreacting. Business leaders have been considering HILP events for a long time and they do not urge "arming everyone." For that matter, neither do most law enforcement leaders.
Anon 30327 asks where we can go safely these days. I answer, "Everywhere we've been going in the past." I have lived for almost 62 years and have never - not once - been in a situation in which I needed a gun for protection of myself or others. I've lived in upper-class neighborhoods and, as you did, Allan, across the street from pretty dicey government housing in Olde Towne Augusta. I have worked in rural churches and urban churches.
I go to the mall, to movies, to church, to sporting events, to concerts, to all of the types of places where mass shootings have taken place, and I do it without a second thought.
The first time a member of your "Security Force" discharges a gun inappropriately or, God forbid, hits and kills an innocent bystander, the lunacy of arming the populace will be tragically evident.
Only the right ones. The ones trained and coordinated. But I do think the entire parish should be trained on how to shelter in place, call for help, seek better shelter and evacuate.
I'm pretty sure that despite the official policies in Georgia, there are a number of concealed carry people in the congregations.
That was one heck of a shot and a lucky shot, instant stop on a moving opponent at that range, and general doctrine is doubletap (anybody worth shooting once is worth shooting twice) as once is often NOT enough, or even 5.....they got off lucky, but heartwarming were the other armed parishoners who rushed to the downed shooter.
Large protestant churches have had security teams for my entire lifetime, there nothing holy there and only a meeting hall where hated ex spouse and family sit together on Sundays as an inviting target, and them knowing shunned members known to cause problems.
Many of us Catholic parishoners also carry, legal or not, depending on the state. Hardly any bishop will sign off on the idea of armed parishoners, they have to be Jesus, you understand, and tell parishoners to turn for another shot. Plus fears of liability which are real when a gunfight erupts and turns out some parishoners hit by parishoner fire.
But, what other choice?
That was one heck of a shot and a lucky shot, instant stop on a moving opponent at that range, and general doctrine is doubletap (anybody worth shooting once is worth shooting twice) as once is often NOT enough, or even 5.....they got off lucky, but heartwarming were the other armed parishoners who rushed to the downed shooter.
Large protestant churches have had security teams for my entire lifetime, there nothing holy there and only a meeting hall where hated ex spouse and family sit together on Sundays as an inviting target, and them knowing shunned members known to cause problems.
Many of us Catholic parishoners also carry, legal or not, depending on the state. Hardly any bishop will sign off on the idea of armed parishoners, they have to be Jesus, you understand, and tell parishoners to turn for another shot. Plus fears of liability which are real when a gunfight erupts and turns out some parishoners hit by parishoner fire.
But, what other choice?
As for Mr Kananaugh comment above, betting the shark attacks the OTHER fish is what empowers most mass shooters, them knowing the school is helpless, and can only be thankful the same Mr Kavanaugh did not have pull at that church in TX and them as disarmex as the Jews in NY and Jersey.
Sorry for double post with additional text, as I thought I was on a clean slate.
I should very much like to see nay-sayers, regarding armed parishoners, and spouting corporate best business practices (instituted to maximize profits and the heck with personnel losses), and their corporate ideas of high impact/low probability events, trot over to TX and speak at that church as to just how stupid the members were in making sure they were not helpless...perhaps the members could be talked out of such risky and foolish behavior. And, I would like to be there when they do. But do not count on any help as my gun will be in the car.
Bob, when it comes to a crowded church (or mall, or theater, or concert venue) can we rely - SHOULD we rely - on one "lucky shot" to take out an aggressor? If numerous shots must be fired, are we ready for the likelihood of injured or killed bystanders? I am not.
I am also not "betting" that the shark attacks other fish. First, I know that the chances of being in a position in which I need a gun to protect myself or others is extremely unlikely. It is far more likely that I will have a house fire, so, yes, I do have fire extinguishers in my home to deal with that possibility, even though I do not expect it to happen.
Second, I am thankful that the death of Christ on the cross has broken the chain of evil that entrapped us. I know that if, by grace, I refuse steadfastly to engage in evil of any kind, that the freedom won for us on the Cross is renewed and the Reign of God is advanced. I know that when I give in to acting violently, I push back the hand of God, rejecting the freedom Christ won for me and for us. If I say, "Well, I MUST return violence for violence because that is the only way I will be safe" then I have given into the lie of the Master of Lies.
Third, I hope and pray that bishops will not sign off on a deal with the devil. I doing so they will stand in the freedom - the sometimes costly freedom - that Christ has won for this broken world.
Yes, there is another choice. Standing in that freedom and trusting the power of God and not the power of guns is the better choice.
I'm inclined to agree with Fr Kavanaugh. However, I think he will find that homicide rates in Dodge City in 1870 were lower than in modern American cities. The Wild West is mostly Hollywood myth.
When we hear of a mass shooting in the US the perpetrator either takes his own life or is shot dead by police. How often is he taken out by an armed civilian? Does anyone have statistics on this?
Homicide rates in Dodge City in the late 1800's were far higher than in modern American Cities.
"For instance, the adult residents of Dodge City faced a homicide rate of at least 165 per 100,000 adults per year, meaning that 0.165 percent of the population was murdered each year—between a fifth and a tenth of a percent. That may sound small, but it is large to a criminologist or epidemiologist, because it means that an adult who lived in Dodge City from 1876 to 1885 faced at least a 1 in 61 chance of being murdered—1.65 percent of the population was murdered in those 10 years. An adult who lived in San Francisco, 1850-1865, faced at least a 1 in 203 chance of being murdered, and in the eight other counties in California that have been studied to date, at least a 1 in 72 chance. Even in Oregon, 1850-1865, which had the lowest minimum rate yet discovered in the American West (30 per 100,000 adults per year), an adult faced at least a 1 in 208 chance of being murdered." (Table and Figures from “Criminologists and Historians of Crime: A Partnership Well Worth Pursuing,” and "Homicide Rates in the American West" by Randolph Roth
Figures and Tables for Randolph Roth, “Criminologists and Historians of Crime: A Partnership Well Worth Pursuing,” Crime, History, and Societies (2017), v. 21, no. 2, pp. 389-401.)
The latest figures I found for Chicago (2018) is 561 homicides in an adult population of 2.2 million adults. If my math is correct, that gives a 0.02 chance per 100,000 adults.
In New York there were 293 homicides in 2019 with a population of 8.5 million. In Dallas, 220 homicides in 2019 with a population of 1.3 million.
While there is certainly some mythologizing associated with our Wild West ideas, the reality is that homicide was far more common in those days, as were rates of gun ownership.
I think most folk against guns should read Dr John Lott and his studies of gun violence with REAL data rather than cooked data gathered from anti-gun sources. The main reason non-gun owners have better odds of a house fire than those of a violent encounter is due to the violently inclined held in check by the possibility their target might be carrying a gun and why known unarmed large crowds nearly always the target of mass shooters rather than taking on a police station or military installation guard detail at front gate...they get in where they know where folk are unarmed.
As for the old west and gun availability as if tied to violence, the most common gun of the frontier was surplus muzzleloading gear from the War Between The States. A Colt SAA or Winchester cost about as much as an ounce of gold, something the average person could not afford, and the true most common weapon was a single-shot shotgun or muzzloader, purely for homestead defense and as game getter for the larder. The high murder rates were due to almost total lack of any law or law enforcement, and very low chances of apprehension.
As a combat veteran, I can tell you there truly are very few atheists when folk are trying to kill you, and just as few true pacifists willing to die rather than commit violence in lawful defense of life. I pray no anti-gun type ever need face watching those they love gunned down in front of them by way of testing that pacifist resolve, but the truth is today that most victims and survivors fall into that camp. My Church even tells me that defense against deadly aggression is lawful, so, I have no qualms at all as to defending self or others, especially the poor others not so convinced of an afterlife or judgement awaiting, and who might need more time to ready selves for that judgement.
Re: Dr. John Lott: "But Lott’s recent successes belie a far more shadowy past. A little over a decade ago, he was disgraced and his career was in tatters. Not only was Lott’s assertion that more guns leads to more safety formally repudiated by a National Research Council panel, but he had also been caught pushing studies with severe statistical errors on numerous occasions. An investigation uncovered that he had almost certainly fabricated an entire survey on defensive gun use. And a blogger revealed that Mary Rosh, an online commentator claiming to be a former student of Lott’s who would frequently post about how amazing he was, was in fact John Lott himself. He was all but excommunicated from academia."
The NRC panel found Lott's analysis of statistics severely flawed and that he assumed a false identity and, using that identity, praised him(self) and his research.
Lott made claims about being published in a peer-reviewed journal that were untrue ("As the head editor of the journal explained to us, while Lott’s paper had initially been considered for publication, it was ultimately rejected. The issue of the journal Lott said he was published in has no trace of his paper.")
There are multiple false statements made by Lott that are referenced in "The GOP’s Favorite Gun ‘Academic’ Is a Fraud, Evan DeFilippis, Devin Hughes Aug 12, 2016, 4:45 pm at https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-john-lott-5456e83cf326/
Bob, I am not "anti-gun." I am anti-gun violence, and there is a huge difference.
Access to guns and ammunition is far too easy in our country. The rights granted by the Second Amendment, like the rights granted by every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights, can and should be limited, restricted, or otherwise qualified. We have a right to Free Speech, but you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
We have the right to peaceably assemble, but you cannot assemble on the plaza in front of the Supreme Court building, nor can you have an assembly such as a parade on 5th Avenue in New York without a permit.
We have a right to Free Press, but you cannot publish child pornography.
EVERY right is limited by law or policy for the Common Good.
No sales and/or transfers or guns without background checks AND notification of legal authorities. No gun show loopholes. We do it with cars, we can do it with guns.
Anyone who sells or transfers more than one gun a year must be licensed.
Any gun theft NOT reported within, say, 10 days, is a felony. (If guns are that important, you will know if they have been stolen.)
End all permit-less carry.
Enact stronger red-flag laws for people with violent or criminal backgrounds.
All ammunition should be manufactured with UPC bullet tagging so that law enforcement can, in the event of a crime, trace the manufacturer, distributor, retailer, and final purchaser of the ammo.
Smart gun technology must be advanced rapidly. If it's not your gun, it won't fire.
Before you or others start saying that new laws/restrictions won't stop gun violence, think about murder. We have laws against it, but do we abolish the laws because they don't stop all murder? Of course not.
Saying "It won't work" is an excuse for not trying.
Fr Kavanaugh
Thanks for the statistics, which corrected my contention that homicide rates were lower in Dodge City in 1870 than in modern American cities. Homicide rates are expressed in terms of intentional homicides (murder and manslaughter) per 100,000. The quotation you give is actually copied verbatim from a longer article on the Quora website (dated 31/10/2018).
The article also made it clear that homicide rate statistics can be misleading. Your figures for Chicago indicate a rate of 25.5 per 100.000. New York has a rate of 3.4 (compared with the national average of 5.6). Does that mean that you are seven-and-a-half times as likely to be killed in Chicago than in NY? In 1874 the population of Dodge City was about a thousand, so just one murder would give it a homicide rate of 100.
The current homicide rate for the USA stands at 5.6 per 100,000. This is by far the largest in any developed country, and most outsiders would attribute this to lax gun control (ironically, Dodge City when Wyatt Earp was sheriff had stricter gun control than anywhere in Kansas nowadays). Yet, as you correctly point out, the rate has fallen dramatically; in 1980 it was just over 10. The rapid decline is not matched by a decline in the number of guns in circulation, so is there a correlation?
I think it was Mark Twain who observed 'There are lies, damned lies and statistics.'
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.
2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.
3. Across states, more guns = more homicide
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten-year period (1988-1997).
After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92:1988-1993.
4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
5. A summary of the evidence on guns and violent death
This book chapter summarizes the scientific literature on the relationship between gun prevalence (levels of household gun ownership) and suicide, homicide and unintentional firearm death and concludes that where there are higher levels of gun ownership, there are more gun suicides and more total suicides, more gun homicides and more total homicides, and more accidental gun deaths.
This is the first chapter in the book and provides and up-to-date and readable summary of the literature on the relationship between guns and death. It also adds to the literature by using the National Violent Death Reporting System data to show where (home or away) the shootings occurred. Suicides for all age groups and homicides for children and aging adults most often occurred in their own home.
Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearms and violence death in the United States. In: Webster DW, Vernick JS, eds. Reducing Gun Violence in America. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.
6. More guns = more homicides of police
This article examines homicide rates of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) from 1996 to 2010. Differences in rates of homicides of LEOs across states are best explained not by differences in crime, but by differences in household gun ownership. In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states.
This article was cited by President Obama in a speech to a police association. This article will hopefully bring police further into the camp of those pushing for sensible gun laws.
Swedler DI, Simmons MM, Dominici F, Hemenway D. Firearm prevalence and homicides of law enforcement officers in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105:2042-48.
Fr Kavanaugh
Again, I am indebted to you for the wealth of statistical information you have provided. One argument made by those who oppose stricter gun control is that criminals are less likely to attack those whom they believe to be armed, and law enforcement officers are certainly going to be armed.
I have no particular axe to grind. The UK's gun laws are so strict that the Olympic shooting team has to go abroad to train. Aside from sporting weapons and shotguns, the only people routinely armed are the police and the criminal fraternity.
The idea of a shoot-out in a church seems bizarre. Apart from anything else, so few people actually go to church that any jihadist worth his salt would target a nightclub or a rock concert.
"One argument made by those who oppose stricter gun control is that criminals are less likely to attack those whom they believe to be armed, and law enforcement officers are certainly going to be armed."
Under "normal" circumstances this may be true. However, speaking with folks I know in law enforcement, a great majority of the criminals they encounter and the crimes they investigate involve people who are, due to alcohol or illicit drugs, in an altered mental state. An addict in withdrawal will not think much about whether the homeowner may be armed when he/she seizes a chance to dash into an open garage and grab a power tool or two that he/she can sell for ready cash.
Fr Kavanaugh
Good point.
On a grammatical note, since there can be no doubt that criminals (like politicians, pianists, or any number of generalized categories of people) may be of either sex, there is no need to write he/she all the time; the masculine pronoun will suffice.
When referring to a specific group of individuals (e.g. pupils in a school) the use of 'he or she' and 'his or her', though tiresome, is usually necessary to avoid confusion. The use of the third person plural, though common, is barbarous when the antecedent noun is singular, all the more so if it is placed too close to it.
Post a Comment