Jack-booted thugs

This is really incredible. It makes me sick.

[dailybruin.com]

Jack-booted thugs. Private ownership of firearms. Choose one.

Kyle

So the proper way to handle documented police misconduct is for a private citizen to shoot them, rather than, say, the legal system?

They should have asked him nicely a few more times.

Must... resist... urge... to... respond...

jtwcornell91
So the proper way to handle documented police misconduct is for a private citizen to shoot them, rather than, say, the legal system?

No, of course not. The point is that if everyone were armed all the time, this situation never would have occurred, because the police would not have tried to abuse their a-THOR-it-a! in such a public way. The outrage evident in the room makes those cops very lucky not to be in a hospital right now: it's good for them and too bad for justice that the crowd was not pushed over the edge into being a mob.

The police want us to be compliant little sheep, but I want the police to be more polite; as a result, I buy into Robert Heinlein's statement that "an armed society is a polite society." Giving someone a monopoly on force is the quickest way to tyranny. If this video doesn't illustrate that, then I don't know what would.

Kyle

"Let There Be Guns" - The Arrogant Worms

One, two, three, four...

woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun
There'd be no more crime, 'cause everybody'd have a gun!
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun

woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun
we wouldn't need the police no more, 'cause everybody'd have a gun!
(Yeah!)
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun

woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun (had a gun)
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun (had a gun)
Nobody'd ever get shot, 'cause everybody'd have a gun! (Makes sense!)
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun

We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We'd all feel safe, 'cause everybody'd have a gun!

woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun (had a gun)
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun (had a gun)
Everyone'd be equal, 'cause everybody'd have a gun!

Let there be guns.

krose
Jack-booted thugs. Private ownership of firearms. Choose one.

Um, I'm not gonna even dig into the details of this, but... you realize we have both right now, right? So, its a false dichotomy right off the bat.

DeltaOne81

krose
Jack-booted thugs. Private ownership of firearms. Choose one.

Um, I'm not gonna even dig into the details of this, but... you realize we have both right now, right? So, its a false dichotomy right off the bat.

Um, you realize that:

(a) Less than 3% of all people carry concealed handguns.
(b) 0% of non-LEO personnel carry concealed handguns on college grounds.

So, in fact, it is not a false dichotomy.

Kyle

krose
Um, you realize that:

(a) Less than 3% of all people carry concealed handguns.
(b) 0% of non-LEO personnel carry concealed handguns on college grounds.

So, in fact, it is not a false dichotomy.

Well, unless your proposing *forcing* people to carry handguns, I still don't see how we currently don't have private ownership of firearms.

Dead Milkmen
There's a town in Georgia, got a law on the books
Says if we all got guns then we won't have crooks
Now what could make them think that way?
What could make them act that way?

DeltaOne81

krose
Um, you realize that:

(a) Less than 3% of all people carry concealed handguns.
(b) 0% of non-LEO personnel carry concealed handguns on college grounds.

So, in fact, it is not a false dichotomy.

Well, unless your proposing *forcing* people to carry handguns, I still don't see how we currently don't have private ownership of firearms.

You certainly could force people to carry firearms or at least require gun ownership. It's been a societal requirement in the past. But you don't need to have everyone armed to get a deterent effect. If a sizeable portion of the population were armed, so that you could expect several armed individuals in any grouping of people then it might be less likely that criminals or abusive public officials would act against the public.

KeithK
You certainly could force people to carry firearms or at least require gun ownership. It's been a societal requirement in the past. But you don't need to have everyone armed to get a deterent effect. If a sizeable portion of the population were armed, so that you could expect several armed individuals in any grouping of people then it might be less likely that criminals or abusive public officials would act against the public.

Yes, but it would be entirely likely that I would never leave my house again.

KeithK
You certainly could force people to carry firearms or at least require gun ownership. It's been a societal requirement in the past. But you don't need to have everyone armed to get a deterent effect. If a sizeable portion of the population were armed, so that you could expect several armed individuals in any grouping of people then it might be less likely that criminals or abusive public officials would act against the public.

A valid point, and not one I want to get into on here anyway. Besides it would never go anywhere because its basically purely a value judgment. Depending on the local culture, it would either be a good idea or an awful one. Arming responsible, hunting, rural citizens is probably, usually, mostly a positive. Throwing more guns into urban, gang-filled areas is probably, usually, mostly a disaster. Which is why I firmly support the right of each state to set their own standards.


None of what you said, however, is "private ownership of firearms". Its "forced ownership of firearms" or "encouragement of greater ownership of firearms" or something of the sort.

But if one has the right to private ownership of firearms, one certainly has the right to waive that right. You're not making me own a gun, despite the fact that I understand and support the right of others.

Lets just not pretend that we don't have private ownership of firearms in this country. We clearly and constitutionally do.

DeltaOne81
Which is why I firmly support the right of each state to set their own standards...Lets just not pretend that we don't have private ownership of firearms in this country. We clearly and constitutionally do.

The Constitution guarantees a right to bear arms. It's reasonable to regulate that right to an extent and certainly appropriate to allow different states to regulate differently. Regulation that makes it difficult for law abiding citizens to meet the requirements infringes on this right though. Certain jurisdictions (e.g. New York City) make it very hard for an ordinary person to have a gun legally and I consider this unreasonable.

History and the courts appear to have have said the right to bear arms is in the context of having a well-regulated militia. The NRA may not agree with this. It gives the NRA a rallying point.

Long guns (rifles) in rural areas are a lot different than packing handguns in urban areas.

While I'm more on the side of wanting few if any handguns in cities and suburbia, especially since I'm not allowed to plunk away at deer eating plants in the back yard -- evening the score with Bambi ought to be a protected right -- there have been some interesting smaller studies, such as one that says convenience stores where the owners are known to be armed are less likely to be robbed.

billhoward
History and the courts appear to have have said the right to bear arms is in the context of having a well-regulated militia.

History isn't on your side, but certainly the courts have said this on occasion, as well as having said the opposite.

But I am not really all that interested in what the government (desiring and basically possessing a monopoly on force) thinks of my natural right to the means of defense. It is a natural right because: the state has no obligation to protect me; even if it did it would not be able to protect me at all times; and the state is often the aggressor making the means of defense necessary.

The constitution and the second amendment are cute and all, but effectively meaningless today. I'm talking about natural law, something no government can legitimately revoke.

Cheers,
Kyle

How's that nuclear weapons program coming, Kyle?

jtwcornell91
How's that nuclear weapons program coming, Kyle?

No problem so long as you retain the lockout pin in the firing mechanism, so you only fire one round per pull on the trigger. Plus there's the three-day waiting period.

billhoward
History and the courts appear to have have said the right to bear arms is in the context of having a well-regulated militia.

While the courts have certainly said this on a number of occasions, I don't believe history would support this. From the scholarly work I have been exposed to it seems very clear that the second amendment was intended to guarantee an individual right to bear arms, not to provide a right of states to regulate their militias. This is another case where the courts have managed to write out parts of the constitution that were inconvienent. Commerce clause anyone?

Oh, Kyle is right that defense is a natural right.

KeithK
Oh, Kyle is right that defense is a natural right.

I don't see how one can be 'right' or 'wrong' on such a subjective topic. Note I'm not actually arguing against you here, but I don't see how taking a black and white view of such a topic is helpful to anything.

KeithK
Oh, Kyle is right that defense is a natural right.

"Natural rights" is a self-negating idea. In a state of nature we have no rights; what we have is determined solely by what we can take.

As for second Amendment scholarship... current scholarship is all over the map, with conservative/libertarian academics doing the most writing in an effort to support their pro-gun views. Nothing they write, however, contradicts the fact that the first Congress, consisting largely of people who ratified the Second Amendment, abridged that right in their very first session. Take from that what you will.

If you will excuse me, I have to go hide under my desk because I never know when the gummint may show up and arrest me for nothing but my beliefs, man. On the other hand, I feel pretty good about being able to steal a cab from an old lady without taking a .22 in my back. It probably evens out.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here as a liberal and Democrat (and jump into this conversation really really late) but I trust the government way more than I trust Kyle. The government, in this country, rarely strikes me as the aggressor. Yes, yes Ruby Ridge and Waco, whatever. I'm more likely to be eaten by a panther leaving this cafe than to be gunned down by the ATF or water-boarded to death by the CIA in Gitmo. I'm not saying the low likelihood of government abuse makes it okay, but it isn't common.

Also, the state has the obligation to protect you. To quote Al Gore in futurama, read your Constitution: "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare". Thats why we have cops, and the military, rules against DWI and fire codes. The protection of the state isn't perfect, but it there for you, and me. Providing for you own defense is quite reasonable, but there has to be a line somewhere before Kyle's position. Not everyone is entitled to carry a concealed AK-, or fire their handgun whenever they feel threatened like FL now allows.

Ben, I agree that our government is relatively trustworthy overall. Government abuse gets lots of attention when it happens but I think that it is rare, at least to the level where one might consider armed resistance.

That said, the right of self-defense against government abuse is still important. If the government were to move in a direction where armed resistance were needed it would be too late to cry out for your rights at that point. Just because things are good at the present doesn't mean that vigilance is unnecessary.

Also, the state has the obligation to protect you.

True, but the government isn't always able to protect everyone in a timely fashion. If you are assaulted it won't matter that there are cope tasked with protecting you if there aren't any around to do so. It's appropriate to turn to the relevant authorities when that's feasible, but the primary responsibility for self-defense is personal. Better to be aware and prepared for potential dangers than to be a defenseless sheep hoping that someone will come and protect you.

KeithK

Also, the state has the obligation to protect you.

True

This is actually false. It's amazing how long the legs on this myth are, but in fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 1999 in Castle Rock vs. Gonzales that the state has no obligation to protect any individual person, only to provide for "general order." See [www.lewrockwell.com] for more information.

Kyle

krose

KeithK

Also, the state has the obligation to protect you.

True

This is actually false. It's amazing how long the legs on this myth are, but in fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 1999 in Castle Rock vs. Gonzales that the state has no obligation to protect any individual person, only to provide for "general order." See [www.lewrockwell.com] for more information.

Liberal activists! I want a gun and a personal security staff! I am important and unsafe!!!

Oh Kyle, you're so full of shit, and you're a crackpot that should be hanging out with Tim McViegh. The court rulled that couldn't SUE THEM for failing to provide it. Personally, she should be able to: they fucked up, and her kids were taken by a crazy person, with a gun. Wow, a lot of good personal gun ownership did right there: three dead children. If you want to arm everyone so that they can keep themselves 'safe', don't fucking do it in my state. The fewer people with firearms, the better.

Ben Rocky 04 mouth-shat:
Oh Kyle, you're so full of shit, and you're a crackpot that should be hanging out with Tim McViegh. The court rulled that couldn't SUE THEM for failing to provide it. Personally, she should be able to: they fucked up, and her kids were taken by a crazy person, with a gun. Wow, a lot of good personal gun ownership did right there: three dead children. If you want to arm everyone so that they can keep themselves 'safe', don't fucking do it in my state. The fewer people with firearms, the better.

LOL. I love it when people resort to flaming me instead of addressing my actual points: it means I won the argument.

When you grow up, Ben, come back and argue with the big boys.

Kyle

krose

Ben Rocky 04 mouth-shat:
Oh Kyle, you're so full of shit, and you're a crackpot that should be hanging out with Tim McViegh. The court rulled that couldn't SUE THEM for failing to provide it. Personally, she should be able to: they fucked up, and her kids were taken by a crazy person, with a gun. Wow, a lot of good personal gun ownership did right there: three dead children. If you want to arm everyone so that they can keep themselves 'safe', don't fucking do it in my state. The fewer people with firearms, the better.

LOL. I love it when people resort to flaming me instead of addressing my actual points: it means I won the argument.

No, it means that one of the many, many people who disagree with you happens to be really bad at debate (and at English, from the looks of his post). Personally, I tend to think people who care most about "winning" the gun argument are the ones who don't actually care who gets hurt because of it - and that's true of both sides.

Beeeej

krose

Ben Rocky 04 mouth-shat:
Oh Kyle, you're so full of shit, and you're a crackpot that should be hanging out with Tim McViegh. The court rulled that couldn't SUE THEM for failing to provide it. Personally, she should be able to: they fucked up, and her kids were taken by a crazy person, with a gun. Wow, a lot of good personal gun ownership did right there: three dead children. If you want to arm everyone so that they can keep themselves 'safe', don't fucking do it in my state. The fewer people with firearms, the better.

LOL. I love it when people resort to flaming me instead of addressing my actual points: it means I won the argument.

No, it means that one of the many, many people who disagree with you happens to be really bad at debate (and at English, from the looks of his post). Personally, I tend to think people who care most about "winning" the gun argument are the ones who don't actually care who gets hurt because of it - and that's true of both sides.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
[www.philly.com]

Beeeej
No, it means that one of the many, many people who disagree with you happens to be really bad at debate (and at English, from the looks of his post).

Same thing: the point of a dialogue is to convince people (usually those not actively engaged in the dialogue) of something. If Ben has to resort to flaming me, my arguments look that much more effective, which means more people see my point. Hence: I win.

But I'm perfectly happy to continue this with anyone who is willing to put up...

Kyle

krose

Beeeej
No, it means that one of the many, many people who disagree with you happens to be really bad at debate (and at English, from the looks of his post).

Same thing: the point of a dialogue is to convince people (usually those not actively engaged in the dialogue) of something. If Ben has to resort to flaming me, my arguments look that much more effective, which means more people see my point. Hence: I win.

I guess I assumed you were using "win" in a different sense. Does your side potentially benefit from someone on the other side making himself like a nitwit? Sure. I wouldn't call that "winning the argument."

krose

Beeeej
No, it means that one of the many, many people who disagree with you happens to be really bad at debate (and at English, from the looks of his post).

Same thing: the point of a dialogue is to convince people (usually those not actively engaged in the dialogue) of something. If Ben has to resort to flaming me, my arguments look that much more effective, which means more people see my point. Hence: I win.

But I'm perfectly happy to continue this with anyone who is willing to put up...

Kyle

Mission Accomplished then?

nyc94
[www.philly.com]

Isn't this the plot of "Minority Report?"

RichH

nyc94
[www.philly.com]

Isn't this the plot of "Minority Report?"

A step in that direction. But I think it's long been known that poverty is a good predictor of violence. Doesn't Canada have gun ownership rates on par with the US but with a lower murder rate?

Beeeej
I guess I assumed you were using "win" in a different sense.

Even a figurative war is made up of many smaller battles. If one side does nothing but blather nonsense and emotional invective long enough, the war is won. We're not there yet, but all the signs are encouraging, regardless of how frightened the NRA wants me to feel (read: they want more of my money).

Cheers,
Kyle

RichH

nyc94
[www.philly.com]

Isn't this the plot of "Minority Report?"

Not really: Minority Report used a gimmick about predicting crimes in the immediate future to prevent those crimes. This system uses Bayesian analysis to predict likely behavior far into the future and effectively tailor sentencing on that basis. Both are disturbing, but for different reasons.

Cheers,
Kyle

Yes, yes, I'm a nitwit, and Kyle is a big boy, and Kyle wins! I've now been persuaded through the default that I used insults! Golly, I bow to your superior argumentative skills. I shall now purchase a case of AK-47s and start distributing them on a street corner. Guns for everyone!

Oh wait, no. If anyone is actually persuaded because Kyle can poorly cite USSC cases from anarcho- libertarian blogs, do so more research. My arguing with you stogy old- timer GOP-loving alumni will go no where, but it isn't going to stop me.

Ben Rocky 04
Yes, yes, I'm a nitwit, and Kyle is a big boy, and Kyle wins! I've now been persuaded through the default that I used insults! Golly, I bow to your superior argumentative skills. I shall now purchase a case of AK-47s and start distributing them on a street corner. Guns for everyone!

Oh wait, no. If anyone is actually persuaded because Kyle can poorly cite USSC cases from anarcho- libertarian blogs, do so more research. My arguing with you stogy old- timer GOP-loving alumni will go no where, but it isn't going to stop me.

Seriously, instead of being snarky and insulting why don't you offer your reasoning?

Ben Rocky 04
Yes, yes, I'm a nitwit

...yadda yadda yadda.

I think you need this to be truly effective at your apparent task:



Kyle

A little old... but whatever.

[content.nejm.org]

The New England Journal of Medicine
Volume 329:1084-1091
October 7, 1993
Number 15

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home
Arthur L. Kellermann, Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T. Reay, Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant Somes

ABSTRACT

Background It is unknown whether keeping a firearm in the home confers protection against crime or, instead, increases the risk of violent crime in the home. To study risk factors for homicide in the home, we identified homicides occurring in the homes of victims in three metropolitan counties.

Methods After each homicide, we obtained data from the police or medical examiner and interviewed a proxy for the victim. The proxies' answers were compared with those of control subjects who were matched to the victims according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age range. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated with matched-pairs methods.

Results During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Conclusions The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Homicide claims the lives of approximately 24,000 Americans each year, making it the 11th leading cause of death among all age groups, the 2nd leading cause of death among all people 15 to 24 years old, and the leading cause of death among male African Americans 15 to 34 years old1. Homicide rates declined in the United States during the early 1980s but rebounded thereafter2. One category of homicide that is particularly threatening to our sense of safety is homicide in the home.
Unfortunately, the influence of individual and household characteristics on the risk of homicide in the home is poorly understood. Illicit-drug use, alcoholism, and domestic violence are widely believed to increase the risk of homicide, but the relative importance of these factors is unknown. Frequently cited options to improve home security include the installation of electronic security systems, burglar bars, and reinforced security doors. The effectiveness of these protective measures is unclear, however.
Many people also keep firearms (particularly handguns) in the home for personal protection. One recent survey determined that handgun owners are twice as likely as owners of long guns to report "protection from crime" as their single most important reason for keeping a gun in the home3. It is possible, however, that the risks of keeping a firearm in the home may outweigh the potential benefits4.
To clarify these issues, we conducted a population-based case-control study to determine the strength of the association between a variety of potential risk factors and the incidence of homicide in the home.
Methods

Identification of Cases

Shelby County, Tennessee; King County, Washington; and Cuyahoga County, Ohio, are the most populous counties in their respective states. The population of King County is predominantly white and enjoys a relatively high standard of living. In contrast, 44 percent of the population of Shelby County and 25 percent of the population of Cuyahoga County are African American. Fifteen percent of the households in Shelby County and 11 percent in Cuyahoga County live below the poverty level, as compared with 5 percent in King County5,6,7.

All homicides involving residents of King County or Shelby County that occurred between August 23, 1987, and August 23, 1992, and all homicides involving residents of Cuyahoga County that occurred between January 1, 1990, and August 23, 1992, were reviewed to identify those that took place in the home of the victim. Any death ruled a homicide was included, regardless of the method used. Assault-related injuries that were not immediately fatal were included if death followed within three months. Cases of homicide involving children 12 years of age or younger were excluded at the request of the medical examiners.

Selection of Case Subjects and Recruitment of Case Proxies

A home was defined as any house, apartment, or dwelling occupied by a victim (i.e., a case subject) as that person's principal residence. Homicides occurring in adjacent structures (e.g., a garage) or the surrounding yard were also included. Murder-suicides and multiple homicides were considered a single event. In the case of a murder-suicide, the homicide victim was included if he or she was older than the suicide victim; in multiple homicides, the oldest victim was included.

Reports made at the scene were collected to ensure that study criteria were met. In King County, the medical examiner's staff conducted all investigations of the homicide scene. In Shelby County and Cuyahoga County, police detectives conducted these investigations. In addition to recording the details of the incident for law-enforcement purposes, investigators obtained the names of persons close to the victim who might provide us with an interview at a later date, thereby serving as proxies for the victim. These lists were supplemented with names obtained from newspaper accounts, obituaries, and calls to funeral homes.

Approximately three weeks after a victim's death, each proxy was sent a signed letter outlining the nature of the project. A $10 incentive was offered, and a follow-up telephone call was made a few days later to arrange a time and place for an interview. At the time of this meeting, informed consent was obtained.

Selection and Recruitment of Controls

After each interview with a case proxy, we sought a control subject matched to the case subject according to sex, race, age range (15 to 24 years, 25 to 40 years, 41 to 60 years, and 61 years or older), and neighborhood of residence. To minimize selection bias, the controls were identified by a previously validated procedure for the random selection of a matching household in the neighborhood8,9,10. After marking off a one-block avoidance zone around the home of the case subject, the interviewer started a neighborhood census at a randomly assigned point along a predetermined route radiating out from the case subject's residence. Households where no one was home were approached twice more, at different times of day and on different days of the week. If contact could not be established after three tries, no further efforts were made. After each neighborhood census was completed, an adult (a person 18 years old or older) in the first household with a member who met the matching criteria was offered a $10 incentive and asked to provide an interview. Whenever possible, attempts were made to interview a proxy for the actual matching control subject. When no interview was granted, the next matching household on the route was approached. If a closer match on the route was found on the second or third visit to the neighborhood, an adult respondent in the closer household was interviewed and any earlier, more distant interviews were discarded. Overall, census data were obtained from 70 percent of the households approached to identify each match. Eighty-four percent of the interviews were obtained from the closest matching household, 13 percent from the second, 3 percent from the third, and <1 percent from the fourth.

Interviews

Case and control interviews were identical in format, order, and content. Each was brief, highly structured, and arranged so that more sensitive questions were not broached until later in the interview. Items drawn from the Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test,11 the Hollingshead-Wilson two-factor index of social position,12 and a 1978 poll of gun ownership by Decision Making Information13 were included. Particularly sensitive questions were preceded by "permissive" statements, such as the following: "Many people have quarrels or fights. Has anyone in this household ever been hit or hurt in a fight in the home"?

Statistical Analysis

Data from reports prepared by medical examiners and police were used to describe the study population. Interview data were used for risk assessment, because these were collected in an analogous manner from the case proxies and matching control households. Since members of a household might acquire firearms or remove them from the home in response to a homicide in the neighborhood, answers were adjusted to reflect the state of affairs on the date of the homicide. Mantel-Haenszel chi-square analysis for matched pairs was used to calculate the crude odds ratio associated with each variable. Multivariate analyses used conditional logistic regression, the appropriate technique for a matched-pairs design14.

Potentially confounding variables were identified and controlled for by a two-step process. First, models containing closely related variables (such as those describing the use of alcohol in the home) were constructed to identify the variable or variables in each set that were most predictive of whether the household in question was a case or a control household. Next, a model that incorporated the variables selected in this initial step was constructed to select those that remained significant after we controlled for the effects of the remaining variables in the model. An additional model was constructed to look for interaction effects among the significant variables. Since no interaction terms significantly altered the adjusted odds ratios, the final model included six variables and was based on complete data from 316 matched pairs. After this analysis, an alternative modeling procedure was used to retain potentially confounding variables if they were even marginally significant (P<0.20). Although this approach added two variables, it did not significantly alter the adjusted odds ratios of the six included in our final model.

After completing this initial series of calculations, we examined the relation between homicide in the home and gun ownership, using various strata of the full study sample. To limit bias resulting from potentially faulty reporting, one analysis was limited to pairs with a case interview obtained from a proxy who lived in the home of the victim. To determine whether gun ownership was associated with an increased risk of homicide by firearms as compared with homicide by other means, cases were stratified according to method. To discern whether guns in the home decrease the risk of an intruder-related homicide or increase the risk of being killed by a family member, additional analyses stratified according to circumstance and the relationship between the victim and the offender were also conducted. After these were completed, a comparable series of stratified analyses was performed to assess more clearly the relation between homicide and previous violence in the home.

Results

Study Population

There were 1860 homicides in the three counties during the study period. Four hundred forty-four (23.9 percent) took place in the home of the victim. After we excluded the younger victim in 19 double deaths, 2 homicides that were not reported to project staff, and 3 late changes to a death certificate, 420 cases (94.6 percent) were available for study.

Reports on the Scene

Most of the homicides occurred inside the victim's home (Table 1). Eleven percent occurred outside the home but within the immediate property lines. Two hundred sixty-five victims (63.1 percent) were men; 36.9 percent were women. A majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle. An additional 4.5 percent of the victims were killed by a family member or an intimate acquaintance as part of a murder-suicide. Thirty-two homicides (7.6 percent) were related to drug dealing, and 92 homicides (21.9 percent) occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary. No motive other than homicide could be established in 56 cases (13.3 percent).

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

Table 1. Characteristics of 420 Homicides Committed in the Homes of the Victims.


The great majority of the victims (76.7 percent) were killed by a relative or someone known to them. Homicides by a stranger accounted for only 15 cases (3.6 percent). The identity of the offender could not be established in 73 cases (17.4 percent). The remaining cases involved other offenders or police acting in the line of duty.

Two hundred nine victims (49.8 percent) died from gunshot wounds. A knife or some other sharp instrument was used to kill 111 victims (26.4 percent). The remaining victims were either bludgeoned (11.7 percent), strangled (6.4 percent), or killed by other means (5.7 percent).

Evidence of forced entry was noted in 59 cases (14.0 percent). Eighteen of these involved an unidentified intruder; six involved strangers. Two involved the police. The rest involved a spouse, family member, or some other person known to the victim.

Attempted resistance was reported in 184 cases (43.8 percent). In 21 of these (5.0 percent) the victim unsuccessfully attempted to use a gun in self-defense. In 56.2 percent of the cases no specific signs of resistance were noted. Fifteen victims (3.6 percent) were killed under legally excusable circumstances. Four were shot by police acting in the line of duty. The rest were killed by another member of the household or a private citizen acting in self-defense.

Comparability of Case Subjects and Controls

Potential proxy respondents were identified for 405 of the 420 case subjects (96.4 percent). Interviews were obtained from 93 percent of those approached in Shelby County, 99 percent in Cuyahoga County, and 98 percent in King County. The households of those who agreed to be interviewed did not differ from the households of those who refused with respect to the age, sex, or race of the victim or the method of homicide (firearm vs. other).

Interviews with a matching control were obtained for 99.7 percent of the case interviews, yielding 388 matched pairs. Three hundred fifty-seven pairs were matched for all three variables, 27 for two variables, and 4 for a single variable (sex). The demographic characteristics of the victims and controls were similar, except that the case subjects were more likely to have rented their homes (70.4 percent vs. 47.3 percent) and to have lived alone (26.8 percent vs. 11.9 percent) (Table 2). Although efforts were made to conduct every interview in person, proxy respondents for the case subjects were much more likely than the controls to request a telephone interview (40.2 percent vs. 12.6 percent). Despite efforts to interview a proxy respondent for each control, only 48.2 percent of the control interviews were obtained in this manner.

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of 388 Pairs of Case Subjects and Controls.


Univariate Analysis

Alcohol was more commonly consumed by one or more members of the households of case subjects than by members of the households of controls (Table 3). Alcohol was also more commonly consumed by the case subjects themselves than by their matched controls. Case subjects were reported to have manifested behavioral correlates of alcoholism (such as trouble at work due to drinking) much more often than matched controls. Illicit-drug use (by the case subject or another household member) was also reported more commonly by case households than control households.

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

Table 3. Univariate Analysis of Hypothesized Risk on Protection Factors Derived from Data on 388 Matched Pairs of Case Subjects and Controls.


Previous episodes of violence were reported more frequently by members of case households. When asked if anyone in the household had ever been hit or hurt in a fight in the home, 31.8 percent of the proxies for the case subjects answered affirmatively, as compared with only 5.7 percent of controls. Physical fights in the home while household members were drinking and fighting severe enough to cause injuries were reported much more commonly by case proxies than controls. One or more members of the case households were also more likely to have been arrested or to have been involved in a physical fight outside the home than members of control households.

Similar percentages of case and control households reported using deadbolt locks, window bars, or metal security doors. The case subjects were slightly less likely than the controls to have lived in a home with a burglar alarm, but they were slightly more likely to have controlled security access. Almost identical percentages of case and control households reported owning a dog.

One or more guns were reportedly kept in 45.4 percent of the homes of the case subjects, as compared with 35.8 percent of the homes of the control subjects (crude odds ratio, 1.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.2 to 2.2). Shotguns and rifles were kept by similar percentages of households, but the case households were significantly more likely to have a handgun (35.7 percent vs. 23.3 percent; crude odds ratio, 1.9; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.4 to 2.7). Case households were also more likely than control households to contain a gun that was kept loaded or unlocked (Table 3).

Multivariate Analysis

Six variables were retained in our final conditional logistic-regression model: home rented, case subject or control lived alone, any household member ever hit or hurt in a fight in the home, any household member ever arrested, any household member used illicit drugs, and one or more guns kept in the home (Table 4). Each of these variables was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home. No home-security measures retained significance in the final model. After matching for four characteristics and controlling for the effects of five more, we found that the presence of one or more firearms in the home was strongly associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

Table 4. Variables Included in the Final Conditional Logistic-Regression Model Derived from Data on 316 Matched Pairs of Case Subjects and Controls.


Stratified analyses with our final regression model revealed that the link between guns and homicide in the home was present among women as well as men, blacks as well as whites, and younger as well as older people (Table 5). Restricting the analysis to pairs with data from case proxies who lived in the home of the victim demonstrated an even stronger association than that noted for the group overall. Gun ownership was most strongly associated with homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance (adjusted odds ratio, 7.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.6 to 23.2). Guns were not significantly linked to an increased risk of homicide by acquaintances, unidentified intruders, or strangers. We found no evidence of a protective benefit from gun ownership in any subgroup, including one restricted to cases of homicide that followed forced entry into the home and another restricted to cases in which resistance was attempted. Not surprisingly, the link between gun ownership and homicide was due entirely to a strong association between gun ownership and homicide by firearms. Homicide by other means was not significantly linked to the presence or absence of a gun in the home.

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

Table 5. Homicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership, According to Subgroup.


Living in a household where someone had previously been hit or hurt in a fight in the home was also strongly and independently associated with homicide, even after we controlled for the effects of gun ownership and the other four variables in our final model (adjusted odds ratio, 4.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.2 to 8.8) (Table 4). Previous family violence was linked to an increased risk of homicide among men as well as women, blacks as well as whites, and younger as well as older people (Table 6). Virtually all of this increased risk was due to a marked association between prior domestic violence and homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance (adjusted odds ratio, 20.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 3.9 to 104.6).

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

Table 6. Homicide in the Home in Relation to Prior Domestic Violence, According to Subgroup.


Discussion

Although firearms are often kept in homes for personal protection, this study shows that the practice is counterproductive. Our data indicate that keeping a gun in the home is independently associated with an increase in the risk of homicide in the home. The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are also important risk factors. Efforts to increase home security have largely focused on preventing unwanted entry, but the greatest threat to the lives of household members appears to come from within.

We restricted our study to homicides that occurred in the home of the victim, because these events can be most plausibly linked to specific individual and household characteristics. If, for example, the ready availability of a gun increases the risk of homicide, this effect should be most noticeable in the immediate environment where the gun is kept. Although our case definition excluded the rare instances in which a nonresident intruder was killed by a homeowner, our methodology was capable of demonstrating significant protective effects of gun ownership as readily as any evidence of increased risk.

Previous studies of risk factors for homicide have employed correlational analysis15 or retrospective-cohort16 or time-series17 designs to link rates of homicide to specific risk factors. However, hazards suggested by ecologic analysis may not hold at the level of individual households or people18. In contrast to these approaches, the case-control method studies individual risk factors in relation to a specific outcome of interest. Case-control research is particularly useful when the list of candidate risk factors is large and the rate of adverse outcomes is relatively low. Under these circumstances, it is usually the analytic method of choice19.

Although case-control studies offer many advantages over ecologic studies, they are prone to several sources of bias. To minimize selection bias, we included all cases of homicide in the home and rigorously followed an explicit procedure for randomly selecting neighborhood control subjects. High response rates among case proxies (92.6 percent) and matching controls (80.6 percent) minimized nonresponse bias. Case respondents did not differ significantly from nonrespondents with regard to the age, sex, and race of the victim and the type of weapon involved. Although double homicides and murder-suicides were considered single events to avoid overrepresenting their effects, the number of cases excluded for this reason was small.

Other threats to the validity of the study were less easy to control. A respondent's recollection of events can be powerfully affected by a tragedy as extreme as a homicide in the home. To diminish the effect of recall bias, we delayed our contact with the case proxies to allow for an initial period of grief. We also used a simple, forced-choice questionnaire to ascertain information in a comparable manner from case proxies and controls. We tried to obtain data on victims and controls as similarly as possible by interviewing proxy respondents for the controls whenever possible. Although we were able to do so only 48 percent of the time, the responses we obtained from this subgroup were consistent with those obtained from the study population overall.

Potential misreporting of sensitive information was a serious concern, since we had no way to verify each respondent's statements independently. If case proxies or controls selectively withheld sensitive information about illicit-drug use, alcoholism, or violence in the home, inaccurate estimates of risk could result. We attempted to minimize this problem by reassuring our respondents of the confidentiality of their responses. We also placed "permissive" statements before each potentially intrusive question to encourage honest replies. Very few respondents refused to answer our questions, although all were assured that they were free to do so.

The rate of domestic violence reported by our control respondents was somewhat less than that noted in a large telephone survey20. This may be due to regional or temporal differences in rates of battering, variations in the way we phrased our questions (e.g., screening as compared with an exploratory line of inquiry), or the increased anonymity afforded by telephone interviews as compared with our face-to-face encounters.

Underreporting of gun ownership by control respondents could bias our estimate of risk upward. We do not believe, however, that misreporting of gun ownership was a problem. In two of our three study communities, a pilot study of homes listed as the addresses of owners of registered handguns confirmed that respondents' answers to questions about gun ownership were generally valid21. Furthermore, the rate of gun ownership reported by control respondents in each study community was comparable to estimates derived from previous social surveys22 and Cook's gun-prevalence index15.

Four limitations warrant comment. First, our study was restricted to homicides occurring in the home of the victim. The dynamics of homicides occurring in other locations (such as bars, retail establishments, or the street) may be quite different. Second, our research was conducted in three urban counties that lack a substantial percentage of Hispanic citizens. Our results may therefore not be generalizable to more rural communities or to Hispanic households. Third, it is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide -- i.e., in a limited number of cases, people may have acquired a gun in response to a specific threat. If the source of that threat subsequently caused the homicide, the link between guns in the home and homicide may be due at least in part to the failure of these weapons to provide adequate protection from the assailants. Finally, we cannot exclude the possibility that the association we observed is due to a third, unidentified factor. If, for example, people who keep guns in their homes are more psychologically prone to violence than people who do not, this could explain the link between gun ownership and homicide in the home. Although we examined several behavioral markers of violence and aggression and included two in our final logistic-regression model, "psychological confounding" of this sort is difficult to control for. "Psychological autopsies" have been used to control for psychological differences between adolescent victims of suicide and inpatient controls with psychiatric disorders,23,24 but we did not believe this approach was practical for a study of homicide victims and neighborhood controls. At any rate, a link between gun ownership and any psychological tendency toward violence or victimization would have to be extremely strong to account for an adjusted odds ratio of 2.7.

Given the univariate association we observed between alcohol and violence, it may seem odd that no alcohol-related variables were included in our final multivariate model. Although consumption of alcoholic beverages and the behavioral correlates of alcoholism were strongly associated with homicide, they were also related to other variables included in our final model. Forcing the variable "case subject or control drinks" into our model did not substantially alter the adjusted odds ratios for the other variables. Furthermore, the adjusted odds ratio for this variable was not significantly greater than 1.

Large amounts of money are spent each year on home-security systems, locks, and other measures intended to improve home security. Unfortunately, our results suggest that these efforts have little effect on the risk of homicide in the home. This finding should come as no surprise, since most homicides in the home involve disputes between family members, intimate acquaintances, friends, or others who have ready access to the home. It is important to realize, however, that these data offer no insight into the effectiveness of home-security measures against other household crimes such as burglary, robbery, or sexual assault. In a 1983 poll, Seattle homeowners feared "having someone break into your home while you are gone" most and "having someone break into your home while you are at home" 4th on a list of 16 crimes25. Although homicide is the most serious of crimes, it occurs far less frequently than other types of household crime2. Measures that make a home more difficult to enter are probably more effective against these crimes.

Despite the widely held belief that guns are effective for protection, our results suggest that they actually pose a substantial threat to members of the household. People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk of homicide in the home than people who do not. Most of this risk is due to a substantially greater risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance. We did not find evidence of a protective effect of keeping a gun in the home, even in the small subgroup of cases that involved forced entry.

Saltzman and colleagues recently found that assaults by family members or other intimate acquaintances with a gun are far more likely to end in death than those that involve knives or other weapons26. A gun kept in the home is far more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than it is to be used to kill in self-defense4. Cohort and interrupted time-series studies have demonstrated a strong link between the availability of guns and community rates of homicide2,15,16,17. Our study confirms this association at the level of individual households.

Previous case-control research has demonstrated a strong association between the ownership of firearms and suicide in the home10,23,24. Also, unintentional shooting deaths can occur when children play with loaded guns they have found at home27. In the light of these observations and our present findings, people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes.

The observed association between battering and homicide is also important. In contrast to the money spent on firearms and home security, little has been done to improve society's capacity to respond to the problem of domestic violence28,29. In the absence of effective intervention, battering tends to increase in frequency and severity over time28,29,30. Our data strongly suggest that the risk of homicide is markedly increased in homes where a person has previously been hit or hurt in a family fight. At the very least, this observation should prompt physicians, social workers, law-enforcement officers, and the courts to work harder to identify and protect victims of battering and other forms of family violence. Early identification and effective intervention may prevent a later homicide31,32.



Supported by grants (CCR 402424 and CCR 403519) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

We are indebted to the men and women of the following law-enforcement agencies and offices for their support of this project: in Shelby County, Tennessee, the Memphis Police Department, Shelby County Sheriff's Department, Bartlett Police Department, Collierville Police Department, Germantown Police Department, Millington Police Department, and Shelby County Medical Examiner's Office; in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, the Cleveland Police Department and Cuyahoga County Coroner's Office; and in King County, Washington, the Seattle Police Department, Bellevue Police Department, King County Sheriff's Department, and King County Medical Examiner's Office. Without their assistance, this work would not have been possible. We are also indebted to Noel Weiss and William Applegate for their comments and suggestions, to Vivian C. Driscoll and Steven Walker for their help with data collection, and to LaGenna Betts for her assistance in the preparation of the manuscript.


Source Information

From the Departments of Internal Medicine (A.L.K., J.G.B., B.B.H.), Preventive Medicine (A.L.K.), Biostatistics and Epidemiology (A.L.K., G.S.), and Pathology (J.T.F), University of Tennessee, Memphis; the Departments of Pediatrics (F.P.R.), Epidemiology (F.P.R.), and Pathology (D.T.R), University of Washington, Seattle; Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, Seattle (F.P.R., J.P.); and the Departments of Biology (N.B.R., A.B.L.) and Epidemiology and Biostatistics (N.B.R.) and the Center for Adolescent Health (N.B.R.), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Kellermann at the Emory Center for Injury Prevention, School of Public Health, Emory University, 1599 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30329.

References



Hammett M, Powell KE, O'Carroll PW, Clanton ST. Homicide surveillance -- United States, 1979-1988. Mor Mortal Wkly Rep CDC Surveill Summ 1992;41:1-33.[Medline]
Reiss AJ Jr, Roth JA, eds. Understanding and preventing violence: panel on the understanding and control of violent behavior. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993:42-97.
Weil DS, Hemenway D. Loaded guns in the home: analysis of a national random survey of gun owners. JAMA 1992;267:3033-3037.[Abstract]
Kellermann AL, Reay DT. Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home. N Engl J Med 1986;314:1557-1560.[Abstract]
Bureau of the Census. 1990 census of population: Tennessee. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1992. (Publication nos. CPH-5-44 and CP-1-44.)
Bureau of the Census. 1990 census of population: Washington. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1992. (Publication nos. CPH-5-49 and CP-1-49.)
Bureau of the Census. 1990 census of population: Ohio. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1992. (Publication nos. CPH-5-37 and CP-1-37.)
Yu MC, Mack T, Hanisch R, Peters RL, Henderson BE, Pike MC. Hepatitis, alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, and hepatocellular carcinoma in Los Angeles. Cancer Res 1983;43:6077-6079.[Abstract]
Mack TM, Yu MC, Hanisch R, Henderson BE. Pancreas cancer and smoking, beverage consumption, and past medical history. J Natl Cancer Inst 1986;76:49-60.[Medline]
Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. N Engl J Med 1992;327:467-472.[Abstract]
Selzer ML, Vinokur A, van Rooijen L. A self-administered Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST). J Stud Alcohol 1975;36:117-126.[Medline]
The index of social position: appendix two. In: Hollingshead AB, Redlich FC. Social class and mental illness: a community study. New York: John Wiley, 1958:387-97.
Attitudes of the American electorate toward gun control. Santa Ana, Calif.: Decision Making Information, 1978.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley, 1989.
Cook PJ. The effect of gun availability on robbery and robber murder: a cross section study of fifty cities. Policy Stud Rev Annu 1979;3:743-81.
Sloan JH, Kellermann AL, Reay DT, et al. Handgun regulations, crime, assaults, and homicide: a tale of two cities. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1256-1262.[Abstract]
Loftin C, McDowall D, Wiersema B, Cottey TJ. Effects of restrictive licensing of handguns on homicide and suicide in the District of Columbia. N Engl J Med 1991;325:1615-1620.[Abstract]
Morgenstern H. Uses of ecologic analysis in epidemiologic research. Am J Public Health 1982;72:1336-1344.[Abstract]
Schlesselman JJ, ed. Case control studies: design, conduct, analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Straus MA, Gelles RJ, Steinmetz SK. Behind closed doors: violence in the American family. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press, 1980.
Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Banton J, Reay D, Fligner CL. Validating survey responses to questions about gun ownership among owners of registered handguns. Am J Epidemiol 1990;131:1080-1084.[Abstract]
Wright JD, Rossi P, Daly K, Weber-Burdin E. Weapons, crime, and violence in America: a literature review and research agenda. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983:212-60, 361-411.
Brent DA, Perper JA, Goldstein CE, et al. Risk factors for adolescent suicide: a comparison of adolescent suicide victims with suicidal inpatients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1988;45:581-588.[Abstract]
Brent DA, Perper JA, Allman CJ, Moritz GM, Wartella ME, Zelenak JP. The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides: a case-control study. JAMA 1991;266:2989-2995.[Abstract]
Warr M, Stafford M. Fear of victimization: a look at the proximate causes. Soc Forces 1983;61:1033-1043.
Saltzman LE, Mercy JA, O'Carroll PW, Rosenberg ML, Rhodes PH. Weapon involvement and injury outcomes in family and intimate assaults. JAMA 1992;267:3043-3047.[Abstract]
Wintemute GJ, Teret SP, Kraus JF, Wright MA, Bradfield G. When children shoot children: 88 unintended deaths in California. JAMA 1987;257:3107-3109.[Abstract]
American Medical Association. Violence against women: relevance for medical practitioners. JAMA 1992;267:3184-3189.[Abstract]
National Committee for Injury Prevention and Control. Domestic violence. Am J Prev Med 1989;5:Suppl:223-232.
Stark E, Flitcraft AH. Spouse abuse. In: Rosenberg ML, Fenley MA, eds. Violence in America: a public health approach. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991:123-57.
Mercy JA, Saltzman LE. Fatal violence among spouses in the United States, 1976-1985. Am J Public Health 1989;79:595-599.[Abstract]
Kellermann AL, Mercy JA. Men, women, and murder: gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimization. J Trauma 1992;33:1-5.[Medline]

Not to be a pain in the ass but is there a specific point you want us to take from this? The original point of this thread had to do with concealed weapons and police brutality. That people kill each other in the home with guns is hardly shocking and while sad I don't take much comfort in the observation that people rarely die from merely being stabbed in the home by their family members.

I'm saying that Kyle's push for people to purchase guns for self-defense is going to kill and injure more innocent people than stop burglars. Statistically speaking, I'd say it is a bad idea to keep one in the home as they seem to be very dangerous to your family members and friends. I could search around the internet for 5 more minutes and find stats on concealed handguns being more dangerous to innocent people than criminals, but instead I'm gonna go hiking in Marin County.

That's fantastic. It's still not an argument:

(1) against the fact that precedent, established by many SCOTUS cases, supports my assertion that the government is flatly not responsible for protection of individuals. If the government can't be sued for failing to provide protection, and members of the government can't be sent to prison for neglecting this duty you claim they have, then there is de facto no responsibility on the part of government to protect you, whether you think there should be or not. I mean, really: what are you going to do when a friend or relative of yours is killed in a home invasion or on a poorly-lit street and the police tell you, "Sorry we couldn't get there in less than 15 minutes"? At that point, anything you say or do might make a great epitaph, but nothing more.

(2) against the notion that there is a natural right to possess, carry, and deploy (when force is necessary to prevent serious bodily harm to or death of you or anyone else) the means for self-protection.

(3) against the fact that defensive uses of firearms occur at a much higher rate (estimated between 800,000 and 2.5 million times per year) than criminal uses of firearms. This doesn't include all the times guns are used for practice, in shooting sports, or for hunting, and doesn't even touch on uses relevant to the purpose of the 2nd amendment. (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html)

(4) against the fact that the founders of this country felt it was the duty of all able-bodied men (and presumably women in today's world) to own a gun and know how to keep and use it, in order to preserve the liberty of the people from whatever corrupt and abusive government their (reasonably well-designed) system were eventually to morph into.

(5) for how more gun control would have saved the three children in that case.

If having a gun in your home makes you feel squeamish ("eew, get it away! get it awaaaaaaaaay!", then by all means: don't own one. No one is forcing you to, and I'd rather not have more irresponsible gun owners.

Kyle

Ben Rocky 04
I could search around the internet for 5 more minutes and find stats on concealed handguns being more dangerous to innocent people than criminals, but instead I'm gonna go hiking in Marin County.

But, see, there you'd be wrong again:

[www.guncite.com]

"The risk of a gun accident is extremely low, even among defensive gun owners, except among a very small, identifiably high-risk subset of the population. Consequently, it is doubtful whether, for the average gun owner, the risk of a gun accident could counterbalance the benefits of keeping a gun in the home for protection: the risk of an accident is quite low overall, and is virtually nonexistent for most gun owners."

Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates) (Chart compiled by GunCite. Source of data, except as noted, National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, pp. 8-9, 84)

Accident Type           Age     0-4     5-14    15-24   25-44   45-64   65-74   75+     Total
All Automobile                  900     1,500   10,500  13,300  9,200   2,700   4,900   43,000
Falls                           70      70      210     950     1,900   1,700   11,300  16,200
Poisoning by solids, liquids    60      40      800     6,800   3,200   300     500     11,700
Pedestrian1                     250     300     750     1,300   1,400   450     850     5,300
Drowning                        450     350     700     1,250   650     230     270     3,900
Fires, burns                    400     260     240     700     800     500     700     3,600
Suffocation by ingested object  100     20      30      250     400     500     2,100   3,400
Firearms                        20      60      150     190     110     30      40      600
Poisoning by gases, vapors      10      10      70      120     80      40      70      400
All other causes                700     400     1,100   3,000   3,200   1,600   4,500   14,500
TOTAL                           2,700   2,700   13,800  26,600  19,500  7,600   24,400  97,300

Note the 600 total accidental gun deaths in 2000. Homicides in 2000 come out to 15,586 on their own, and this doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of maimings, rapes (over 90,000 instances reported), muggings, and other violent crimes.

Wishing something were true doesn't make it so. You might have a case for outlawing private swimming pools, though.

Cheers,
Kyle

OK, Ben thanks for the post. I'll preface my comment by stating that I've only read the abstract and quickly scanned the body.

Conclusions ... Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

I'll accept for the sake of argument that the study demonstrates a substantially increased risk of in home homicide as a consequence of gun ownership. I take exception, however, with the statement "rather than confer protection". In my admittedly cursory reading I didn't see any attempt to quantify the benefits of gun ownership in terms of protection or anything else. drawing a conclusion about the relative costs and benefits requires quantifying both. My guess is that the study authors take it as a given that there is little benefit to gun ownership (the government will protect you) and therefore believe that any statistical evidence showing increased risk of homicide demonstrates that gun ownership is a net negative. I do not agree with this view - I believe that the material and emotional benefits of gun ownership for protection can be substantial and over ride the risks.

Lots of things in life are dangerous but provide benefits as well. These things should not be outlawed unless there is a substantial mismatch between benefit and risk. In my mind, the benefits of excercising ones fundamental right of self-defense easily outweigh the risks inherent with gun ownership.

krose

"The risk of a gun accident is extremely low, even among defensive gun owners, except among a very small, identifiably high-risk subset of the population.

...you might have a case for outlawing private swimming pools...

First, what is the "identifiably high-risk subset?

Second, that stupid chapter almost made me through Freakonomics out of the window. That book was half insightful and half insanely stupid.

ugarte
First, what is the "identifiably high-risk subset?

I don't know; I didn't read the reference.

Second, that stupid chapter almost made me through Freakonomics out of the window. That book was half insightful and half insanely stupid.

Sorry, I must have missed something here; what are you referring to?

Kyle

krose
Sorry, I must have missed something here; what are you referring to?

There was a chapter in Freakonomics along the lines of "a gun in your home is less dangerous than a swimming pool in your yard."

To skip the step where you ask me why the comparison is a non-sequitir, while the stats are probably true in terms of number of related injuries/deaths per house with pool/gun, it isn't comparing apples to apples. For instance there are probably more car-related injuries than either pool or gun, but it wouldn't make sense to say that we should be banning cars*, not guns. There are probably far fewer injuries per use of the pool than to use of gun, so while the study accounted for the risks of pool/gun ownership, it didn't address quantifiable benefits of either.

I don't pretend that this addresses your philosophical argument in favor of gun control, just the shaky statistical logic of Freakonomics. (We can leave the philosophcal debate at "you are a gun crazed wacko who is tilting at windmills" vs. "you are a liberal pussy in thrall to a despotic government." Even on JSID this is a hockey blog and I don't care that much about debating gun control.)

*For the love of Dryden, please don't let this drift into a jeremiad against the evils of a car-based society. I agree with you, OK?

ugarte

krose
Sorry, I must have missed something here; what are you referring to?

There was a chapter in Freakonomics along the lines of "a gun in your home is less dangerous than a swimming pool in your yard."

To skip the step where you ask me why the comparison is a non-sequitir, while the stats are probably true in terms of number of related injuries/deaths per house with pool/gun, it isn't comparing apples to apples.

To be clear, I was just being snide, so I'll let the rest of this go. You are probably literally correct, but being correct wasn't the point of my statement.

Kyle

Frankly, Kyle - with all due respect cause you're a nice guy - I still have no idea what your point is. Its pretty hard to argue against when you don't seem to be saying anything concrete.

The idea that protection is a natural right is all well and good, but it seems to be to be more of a belief, or even a faith, than anything approaching a fact. I take no issue with it generally (except for maybe ugarte's point that "natural right" is a confusing if not oxymoronic concept), but it could never be disproved - its simply a matter of opinion - no one is 'right', and no one will 'win'.

You said you do not feel that people who don't want to own guns should anyway (could you parse that? ). So what's the practical point? Even a non-practical one? We already have a right to ownership in this country, we have a right to protect ourselves with arms if we so chose. I believe its a choice people should have the right to make for themselves, and I haven't heard anyone really yet disagree (maybe Ben does, but hasn't yet explicitly).

So I ask, what's the point you're trying to make here? What argument are you trying to make 'win'?

We really should restrict driving in this country. As someone who grew in NYC I know you can easily live without a car if our communities were set up properly. Outlaw suburban communities. Force everyone to live in buildings that are a minimum of three stories. Mandate high density residences that allow intelligent planning of mass tr... Oh, sorry Charles.

Your argument has become tiresome ... Now ve must dance!

krose
Note the 600 total accidental gun deaths in 2000. Homicides in 2000 come out to 15,586 on their own, and this doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of maimings, rapes (over 90,000 instances reported), muggings, and other violent crimes.

I would like to point out that both of you have abused statistical data in support of your respective positions, I'll pick on Kyle because I've known him for a long time, and he should really know better.

This guncite.com table is one of the most egregious examples of meaningless numbers used to support a point that I've ever seen, and if I were still teaching Soc 101 I'd dig it out and put it up in lecture to demonstrate how to lie with statistics, and (more importantly) how to spot people who are doing it.

The numbers here are not normalized, and are therefore totally meaningless. Without looking it up I'm perfectly comfortable asserting that FAR more people in the U.S. ride in cars, swim in pools, walk around, and ingest things than own or use guns, so it's highly likely that the rate of death per gun user is far closer to the rate of death per <insert activity from table here>. It isn't even like the numbers are so dramatically different that the gun death rate MUST be lower. If 1 million people use guns, and 250 million people ride in automobiles in a given year, then the accidental death rate due to guns is MUCH larger than the accidental death rate due to automobiles (150,000 per 250 million for guns vs 43,000 per 250 million for autos). This is probably not the case, but it's worth pointing out that it's impossible to attach any significance to these numbers if you're interpreting them responsibly.

DeltaOne81
Frankly, Kyle - with all due respect cause you're a nice guy - I still have no idea what your point is. Its pretty hard to argue against when you don't seem to be saying anything concrete.

I'm arguing against the knee-jerk responses that "guns are bad" or "all guns should be outlawed" or "letting people carry around guns is idiotic" or "we need common-sense gun control (because all the failed gun control we currently have clearly argues for more)". My basic point is that guns are indispensable tools and that attempts to restrict them to pretty much any degree will result in more violence, less personal safety, the increasingly asymmetric availability of force to and use of force by thugs (whether criminal or government), and less liberty.

The idea that protection is a natural right is all well and go, but it seems to be to be more of a belief, or even a faith, than anything approaching a fact. I take no issue with it generally (except for maybe ugarte's point that "natural right" is a silly if not oxymoronic concept),

By "natural right," I mean only those things you can do in a state of nature, i.e. a state in which some third-party isn't arbitrarily putting limits on your behavior. As it applies here, in such a state you can own and carry a gun anywhere you don't have an agreement not to. This is a pretty well-defined concept that is explained reasonably well on Wikipedia.

We already have a right to ownership in this country, we have a right to protect ourselves with arms if we so chose.

Tell that to the people in NYC who are restricted even from possessing guns in their own homes. Tell that to the people in may-issue CCW states (like NY, CA, and MA) who have had permit applications denied for no reason other than the chief of police or other issuing authority simply doesn't think plebes should carry guns. Tell that to the people in IL and WI who have no ability to CCW legally. Unless you are home-bound, it is simply not sufficient to allow possession only in the home.

Have you taken a look at the ridiculous restrictions on CCW in some states? E.g., in GA it's illegal to carry a concealed weapon into any establishment that serves alcohol. While it's probably a good idea not to run around drunk with a gun, the blanket restriction keeps you from going to the local restaurant at lunch for a burger, even if you have no intention of drinking. In MA, there is a restriction on carrying at a "public gathering." Does that include a mall? A theater? Harvard Square? Who knows; the courts haven't defined it! How can there be a presumption that you are irresponsible in a free society? IMO, the two are mutually exclusive.

As far as I am concerned, there is no right to do something if you have to apply for permission to do it.

Cheers,
Kyle

krose
How can there be a presumption that you are irresponsible in a free society?

Guess we'll be getting rid of those pesky driving tests now.

Tom Lento

krose
Note the 600 total accidental gun deaths in 2000. Homicides in 2000 come out to 15,586 on their own, and this doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of maimings, rapes (over 90,000 instances reported), muggings, and other violent crimes.

I would like to point out that both of you have abused statistical data in support of your respective positions, I'll pick on Kyle because I've known him for a long time, and he should really know better.

I think the problem here is that I included the whole table, instead of just the row of interest (the firearms row). The point I made in the second-level quote above has absolutely nothing to do with the "per-capita" or "per-unit-of-time" issue you point out. I agree with you on that point, which is why I said my remark about the swimming pools was snide.

I would point out, however, that more than half of all homes in the US have at least one gun, which is a much higher percentage than those that own private swimming pools. Who knows, however, what percentage have guns that are readily accessible to unsupervised children, so I can't draw any further conclusions.

Cheers,
Kyle

Beeeej

krose
How can there be a presumption that you are irresponsible in a free society?

Guess we'll be getting rid of those pesky driving tests now.

Two responses:

(1) If parents were properly held responsible for the behavior of their children, this would be a non-issue (and would solve lots of other problems at the same time). As long as the kids know how to drive before they get behind the wheel by themselves, the test means nothing because they would have acquired their license anyway.

(2) Who most often enforces the must-have-license-to-drive restriction? Presumably the owner of the car, because I've only ever been pulled over 3 times (and gotten a ticket once) in 13 years of driving and I drive like my gas pedal has two positions: off and floor. So, if the owner of the car is most often the one enforcing this restriction, why can't he or she simply make sure a person knows how to drive before allowing them to use the car? Why does the gub'mint need to be involved at all?

Cheers,
Kyle

krose
As far as I am concerned, there is no right to do something if you have to apply for permission to do it.

I don't have a problem with gun licensing schemes that follow the shall issue model. It's certainly in society's interest to insure that those who have forfeited their rights (i.e. felons) do not obtain weaponry. The small burden of applying for a license seems reasonable (setting aside issues about gun ownership databases, etc.) The shall issue model presumes that individuals are responsible enough to own a weapon unless their past record indicates otherwise. My problem is with may-issue where the decision is left to the subjective whim of the issueing authority.

Beeeej

krose
How can there be a presumption that you are irresponsible in a free society?

Guess we'll be getting rid of those pesky driving tests now.

There's a big difference between driving on public roads (privilege) and bearing arms (constitutional and fundamental right). Aside from that, I think it's generally understood that if you show basic competence behind the wheel you will be issued a driver license, essentially in perpetuity. There's much less risk of being denied a driver license due to the subjective opinions of the tester and people do complain in those cases (or jurisdictions) where this does tend to occur.

I wouldn't have much a problem in principle with requiring basic gun competence. I would have a problem if the test were in any way subjective because it would be used by officials to restrict gun ownership.

Do we not have the right to vote because we have to register first?

Because we have to go to certain places to exercise that right, and only on certain days? Because you can't vote in a concealed place - i.e. at home?

I think you're awfully stretching the idea of what is or isn't a right in only one case (fyi, you missed the argument that driving is a privilege, not a right - which is why I chose voting).


We can have debates all day on what is or isn't good gun control policy, but just because there are some restrictions doesn't mean the right is destroyed. Heck, the right to free speech, and press, aseemably, and everything else have restrictions and limitations as well ("yelling fire in a crowded theater" being the typical example, but there are certainly more). I see no reason why the 2nd amendment should be more absolute and unrestricted than the 1st.

Basically your rights ends where someone else's begins, and as such harmful or hateful speech, disruptive assembly, etc are not covered. That makes it difficult for the right to bear arms, as firearms always contain the potential for infringement on another's right to life and liberty. As I said we could discuss all day what is good policy and what isn't (and despite being a liberal, I tend to be more libertarian on that matter (not absolutely, but more so) ). Nonetheless, it does not gel that any restrictions are a right are tantamount to the loss of said right.

krose
By "natural right," I mean only those things you can do in a state of nature, i.e. a state in which some third-party isn't arbitrarily putting limits on your behavior. As it applies here, in such a state you can own and carry a gun anywhere you don't have an agreement not to. This is a pretty well-defined concept that is explained reasonably well on Wikipedia.

Still, in a natural state your rights are limited to what the strongest animal in the plain says. You have no right to anything that you can't take. I wouldn't exactly want to run a society based on such a principal anyway.

DeltaOne81
Do we not have the right to vote because we have to register first?

Rights come with responsibilities. Folks from all parts of the political spectrum often forget this.

Basically your rights ends where someone else's begins, and as such harmful or hateful speech, disruptive assembly, etc are not covered.

I'm pretty sure that "hateful" speech is fully protected by the First Amendment. As it should be. I'm not sure what you mean by "harmful speech" so I'll leave that be (unless you mean supporting sports teams with Indian nicknames, which is certainly protected ).

krose

Beeeej

krose
How can there be a presumption that you are irresponsible in a free society?

Guess we'll be getting rid of those pesky driving tests now.

Two responses:

(1) If parents were properly held responsible for the behavior of their children, this would be a non-issue (and would solve lots of other problems at the same time). As long as the kids know how to drive before they get behind the wheel by themselves, the test means nothing because they would have acquired their license anyway.

(2) Who most often enforces the must-have-license-to-drive restriction? Presumably the owner of the car, because I've only ever been pulled over 3 times (and gotten a ticket once) in 13 years of driving and I drive like my gas pedal has two positions: off and floor. So, if the owner of the car is most often the one enforcing this restriction, why can't he or she simply make sure a person knows how to drive before allowing them to use the car? Why does the gub'mint need to be involved at all?

I'm glad you responded at such length, because it clearly illustrates the reason for my sarcastic remark: Your sloganeering, while inspiring, is imperfect.

In any event, I'd be curious to know how you feel about requiring gun owners to take a test demonstrating that they are able to use their weapons and know basic safety rules and procedures. Like DO81, I'm generally moderate to liberal on most things but relatively libertarian on guns, and I for one have little problem with as few prohibitions as possible, as long as you have to learn, for instance, how to keep a gun out of the hands of (or unusable by) your otherwise doomed eight year old child before you're allowed to purchase it.

krose
(3) against the fact that defensive uses of firearms occur at a much higher rate (estimated between 800,000 and 2.5 million times per year) than criminal uses of firearms. This doesn't include all the times guns are used for practice, in shooting sports, or for hunting, and doesn't even touch on uses relevant to the purpose of the 2nd amendment. (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html)

Duck Season!!

KeithK

DeltaOne81
Do we not have the right to vote because we have to register first?

Rights come with responsibilities. Folks from all parts of the political spectrum often forget this.

Basically your rights ends where someone else's begins, and as such harmful or hateful speech, disruptive assembly, etc are not covered.

I'm pretty sure that "hateful" speech is fully protected by the First Amendment. As it should be. I'm not sure what you mean by "harmful speech" so I'll leave that be (unless you mean supporting sports teams with Indian nicknames, which is certainly protected ).

Okay, so you found a spot where I didn't use the best wording. I went for alliteration over clarity, which was a mistake

What I was referring to really was speech advocating hateful violence. I connected it to 'harmful' (by which I mean speech that puts other people in harms way - such as, again, advocating violence against them or back to the 'fire in a crowded theater' typical example). I really shoulda said hateful and harmful. Certainly hateful speech is protected, as it should be.

KeithK
I don't have a problem with gun licensing schemes that follow the shall issue model.

The core of my problem with any sort of licensing is that the mere existence of licensing gives legitimacy to the notion that you need permission to do a thing before you can do it, and that you are presumed not to be able to do that thing properly or without state oversight.

With this legitimacy, it becomes easier to impose more and more capricious restrictions on the exercise of that right, making the whole notion of "right" really laughable once it is no longer shall-issue. Besides, what does the "shall" in "shall-issue" really mean? In some jurisdictions, a person who has at any point in his or her life been denied a firearms license anywhere in the country for any reason will never again qualify for the "shall-issue" category, even if he was denied for a capricious reason in some may-issue state.

Let me state unequivocally that I would much rather live in a world in which all criminals and all lawful people had equally easy access to firearms than the world in which we live, where criminals have access to firearms only illegally---but easily, despite that---while lawful people have a tough time obtaining and bearing firearms legally in many jurisdictions and under many normal circumstances. This is what gun control gets you: a higher ratio of armed criminals to armed lawful people.

Cheers,
Kyle

DeltaOne81
Do we not have the right to vote because we have to register first?

This is where I'm sorry our language has become so muddled that it's not clear what "rights" we're referring to.

Voting is not a "(natural) right" because it exists only in the context of government. Voting is better classified as a "privilege," but I'm not going to fight that battle, which is why I use the term "natural right".

I think you're awfully stretching the idea of what is or isn't a right in only one case (fyi, you missed the argument that driving is a privilege, not a right - which is why I chose voting).

And I think this is exactly backward: driving is a "(natural) right" because you can do this in a state of nature. Voting is not.

Basically your rights ends where someone else's begins, and as such harmful or hateful speech, disruptive assembly, etc are not covered.

Keith covered this pretty well.

Still, in a natural state your rights are limited to what the strongest animal in the plain says.

And possessing a gun and the knowledge of how to use it is going to give you a much better chance of being strong enough to ward off the strongest animal than if you had only a bat or a knife or your bare hands. The venerable Colt .45 revolver wasn't called the "great equalizer" (among other things) for nothing: e.g., an 85 year old widow living alone is going to have a much easier time warding off a 25 year old male attacker if she has a gun than if she doesn't.

Cheers,
Kyle

Beeeej
In any event, I'd be curious to know how you feel about requiring gun owners to take a test demonstrating that they are able to use their weapons and know basic safety rules and procedures. Like DO81, I'm generally moderate to liberal on most things but relatively libertarian on guns, and I for one have little problem with as few prohibitions as possible, as long as you have to learn, for instance, how to keep a gun out of the hands of (or unusable by) your otherwise doomed eight year old child before you're allowed to purchase it.

I think I covered this in my reply to Keith: I don't agree with any form of compulsory licensing because it opens the door to doling out the now-privilege (no longer a "right" on capricious grounds. I am an absolutist on that point... but then again, I see all compulsory arrangements as evil, which is why I am opposed to all forms of government.

Cheers,
Kyle

krose
but then again, I see all compulsory arrangements as evil, which is why I am opposed to all forms of government.

Alright, now its time to crawl back into your crazy hole.

DeltaOne81

krose
but then again, I see all compulsory arrangements as evil, which is why I am opposed to all forms of government.

Alright, now its time to crawl back into your crazy hole.

Thank you, Ben Rocky.

I'm just telling you why I believe the things I do so you have a bit of perspective. Clearly, you don't have to agree with me, but the facts are the facts: the government's relationship with individuals is compulsory, i.e., it relies on the threat of force. That may not bother you, but it does indeed bother me.

If there's a way to successfully maintain order without compulsory relationships, IMO we should do it that way because not to do so is immoral.

Cheers,
Kyle

Yada yada yada... crazy hole

DeltaOne81
Okay, so you found a spot where I didn't use the best wording. I went for alliteration over clarity, which was a mistake

What I was referring to really was speech advocating hateful violence. I connected it to 'harmful' (by which I mean speech that puts other people in harms way - such as, again, advocating violence against them or back to the 'fire in a crowded theater' typical example). I really shoulda said hateful and harmful. Certainly hateful speech is protected, as it should be.

OK, sorry. I thought you were saying "Hateful speech" and "harmful speech" were too different categories.

krose

DeltaOne81

krose
but then again, I see all compulsory arrangements as evil, which is why I am opposed to all forms of government.

Alright, now its time to crawl back into your crazy hole.

Thank you, Ben Rocky.

I'm just telling you why I believe the things I do so you have a bit of perspective. Clearly, you don't have to agree with me, but the facts are the facts: the government's relationship with individuals is compulsory, i.e., it relies on the threat of force. That may not bother you, but it does indeed bother me.

If there's a way to successfully maintain order without compulsory relationships, IMO we should do it that way because not to do so is immoral.

Cheers,
Kyle

I'd agree with your final if statement in principle. If society can make an arrangement without compulsory relationships then it should. But I think it's naive to believe that you can do so in most, or even many cases.

In many ways government is a necessary evil.

KeithK
In many ways government is a necessary evil.

And now we get to basically one of the main fundamental differences between those that are/lean liberal and those that are/lean conservative.

krose

Beeeej
In any event, I'd be curious to know how you feel about requiring gun owners to take a test demonstrating that they are able to use their weapons and know basic safety rules and procedures. Like DO81, I'm generally moderate to liberal on most things but relatively libertarian on guns, and I for one have little problem with as few prohibitions as possible, as long as you have to learn, for instance, how to keep a gun out of the hands of (or unusable by) your otherwise doomed eight year old child before you're allowed to purchase it.

I think I covered this in my reply to Keith: I don't agree with any form of compulsory licensing because it opens the door to doling out the now-privilege (no longer a "right" on capricious grounds. I am an absolutist on that point... but then again, I see all compulsory arrangements as evil, which is why I am opposed to all forms of government.

Do you see society (not government) as owing any sort of protection to the small child whose parent is not responsible enough to know how to store a handgun and its ammunition, yet owns one anyway?

Beeeej
Do you see society (not government) as owing any sort of protection to the small child whose parent is not responsible enough to know how to store a handgun and its ammunition, yet owns one anyway?

Society owes nothing because society has no free will: society is made up of individuals who have free will.

Individuals should protect the weak, but in this case it's not clear that there's a problem with someone who stores his guns in the open: many people I knew grew up in households in which the gun was readily available but it was simply understood that if he or she touched it without permission, he or she would be in for a world of hurt. It simply was not an issue in those households, because the children were properly educated. Storage was not the solution: education was.

In the case of actual child abuse, a man caught abusing his child would not do so for long in a natural order. His neighbors would take care of it (by whatever means necessary) in the name of protecting the weak, and no one would object.

Cheers,
Kyle

DeltaOne81
Yada yada yada... crazy hole

KeithK
In many ways government is a necessary evil.

Then go read Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed and tell me if you feel the same way afterwards. That is the book that turned me from a libertarian/minarchist into an anarchist.

Cheers,
Kyle

jtwcornell91
Your argument has become tiresome ... Now ve must dance!

The first logical thing said in a long time in this thread!

DeltaOne81

KeithK
In many ways government is a necessary evil.

And now we get to basically one of the main fundamental differences between those that are/lean liberal and those that are/lean conservative.

Yep, yep. It all comes down to fundamental assumptions. Someone on the left can come to completely logical conclusions that I find inconceivable because he starts from a completely different basis (and vice versa).

Of course, my world view is right!

KeithK

DeltaOne81
And now we get to basically one of the main fundamental differences between those that are/lean liberal and those that are/lean conservative.

Yep, yep. It all comes down to fundamental assumptions. Someone on the left can come to completely logical conclusions that I find inconceivable because he starts from a completely different basis (and vice versa).

I certainly do not consider myself "liberal" (i.e., statist/socialist), yet I can no longer call myself "conservative" either because conservatives seem to stand for statism, interventionism, unquestioned police powers, torture, security theater, and the unlimited suspension of civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. I'm simply outside of the normal left/right spectrum at this point: since the Republicans long ago abandoned any pretense at promoting smaller government, no one can even pretend to represent me.

The sad thing IMO is that these ideas would not have been considered at all radical in the early days of this country: people at that time certainly did question the feasability of anarchy, but their idea of large government would still fit within what I would be willing to live with, which is many orders of magnitude smaller and less intrusive than what we are forced to deal with today.

That my ideas are considered somehow whack-o today is a sign of the government's successful indoctrination of the masses to the side of statism. That you are not even willing to question your assumptions about the necessity of government, or even where those assumptions came from, is further proof of this. No one (least of all myself) is saying you need to agree with me (or Rothbard, or Hoppe, or Rockwell, or Nock, or von Mises, etc.), but neither should you dismiss me in a casual or condescending way unless you also admit to putting most of the founders in the same "crackpot" category.

Cheers,
Kyle

I've been thinking about this concept of Natural Rights and trying to make heads or tails of it. Frankly, I'm still having trouble, and issues.

First, I question the concept that any 'rights' can exist naturally. In a state of nature, you have no real rights, only what you can take. You may have the *ability* to do something, but I do not see that as necessary corresponding to a right. There are all sorts of things that you and I could do in a anarchistic state that are exceedingly detrimental to others. Bais and discrimination, abuse and forced labor. When you get to the heart of the 'natural' state, it seems to me to be nothing different than 'might makes right'. Those with the might - be it physical or monetary - get the 'rights'.


But lets say that rather than 'natural' right, we're limiting more to 'fundamental' rights, that are inherent in any human being. Basically, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Any human being is naturally going to strive for these (although in a truly 'natural' state, they may be denied any and all of them). This then still seems problematic to me when you begin to enumerate beyond that, to specific rights of a political nature.

Sure, the right to life includes a measure of self-defense, but need it include firearms? Need it specifically include concealed weapons permits? How goes the 'right to life' extend to the 'right to carry a weapon in my sock', despite the fact that such a situation may endanger others?

We can say, afterall, that your right to defend your life may stop when convicted of a crime punishable by death. I may generally oppose the death penalty on a policy basis, but I do not feel it is violating your right to life. Similarly your right to liberty is revoked when convicted of a crime, etc.

So even these said 'natural', 'inherent' rights have limitations imposed on them. And if they weren't done so by governments, then they would be done by fellow man.


Finally, even the father of 'natural rights', Thomas Hobbes, concluded that "the world of chaos created by unlimited rights was highly undesirable, causing human life to be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' As such, humans have chosen to give up (some of) their natural rights and created moral obligations in order to establish political and civil society." (source: wiki)

If that's the world you wish to live in, I guess you could find an uninhabited island somewhere. To me it seems no less idealistic and no more practical then communism. And who would you be (no offense ) to judge that the tradeoff made by fellow man is fundamentally wrong and inappropriate? You can disagree, sure, but that certainly doesn't make you 'right', and it doesn't mean you can 'win'. Its just your opinion.

DeltaOne81
But lets say that rather than 'natural' right, we're limiting more to 'fundamental' rights, that are inherent in any human behind.

Hold it right there, slick. My human behind has all kinds of fundamental rights!

Damnit, damnit, damnit... oh well