LIBERALS AND LIBERTY
H J Thywissen
The "liberals" of our time stand for COERCION, COLLECTIVISM, RACIAL
BALKANIZATION, GUN CONTROL, TAX-AND-SPEND, CENSORSHIP under the guise of
"fairness doctrine", and an ideological CONFORMITY called "political
correctness". The idea that a national ID is totalitarian ("papers
comrade") does not occur to them.
The tax-and-spend bill was passed by liberals against the explicit wishes
of the American public ("we know better what is good for you; that's why
this is such a tough austere budget")
I know the ideological roots of Clinton. I will explain if anyone is
interested.
Would someone explain to me just how the liberals hang on to the
connotation of liberty. Is this a bastardization of language like some
totalitarian backwater calling itself "People's Republic of ..." ?
--
Subject: in Houston h...@neosoft.com
Subject: in Houston; h...@neosoft.com
Joe T, Houston
Alan J. Filipski
--The meaning of the Latin word "libertas" is the same as that of "liberty".
--The "liberals" of our time stand for COERCION, COLLECTIVISM, RACIAL
--BALKANIZATION, GUN CONTROL, TAX-AND-SPEND, CENSORSHIP under the guise of
--"fairness doctrine", and an ideological CONFORMITY called "political
--correctness". The idea that a national ID is totalitarian ("papers
--comrade") does not occur to them.
--The tax-and-spend bill was passed by liberals against the explicit wishes
--of the American public ("we know better what is good for you; that's why
--this is such a tough austere budget")
--I know the ideological roots of Clinton. I will explain if anyone is
--interested.
--Would someone explain to me just how the liberals hang on to the
--connotation of liberty. Is this a bastardization of language like some
--totalitarian backwater calling itself "People's Republic of ..." ?
Here's my answer: people who support COERCION, COLLECTIVISM, RACIAL
BALKANIZATION, GUN CONTROL, TAX-AND-SPEND, CENSORSHIP are *not*
liberals, they are people who have usurped the word. I *am* a liberal
and I oppose all those things. If we really have lost the word, then
we should sow confusion about it, rather than acquiesce to doublespeak. If
it doesn't mean "pro-freedom", then it should mean nothing at all.
--------------
alan filipski
a...@gtx.com
Randal J. Jacoby
wrote:
>
> The meaning of the Latin word "libertas" is the same as that of "liberty".
> The "liberals" of our time stand for COERCION, COLLECTIVISM, RACIAL
> BALKANIZATION, GUN CONTROL, TAX-AND-SPEND, CENSORSHIP under the guise of
> "fairness doctrine", and an ideological CONFORMITY called "political
> correctness". The idea that a national ID is totalitarian ("papers
> comrade") does not occur to them.
Hey, you can have tax and spend liberals or borrow and spend conservatives.
Personally I'd rather pay as I go. The conservative way seems to be:
drape yourself in flags, declare yourself a better patriot and more
god-fearing, and tell the people what they want to hear, like "more tax
reductions", "the deficit is not a problem". Then you and Congress rack up
the national credit card, declare the eighties a prosperous decade, and
downplay the fact that the bill will come due. Take your choice, there's
no free lunch.
As for censorship, it seems to me that ther ACLU went so far as to defend a
white supremacists group's right to free speech, though vehemently against
their views. More than I can say for the book-burning Right.
Gun control is simple. The more gun control, the less money going to the
NRA. I've read their propaganda. It's just silly. Can you recommend an
objective publication?
Yes, I'm against national i.d's too and will fight it in principle, but
face it, if the goverment wants to find you, they will with or without a
national i.d. Cut up your credit cards if you wish, but try getting
anywhere nowdays without giving your social security number. Scary, but
done.
> The tax-and-spend bill was passed by liberals against the explicit wishes
> of the American public ("we know better what is good for you; that's why
> this is such a tough austere budget")
Conservative members of congress are breathing a sigh of relief that the
bill passed without their having to vote for it. We all have to pay the
bills and get re-elected, after all.
> I know the ideological roots of Clinton. I will explain if anyone is
> interested.
> Would someone explain to me just how the liberals hang on to the
> connotation of liberty. Is this a bastardization of language like some
> totalitarian backwater calling itself "People's Republic of ..." ?
>
Well, let's see, there was the Civil Rights Movement, the fight against
Reagan attempts to organize school prayer (why have it if you can pray
anytime you want already, unless this was a lead into something stronger
like state religion?), fight against censorship in public schools (I'm not
talking Madonna books, I'm talking classics), employers who use polygraphs,
squashing the notion that anyone owns the definition and can impose their
idea of "traditional family values", keeping the police in their place,
just to name a few minor ones.
On the Conservative side we have the promotion of a Christian Nation,
anti-abortion activists, more power to the police, censorship in schools,
and claims on true patriotism and traditional family values (thus
attempting to discredit any legitimate Liberal debate before it begins).
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."- Thomas Paine
"Religion is a close second." - R. Jacoby
C. D. Tavares
> Gun control is simple. The more gun control, the less money going to the
> NRA.
You might think so, if you didn't want to be bothered by actual facts.
Since Clinton got elected, the NRA is gaining new members at the rate
of 2,000 every DAY. No word of lie, it's been going on for about six
months steady. The NRA is already the third largest membership
organization in the US, at 3,200,000 members (only AARP and AAA are
larger). (Handgun Control Inc? 250,000, and stalled for years.)
> I've read their propaganda. It's just silly. Can you recommend an
> objective publication?
Sure can:
The Sunday Republican, Waterbury, Connecticut
August 22, 1992 pg. 1A2
Scholar's book blows gun control arguments out of the water
By Michael Browning
Knight-Ridder Newspapers
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Gary Kleck never set out to become the
academic darling of the National Rifle Association. That is a
wholly unlooked-for byproduct of his research on guns in America.
"I am treated as a hero by people with whom I have
absolutely nothing in common," said the slender professor of
criminology at Florida State University. "I'm a stereotypical
liberal. I belong to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union),
Common Cause, several environmental grouper. I am a paying
member of the Democratic Party."
But Kleck, 42, is also the author of a controversial book,
"Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America," whose conclusions
challenge much of the accepted wisdom about gun use and abuse in
the United States, as well as undermining many of the strongest
arguments for gun control.
Through 512 pages of statistical research, tables and
footnotes, Kleck makes the case that guns are twice as likely to
be used defensively as aggressively; that they thwart crime far
more often than they abet it; that their availability has little
or no impact on provoking violence; they are far more likely to
be owned by law-abiding citizens than by criminals; that banning
certain classes of guns, such as handguns or automatic weapons,
is futile; and that guns serve a useful purpose in protecting a
large, non-violent majority of "victims" from a violent minority
of criminals.
Kleck favors gun control but says most current schemes for
gun control are silly, unrealistic and unworkable, given the fact
that there are about 200 million guns in the United States now,
and that 45 percent of all American households have one or more
of them.
Instead of targeting certain types of guns -- handguns,
"Saturday Night Specials," assault rifles and so on -- and
attempting to drive them out of circulation, Kleck says we should
target certain types of people -- those with criminals records,
those who are mentally disturbed, those with a high potential for
violence -- and deny then all guns, any type of gun, long or
short, fast or slow, by means of rigorous background checks and
stiff penalties for obtaining weapons illegally.
"I regard the NRA's knee-jerk response to gun-control
proposals -- get tough on criminals, build more jails -- as even
dumber than the gun-control lobby's agenda. It is like the NRA
is playing poker with the gun control lobby and saying `I'll call
your stupidity and raise you one.'"
His controversial book costs $60 and scarcely 10,000 copies
have been printed for the scholar and library market, so it isn't
likely to reach a mass audience.
His book has stirred a lively debate in some academic
circles. His opponents say Kleck's research looks impressive,
but some of it is based on flimsy foundations and flawed surveys,
and that he has therefore leaped to conclusions.
In fact, Kleck says he was somewhat surprised at the results
of his research.
"Before I undertook this study I had all the normal
preconceptions. I was a pro-control academic. I believed
instinctively that people should not have guns," he says.
"Bit I learned that those reactions were based on very
shallow research. no one really knew much about this question
until the mid-1970s.
"Gradually I came to see that the best available evidence
did not support the case that is usually made for gun control;
that guns automatically lead to violence.
"I learned that the subgroups of the population who owned
the most guns -- the old and the wealthy -- demonstrated the
least violence; while the subgroups of the population who were
least likely to own guns, the young and the poor, tended to be
the most violent."
Here again, Kleck draws fire from his critics: "He tends to
break the whole population down into two neat categories: Victims
and aggressors," McDowall said. "I think in many assaults it is
very difficult to tell who is the victim and who is the
aggressor."
Kleck's most controversial funding, the one that has most
endeared him to the NRA, is this: The number of times guns are
used defensively is probably twice as great as the number of
times they are used criminally.
"All my statistics indicate that there are at least 600,000
cases a year of guns being used criminally, both reported and
unreported cases. But: The number of instances in which guns are
used defensively is on the order of 1.2 million times a year."
Here again, however, Kleck's critics have attacked his
research. "The National Crime Survey, a survey conducted by the
government, indicated that guns are used defensively only 60-
65,000 times each year," McDowall said. "There is a huge
discrepancy between Kleck's figures and these figures."
Kleck defends his research as sound. "We called up 4,977
households scattered throughout the 48 contiguous states. The
telephone numbers were randomly generated by a computer. We took
all responses in confidence, and made sure that the times when a
gun was used was against a person, not against a rattlesnake or
some animal. We were measuring cases of guns being used against
people who were committing criminal acts," he said.
"I just point out that if you are a victim with a gun you
are likely to be successful in defending yourself from a criminal
attack. You are less likely to get hurt if you have a gun. That
is not my opinion. That is a statistical fact."
--
c...@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR c...@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Randal J. Jacoby
Tavares) wrote:
>
> In article <randy_jacoby...@222.189.55.191>, randy_...@chdqm1.sps.mot.com (Randal J. Jacoby) writes:
>
> > Gun control is simple. The more gun control, the less money going to the
> > NRA.
>
> You might think so, if you didn't want to be bothered by actual facts.
>
> Since Clinton got elected, the NRA is gaining new members at the rate
> of 2,000 every DAY. No word of lie, it's been going on for about six
> months steady. The NRA is already the third largest membership
> organization in the US, at 3,200,000 members (only AARP and AAA are
> larger). (Handgun Control Inc? 250,000, and stalled for years.)
No, I dig facts. I did not necessarily mean short term. Of course one
possible short term effect of any gun control measure is stepped up
campaigning by the NRA for more money and more members (call Charleton).
Any EFFECTIVE gun control measure, right or wrong, would by definition mean
a reduction in the long run in gun ownership (not necessarily in violence,
I'll grant you), and reduced NRA membership. I am convinced the NRA, by
their actions, believe this too.
By the way, I read a few months ago that the overall power of the NRA was
waning. How has membership done over say the past five years, ten years?
>
> > I've read their propaganda. It's just silly. Can you recommend an
> > objective publication?
>
> Sure can:
>
> The Sunday Republican, Waterbury, Connecticut
> August 22, 1992 pg. 1A2
Thanks -
>
> Scholar's book blows gun control arguments out of the water
Just from the title you can tell what the bias is on this article (not
Kleck but Browning) .... Now I could believe "Scholar's book refutes gun
control arguements" or something like that as being objective.
I received one of the calls. Thought it was someone casing my house. Said
of course I've got a gun, have used it, and am not afraid of defending
myself again. Just kidding of course, but what would you say to a
stranger?
That's a huge discrepency in statistics which says either the incidence of
self defense with guns is twice that of offences with guns ... or ... one
tenth. That is the difference between about 25 vs. 1.3 out of the 4977
poled responding positively. I take it the government numbers are reported
cases. Are one out of ten cases of self defense unreported ??? I think
not! Are the government numbers wrong? Maybe. Statistics should be
challenged 100% of the time! I'll see if the library has the book ($60 is
out of my range).
>
> "I just point out that if you are a victim with a gun you
> are likely to be successful in defending yourself from a criminal
> attack. You are less likely to get hurt if you have a gun. That
> is not my opinion. That is a statistical fact."
Huh? Is that a blanket statement or does that apply only to a trained
user???
I've heard statistics that say the untrained user is more likely to be hurt
by his own gun than to hurt the criminal trespasser.
I could also believe both statistics are true if the basis for both were
understood. Unless I do, I don't buy them coming from either side.
Statistics should not be proliferated by those who do not fully understand
them.
Michael J. Phelps
In article <randy_jacoby...@222.189.55.191>,
randy_...@chdqm1.sps.mot.com (Randal J. Jacoby) writes:
|> In article <25c4ss$n...@transfer.stratus.com>, c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D.
|> Tavares) wrote:
[snip]
|> > Kleck defends his research as sound. "We called up 4,977
|> > households scattered throughout the 48 contiguous states. The
|> > telephone numbers were randomly generated by a computer. We took
|> > all responses in confidence, and made sure that the times when a
|> > gun was used was against a person, not against a rattlesnake or
|> > some animal. We were measuring cases of guns being used against
|> > people who were committing criminal acts," he said.
|>
|> I received one of the calls. Thought it was someone casing my house.
|> Said of course I've got a gun, have used it, and am not afraid of
|> defending myself again. Just kidding of course, but what would you say
|> to a stranger?
Note that your implication is that owning a firearm for self-defense will
deter the person who was 'casing' your house.
[snip]
|> That's a huge discrepency in statistics which says either the incidence
|> of self defense with guns is twice that of offences with guns ... or ...
|> one tenth. That is the difference between about 25 vs. 1.3 out of the
|> 4977 poled responding positively. I take it the government numbers are
|> reported cases. Are one out of ten cases of self defense unreported ???
|> I think not!
There could be several reasons why successful self-defenses might not
be reported:
1. the person may consider the [unsuccessful] crime to be over, and not
persue the issue; i was the victim of an attempted mugging several
years ago - i didn't report it, since i successfully stopped the
crime before anyone was hurt [non-firearm related solution btw]
2. assume that the person successfully defended themselves with a firearm,
but the firearm was not discharged [the vast majority of cases].
Further assume that the constabulary in the area are hostile towards
people who legally own firearms [eg Monroe county NY]. The person
may choose to not report the attempted crime since the police may well
harrass them, or make their lives miserable. They are safe, why should
they rock the boat, and risk unknown consequences?
3. the circumstances may be such that the firearm is illegal. For
instance, a NYS permit holder can't carry in NY city; i know several
women who do so anyway, on the theory that its better to be judged by
12 than carried by 6. They'd be nuts to report anything short of an
actual shooting!
In a similar example, some NY counties restrict the handgun permits
(target and hunting for instance); these restrictions are not authorized
by statue, and are not criminally enforceable, but could be used
by a licensing officer to revoke the permit. A person with such a
permit who used their handgun to successfully defend themselves might
not wish to report it, since they'd risk loosing their permit. This
is likely compounded by (2), since there is a high correlation between
areas that restrict permits and areas where the constabulary are
openly hostile towards legal gun owners [hello Monroe Cty!]
4. the person may not consider themselves a victim of a crime, since it
wasn't completed. Most people don't report non-crimes..
|> Are the government numbers wrong?
I presume you are referring to the NCS study. Note that their methodology
requires that:
1. the crime was reported
2. there were certain elements in the crime report that lead the NCS
to further investigate
before the person would even be questioned wrt self-defense.
Certainly its easy to see how (1) might be avoided, and the screening (2)
might also eliminate some successful self-defenses. The NCS study may
be correct in as far as it goes; the flaw may be the methodology, or the
extrapolation to the general population.
As Kleck notes, the NCS number is probably best looked at as a floor; there
aren't any less successful self-defenses, and there are surely more - the
question is how many?
|> Maybe. Statistics should be challenged 100% of the time!
Certainly. I find the FBI's UCR and the DOJ's Sourcebook to be good
tools.
|> I'll see if the library has the book ($60 is out of my range).
If there are any local colleges with a criminal justice program, they
ought to have it. Its well written and worth reading.
|> > "I just point out that if you are a victim with a gun you
|> > are likely to be successful in defending yourself from a criminal
|> > attack. You are less likely to get hurt if you have a gun. That
|> > is not my opinion. That is a statistical fact."
|>
|> Huh? Is that a blanket statement or does that apply only to a trained
|> user???
blanket statement, which isn't to say that training is not desireable [it
clearly is]. Note the word _likely_, which means that a gun isn't a
guarentee of safety [nothing is].
|> I've heard statistics that say the untrained user is more likely to be
|> hurt by his own gun than to hurt the criminal trespasser.
Unfounded, unless perhaps you are into suicide. Its difficult to even find
a case where the victim had a gun taken and used against them. The
'statistics' that purport to 'prove' this usually are formed like this:
loss = gun_suicide + gun_homicide + gun_accident
gain = gun_homicides that are immediatly classified as justifiable
gun_suicide [self-inflicted] doesn't belong with homicides; its not
terribly likely that someone will break into your home and force you to
commit suicide.. its included since it fluffs the 'loss' side (there are
about 15,000 firearm related suicides per year; i'm not aware of any
area that showed an overall suicide rate reduction after enacting more
gun laws, either. In fact, Canada's rate rose after their most recent
gun laws - jumping off high places is more effective than shooting one's
self)
gun_accidents happen so infrequently that they are in the noise [ca 1200
last year; you are more likely to die from drowning, poisoning, or
falling down the stairs (ca 4000)]
Note that some gun_homicides are not initially reported as 'justifiable',
but are later reclassified into that catagory [see Kleck for details
from the FBI's UCR]
Further, note that the 'gain' side doesn't take into account all the
successful self-defenses that didn't result in death - thats right, they
define success in terms of dead bodies; rather gruesome, no?
What should the equation look like? How about:
loss = gun_homicide + gun_accident - justifiable_gun_homicides
gain = successful_gun_self-defenses
So, lets sketch this out quickly [i'll supply more details if you want]:
gun_homicides = 12,000 - justifiable_gun_homicides; call it 11,000
gun_accident = 1,200
successful_gun_self-defense = 80,000 [lowest number from the NCS]
1,000,000 [Kleck]
So, you are between 6 and 77 times more likely to successfully defend
yourself with a firearm than to be killed with a firearm, depending on
whose numbers you choose to believe.
Check out "Point Blank". Kleck cites liberally, so its a good starting
point for branching out (yes, he cites people who don't agree with him
as well).
Followups to talk.politics.guns, please
--
Michael Phelps, (external) m...@vnet.ibm.com
(internal) mjp at kingston
(and last but not least a disclaimer) These opinions are mine..
The Polymath
[ ... ]
}Any EFFECTIVE gun control measure, right or wrong, would by definition mean
}a reduction in the long run in gun ownership (not necessarily in violence,
}I'll grant you), ...
That's an interesting definition of "effective gun control." It's more
honest than most. (Not better, just honest).
}By the way, I read a few months ago that the overall power of the NRA was
}waning. How has membership done over say the past five years, ten years?
It's currently at an all time high (3.2 million) and growing at the rate
of 2,000/day, as previously noted. For those who haven't done the math:
The number of _new_ members of the NRA this year will likely be about
_triple_ HCI's _total_ membership.
It seems pretty obvious which side the great majority of people who really
care about the issue are on.
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: holl...@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp Laws define crime.
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (310) 450-9111, x2483 Police enforce laws.
Santa Monica, CA 90405 Citizens prevent crime.
C. D. Tavares
> > > Gun control is simple. The more gun control, the less money going to the
> > > NRA.
> > Since Clinton got elected, the NRA is gaining new members at the rate
> > of 2,000 every DAY... The NRA is already the third largest membership
> > organization in the US, at 3,200,000 members (only AARP and AAA are
> > larger). (Handgun Control Inc? 250,000, and stalled for years.)
> No, I dig facts. I did not necessarily mean short term. Of course one
> possible short term effect of any gun control measure is stepped up
> campaigning by the NRA for more money and more members (call Charleton).
Efforts to attract non-members are not a direct-mail type of thing, for
obvious reasons. NRA hasn't changed or increased its print ads. (I grant
you that they HAVE put out a higher quality TV ad in the past few months,
but I think this was a matter of talent, and not timing.)
IMHO, membership is going up because more and more gun owners who once
thought that the NRA was being unduly paranoid about gun control see the
handwriting on the wall. I personally know of at least a dozen long-time
fence-sitters who joined up over the past two weeks on the basis of the
Clinton "bulky handgun" ban.
There are a lot of pro-gun fence-sitters out there. Did you know that
42-50% of the households in the US own guns?
> By the way, I read a few months ago that the overall power of the NRA was
> waning. How has membership done over say the past five years, ten years?
What you read on the subject of gun control, and the NRA in particular,
in the popular media is mostly pure horseshit. Bluntly, this is a lie,
and anyone who has bothered to research the subject cannot make such a
statement and remain honest.
NRA membership levels are at an all-time high and still growing.
Membership was declining in the mid 80's, when there was a large
contingent of people on the board who concentrated on running sporting
events and tried to ignore gun control legislation, hoping to be left
alone. When the board turned more to active protection of its members'
right to keep and bear arms, the trend reversed. Membership began to
grow at a "comfortable" rate until last November, when the growth rate
became almost uncomfortably intense.
(I mean, for 15 years I've been an active officer of a hobby organization
that has fewer members total than the NRA GAINS in THREE DAYS...)
> > Scholar's book blows gun control arguments out of the water
> > By Michael Browning
> > Knight-Ridder Newspapers
> Just from the title you can tell what the bias is on this article (not
> Kleck but Browning) .... Now I could believe "Scholar's book refutes gun
> control arguements" or something like that as being objective.
You are accusing Knight-Ridder of a pro-gun bias? Bwa ha ha ha ha!
I suggest you locate more than one data point first.
> > "All my statistics indicate that there are at least 600,000
> > cases a year of guns being used criminally, both reported and
> > unreported cases. But: The number of instances in which guns are
> > used defensively is on the order of 1.2 million times a year."
> > Here again, however, Kleck's critics have attacked his
> > research. "The National Crime Survey, a survey conducted by the
> > government, indicated that guns are used defensively only 60-
> > 65,000 times each year," McDowall said. "There is a huge
> > discrepancy between Kleck's figures and these figures."
> That's a huge discrepency in statistics which says either the incidence of
> self defense with guns is twice that of offences with guns ... or ... one
> tenth. That is the difference between about 25 vs. 1.3 out of the 4977
> poled responding positively. I take it the government numbers are reported
> cases. Are one out of ten cases of self defense unreported ??? I think
> not! Are the government numbers wrong? Maybe. Statistics should be
> challenged 100% of the time! I'll see if the library has the book ($60 is
> out of my range).
Check the book. Kleck uses a number of different polls to estimate the
number of defensive uses of guns per year.
Hart Poll, 1981, 644,000 handgun defenses per year
Mauser Poll, 1990, 691,000 gun defenses per year
Field Poll (California), 1978, 1.2 million handgun defenses per year
Time/CNN Poll, 1989, 908,061 handgun defenses per year
Kleck talks about problems with surveys, but states that the surveys
probably tend to UNDERestimate gun defenses due to recall failure.
In "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force" (Social Problems,
February 1988), Kleck compares the results of six polls: a 1976 Field
Poll of California noninstitutionalized adults (NA's) a 1978 Cambridge
Reports Poll of US NA's; two 1978 Decision/Making/Information polls of US
registered voters (RV's); a 1981 Hart Poll of US RV's; and a 1982 State of
Ohio Poll of state residents.
The Hart poll is "the only survey to cover a national population; ask about
defensive uses in a specific, limited time period; ask the question of all
respondents; distinguish civilian use from police and military uses; and
distinguish uses against humans from uses against animals." (The other five
surveys yield results that are compatible with the results of Hart.)
This survey was performed by Peter D. Hart Associates, and commissioned by
the National Alliance Against Violence(!) The results were (for obvious
reasons) never published by the sponsor. (Peter D. Hart has conducted polls
for many well-known political figures including Walter Mondale, Ted Kennedy,
Frank Church, and Hubert Humphrey.)
"In this survey, 6% of the adults interviewed replied 'yes' to the question:
'Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your
household used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or
for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere, excluding
military service or police work?' Those who replied 'yes' were then asked,
'Was this to protect against an animal, or a person?' Of the total sample,
2% replied 'animal,' 3% 'person,' and 1% 'both.' Therefore, 4% of the
sample reported gun use against a person by someone in their household."
This figure represents an estimate of 3,224,880 households in which at least
one person used a handgun defensively during 1976-81. Assuming one use per
household and dividing by five (years) gives about 645,000 uses of handguns
ALONE.
There are 109 long guns owned for every 47 handguns, but using the poll data,
Kleck instead used the ratio of long guns "owned primarily for self-defense
and protection at home" to handguns so owned, giving him a more conservative
ratio of 12 long:21 handguns. Multiplying the 645,000 annual handgun defenses
by (12+21)/21 gives as estimate of roughly one million annual defensive uses
of firearms by common citizens.
"Most of the surveys... did not delve into the exact circumstances in which
guns were used defensively or the manner in which they were used. However,
most did ask whether the gun was fired. Results generally indicate the gun
was fired in somewhat less than half of the defensive uses [the poll results
range from 1/3 to 2/3]; the rest of the times the gun presumably was merely
displayed or referred to in order to threaten or frighten away a criminal."
The significant percentage of firings militates against any suggestion that
the total defense number was inflated by respondents who counted simple gun
ownership as "using" a gun for protection.
What about that estimate of only 80,000 (now 65,000) defensive uses per
year from the National Crime Survey? According to Kleck:
"One survey that almost certainly is not adequate for estimating the total
number of defensive gun uses is the National Crime Survey. Respondents in
that survey are not asked about defensive actions unless they first give
an affirmative answer to screener questions asking about victimization
experiences in general."
In other words, people who had used a gun successfully to thwart a crime
did not tend to fall into the category of "crime victim" as defined by
the NCS, and so were not asked about their experiences.
For other sources of information on the public value of private arms,
read Lizotte, "The Costs of Using Gun Control to Reduce Homicide," 62
Bulletin of the NY Academy of Medicine, 539-541 (1986); and Baker,
"Without Guns, Do People Kill People?" 75 American Journal of Public
Health 587 (1985).
> > "I just point out that if you are a victim with a gun you
> > are likely to be successful in defending yourself from a criminal
> > attack. You are less likely to get hurt if you have a gun. That
> > is not my opinion. That is a statistical fact."
>
> Huh? Is that a blanket statement or does that apply only to a trained
> user???
It is a blanket statement. The statistical foundation is explained fully
in the book. It applies to all gun owners.
> I've heard statistics that say the untrained user is more likely to be hurt
> by his own gun than to hurt the criminal trespasser.
Yes, I'm sure you have. They are lies, pure and simple.
(I don't mean to bitch, but for a guy who says, "statistics should be
challenged 100% of the time" and proceeds to give my arguments a hard
time on this account, you sure seem to have been willing to accept vague,
unsubstantiated "statistics" from the anti side. You ought to spend a
little time doing some introspection on your prejudices.)
Note that many of these statistics are worded so as to include suicides.
Yes, a suicide is killed "by his own gun" (what is he going to do,
borrow somebody else's?) but mixing suicides (large number) in with
accidents (small number) and weapons retention failures (even smaller
number) is a good indication of dishonesty. And no one argues that
"owning a gun makes you more likely to commit suicide" -- no one.
> I could also believe both statistics are true if the basis for both were
> understood. Unless I do, I don't buy them coming from either side.
> Statistics should not be proliferated by those who do not fully understand
> them.
I agree. I understand them, and I know my opinion. Kleck understands
them, and we know his opinion. So read the references and make up your
own mind. For people with open minds who can be persuaded by facts, the
facts do their own persuading, they don't need me.
T. Archer
>> > Scholar's book blows gun control arguments out of the water
>> > By Michael Browning
>> > Knight-Ridder Newspapers
>
>> Just from the title you can tell what the bias is on this article (not
>> Kleck but Browning) .... Now I could believe "Scholar's book refutes gun
>> control arguements" or something like that as being objective.
>
>You are accusing Knight-Ridder of a pro-gun bias? Bwa ha ha ha ha!
>I suggest you locate more than one data point first.
NONONO! That title was written by a copy editor on a deadline in 2 minutes
because it would fit the space at the top of the column. I am a free-lance
columnist and know whereof I speak. (Strickly hometown/college papers) I
can't tell you how many times the "spin" of what I have written has gone in
the opposite direction because of a chowder-headed copy editor.
>> > "I just point out that if you are a victim with a gun you
>> > are likely to be successful in defending yourself from a criminal
>> > attack. You are less likely to get hurt if you have a gun. That
>> > is not my opinion. That is a statistical fact."
>>
>> Huh? Is that a blanket statement or does that apply only to a trained
>> user???
>
>It is a blanket statement. The statistical foundation is explained fully
>in the book. It applies to all gun owners.
>
>> I've heard statistics that say the untrained user is more likely to be hurt
>> by his own gun than to hurt the criminal trespasser.
>
>Yes, I'm sure you have. They are lies, pure and simple.
Not at all. If you've ever been "hammer-bit" by the drawslide on a semi-
auto, or ever dropped a case on your foot, you've been "hurt" by your gun.
T. Archer
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce. "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randal J. Jacoby
I apologize for being more precise on the last statement. Years ago I read
that in a confrontation between an untrained armed homeowner and an
intruder, more times than not the gun owner or family member is shot.
Admittedly that is a broad area including the intruder finding the gun
first and shooting, or the owner panicking, shooting and missing then being
overpowered and losing the gun, or a family member being hit by accident.
I did not mean suicides, clumsiness, etc.
Personally, I would feel better not having a gun but having a LOUD security
system. I do not know how I would reconcile it if I shot and killed some
kid who was burglarizing my house for a tape deck, not to mention shooting
a family member by accident. I would probably feel differently if I was in
an area prone to violent break-ins.
David Veal
>In article <25c4ss$n...@transfer.stratus.com>, c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D.
>Tavares) wrote:
>>
>> In article <randy_jacoby...@222.189.55.191>, randy_...@chdqm1.sps.mot.com (Randal J. Jacoby) writes:
>>
>> > Gun control is simple. The more gun control, the less money going to the
>> > NRA.
>>
>> You might think so, if you didn't want to be bothered by actual facts.
>>
>> Since Clinton got elected, the NRA is gaining new members at the rate
>> of 2,000 every DAY. No word of lie, it's been going on for about six
>> months steady. The NRA is already the third largest membership
>> organization in the US, at 3,200,000 members (only AARP and AAA are
>> larger). (Handgun Control Inc? 250,000, and stalled for years.)
>
>No, I dig facts. I did not necessarily mean short term. Of course one
>possible short term effect of any gun control measure is stepped up
>campaigning by the NRA for more money and more members (call Charleton).
Well, my impression is the NRA has been increasing in overall
members for some time now. However, since gun control seems to have
been a fairly big issue for some time now, the chances of getting an
indication of what the NRA's membership would be without such proposals
is pretty slim.
>Any EFFECTIVE gun control measure, right or wrong, would by definition mean
>a reduction in the long run in gun ownership (not necessarily in violence,
>I'll grant you), and reduced NRA membership. I am convinced the NRA, by
>their actions, believe this too.
Probably, but not by definition. It's theoretically possible to
institute gun control that would still allow consistant ownership levels.
It's only if your definition of "effective" *is* lower gun ownership. Many
people's definition of "effective" means lower gun crime, which isn't
necessarily the same thing.
>By the way, I read a few months ago that the overall power of the NRA was
>waning. How has membership done over say the past five years, ten years?
I believe the NRA membership is currently higher than it's ever been
before. (Don't know about the rate.)
The NRA's got an image problem. They've been sucked into bad deals,
sucker-punched, and been kind of yutzes for some time now. That and the
constant harping about they're being "no compromise" (they're not, *I'm*
a lot more "no compromise" than the NRA, so I oughta know. :-)) as well as
other less-than-honest protrayals has created sort of a public relations
black hole for the NRA.
It's not wholly unexpected. The American psyche is geared to
support the under-dog against the monolithic forces of evil. (I think that
goes all the way back to King George) So one would expect the NRA to be
portrayed as a massive, monolithic oligarchy of gun manufacturers who crush
their opponents with raw financial might and don't give a damn about anything
but their profits. (This has the added benefit of allowing actual *people*,
you know, NRA members, to be dismissed as either toadies or puppets rather
than dealt with as real people.)
And, of course, there *are* quite a few gun-supporting politicians.
They just don't get the press. (I won't get into the whole liberal media
bias nonsense, but I *will* state there's a very heavy handed anti-gun/anti-
NRA bias in most of the national news media, especially the network news.)
>> Scholar's book blows gun control arguments out of the water
>
>Just from the title you can tell what the bias is on this article (not
>Kleck but Browning) .... Now I could believe "Scholar's book refutes gun
>control arguements" or something like that as being objective.
Umm, it's highly unlikely the author of the article wrote the
headline. That's *usually* not the way newspapers/magazines work. Usually
headlines are put on after editing (what is written is often not exactly
what goes in) and is then titled to catch the reader's attention, not to
accurately portray what's in the article. (Of course, maybe there was
a biased copy editor. :-)
>[Much about Kleck deleted. I'll bet he wakes up sweating at night with
nightmares about helping the NRA. :-)]
>I received one of the calls. Thought it was someone casing my house. Said
>of course I've got a gun, have used it, and am not afraid of defending
>myself again. Just kidding of course, but what would you say to a
>stranger?
That is, in fact, a major problem with surveys.
>That's a huge discrepency in statistics which says either the incidence of
>self defense with guns is twice that of offences with guns ... or ... one
>tenth. That is the difference between about 25 vs. 1.3 out of the 4977
>poled responding positively. I take it the government numbers are reported
>cases. Are one out of ten cases of self defense unreported ??? I think
>not!
Actually, self-defense is an event which has among the highest
rate of non-reporting, *especially* successful ones. People don't like
dealing with the police, and if they're successful (that is, they're
not injured or didn't lose anything) they'd just as soon not go through
the hassle. Violent crime with injury is among the most reported kind
of crime, and it runs from 40-50% reporting. A lot of lower crime is
reported even less often. (This from the National Crime Survey, which
certainly has it's own peculiar flaws. It is, in fact, where the low
estimates come from, and it's not reported. Their question style, however,
brings their conclusions into doubt, and the very radical changes in the
numbers of defenses from year to year sort of bring some doubt to their
methodology.
>Are the government numbers wrong? Maybe.
The government numbers can come from two places, primarily. One
is police reports, which are bad sources since the crimes which result in
injury are the ones which are usually reported to the police. Such a self-
selected sample will be very skewed. The other is the big National Crime
Survey, whose question methodology regarding self-defense leaves something
to be desired. (Kleck goes into detail on all these subjects. He's a
scholarly fanatic type of guy.)
>Statistics should be challenged 100% of the time! I'll see if the library
>has the book ($60 isout of my range).
Kleck doesn't make a whole lot absolute statements. About two thirds
of the book is dedictated to, "Claim X is not supported by this data." Not
"Claim X is wrong," only that it isn't supported.
>> "I just point out that if you are a victim with a gun you
>> are likely to be successful in defending yourself from a criminal
>> attack. You are less likely to get hurt if you have a gun. That
>> is not my opinion. That is a statistical fact."
>
>Huh? Is that a blanket statement or does that apply only to a trained
>user???
It's an in general statement, *possibly* biased because trained
users are more likely to use a gun in self defense. That is, a completely
ignorant schmuck may not find a gun very useful, but then he's also least
likely to have one on him.
I don't think anybody with any brains will suggest that training is
a bad idea.
>I've heard statistics that say the untrained user is more likely to be hurt
>by his own gun than to hurt the criminal trespasser.
These are almost always based on police reports, which have a
serious statistical distortion, namely the police often don't hear about
successful self-defenses because as I said, people don't like dealing with
the police. Especially in places where carrying the gun is probably illegal
in the first place, like New York. (My boss used his gun to stop a mugging
in New York. Since carrying's a felony there and they proscute people who
defend themselves for fun, he never reported it.)
However, you'll have to be careful with statistics and *make sure*
they're talking about the same event. For instance, is it talking about
being hurt by his own gun *during* the encounter? A lot of such "studies"
include suicide to boost the dange rates. That's an intentional act and
it's relevance to training is pretty negligble.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu (Mail to VE...@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce)
Signature Impounded For Failure To Pay Sig Tax
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Luedtke
>I received one of the calls. Thought it was someone casing my house. Said
>of course I've got a gun, have used it, and am not afraid of defending
>myself again. Just kidding of course, but what would you say to a
>stranger?
What is the point of this paragraph? Why would you tell someone you thought
was casing your house that you had a gun and were willing to use it (again)?
While I understand you are simply trying to investigate the statistics
quoted here, it seems clear you understand that being unarmed makes you an
easier victim.
--
Mark Luedtke ma...@dvorak.amd.com
This was typed by an infinite number of monkeys.
C. D. Tavares
> >> > Scholar's book blows gun control arguments out of the water
> >> > By Michael Browning
> >> > Knight-Ridder Newspapers
> >
> >> Just from the title you can tell what the bias is on this article
> NONONO! That title was written by a copy editor on a deadline in 2 minutes
> because it would fit the space at the top of the column.
Indeed. It just as often works the other way. I have an article about
a fellow who had his house torched and his car stolen while he was on
vacation. The next week, driving his rental to the store, he saw his car
in the parking lot. He told the men in the car to stay there while he
called the police. They laughed at him. He drew his handgun and made
the same request, whereupon they suddenly stopped laughing. When the
police arrived, the man put away his gun and turned the criminals over.
Seems there were other warrants out on these scumbags for violent crimes.
The police thanked the homeowner and sent him on his way.
The headline? "EASTBOROUGH MAN TAKES LAW INTO HIS OWN HANDS."
Sigh.
Randal J. Jacoby
(Mark Luedtke) wrote:
>
> In article <randy_jacoby...@222.189.55.191> randy_...@chdqm1.sps.mot.com (Randal J. Jacoby) writes:
> >I received one of the calls. Thought it was someone casing my house. Said
> >of course I've got a gun, have used it, and am not afraid of defending
> >myself again. Just kidding of course, but what would you say to a
> >stranger?
>
> What is the point of this paragraph? Why would you tell someone you thought
> was casing your house that you had a gun and were willing to use it (again)?
> While I understand you are simply trying to investigate the statistics
> quoted here, it seems clear you understand that being unarmed makes you an
> easier victim.
Not necessarily. My point is why admit to a stranger over the phone that
you do not have a gun or have never used it? Whether you are actually
armed or not is of no consequence to the poll. And I am not advocating a
ban on possesion of guns!