Cliff LyonThe Verdict is in: Alan Korwin Told a Lie on C-Span (and refuses to admit it)
Despite claims to the contrary, Alan Korwin did make a public statement that is untrue (a lie), and given the opportunity to apologize or correct his statement, has chosen to defend this untruth.
On April 9th 2008, Alan Korwin appeared on C-Span. In that speech, in reference to gun ownership in America, Alan Korwin claimed “hundreds of thousands of lives are saved each year” [by the defensive use of guns]. His defense is a 1995 poll by Kleck.
But that poll never won peer review, and the 1997 National Institute of Justice Research Brief, “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms” concludes, NSPOF (National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms) based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number.
So Alan’s claim is not only laughable and absurd but also, demonstrably false and therefore irresponsible.
Just in the last 3 pages of this analysis (pg 9-12) finds the following phrases to describe the Kleck and Gertz poll:
“…surprising figure, estimates are far too high.”
“It does not make sense”“…results are almost as absurd”
“If those percentages were close to accurate”
“That number also appears completely out of line”
“Evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even stronger…”
“…many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified..”
“…greatly exaggerates the true number…”
“…the DGU estimates are not informative…”
Please find below, the full excerpts from which the above phrases are taken for your convenience.
It is quite clear that integrity and honesty are not qualities that reside in the same personage as many gun-advocates, and most certainly, not ones possessed by Alan Korwin.
Alan Korwin certainly has the ability to verify the accuracy of his claims, as do his interlocutors, many of whom have come to his defense on this blog.
I repeat. THIS is the beauty of the Internet.
“Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms” - Excerpts”
Page 11 Conclusion:
The NSPOF does not provide much evidence on whether consumers who buy guns for protection against crime get their money’s worth. The NSPOF based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.
Page 9
Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year. But other surveys yield far higher estimates of the number of Defensive Gun Uses (DGU). Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of 2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994 telephone survey conducted by Florida State University professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz.13 The 2.5 million figure has been picked up by the press and now appears regularly in newspaper articles, letters to the editor, editorials, and even Congressional Research Service briefs for public policymakers.Almost half of these respondents reported multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23 million. This surprising figure is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!
…our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high.
For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF) estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!
NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases. The evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even stronger when one recalls that the DGU estimates are calculated using only the most recently reported DGU incidents of NSPOF respondents; as noted, about half of the respondents who reported a DGU indicated two or more in the preceding year. Although there are no details on the circumstances of those additional DGUs, presumably they are similar to the most recent case and provide evidence for additional millions of violent crimes foiled and perpetrators shot.
Page 10
Regardless of which estimates one believes, only a small fraction of adults have used guns defensively in 1994. The only question is whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz’s criteria).In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents’ answers to the followup items are not consistent with respondents’ reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack—but then responded “no” to a subsequent question: “Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?”
April 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
So how do you intend to refute that firearms save innocent lives? All I see you bickering about is an exact number. One study makes an estimate, and you reject it because you refuse to accept that so many people are saved using an object you are clearly terrified of. Then another number comes out, and you can’t accept that one, either, for the same reason.
It appears to me that you’ll only be happy when firearms save no lives whatsoever. This would be pretty consistent with the general attitude of the gun control lobby with their response towards how one should handle a potentially dangerous situation: don’t resist.
That’s what rapists, murderers, and thieves want, too. I guess you think alike.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Rob F,
I think you’ve misunderstood my purpose. I set out to question Alan Korwin’s claim. You guys finally pointed me to the source, and it turns out the 400,000 number is just plain absurd and any honest person must come to the same conclusion.
I do not “refuse to accept that so many people are saved” by guns, I refuse to accept that 400,000 Americans each year are saved by guns.
I think what you are trying to get at is the idea that broad gun ownership outweighs the bad because they save so many lives. That logic doesn’t necessarily follow.
The conclusion of the NIJ brief says,
My God, I think the authors were actually making fun of the Kleck study- to the extent one can do that in a gov’t document.
I learned long ago, that if you are truly interested in objective truth, then the best path is to seek out and listen to experts. In doing so, one must consider both credentials and motivation. i.e having a gun does not make you an expert on the social cost or benefit.
The evidence seems to be that gun control is directly correlated to lowered gun violence. Just look at other countries.
btw: I am not terrified by guns. I am terrified by some of the people I see at the gun range.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Inconvenient facts FYI:
The leading category of death by firearm is suicide.
Members of handgun-owning families were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as members of the same age, sex, and neighborhood who had no history of handgun purchase.
For every case in which an individual used a firearm kept in the home in a self-defense homicide, there were 1.3 unintentional deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I am reminded of an argument for wiretapping. “If you are not doing anything wrong, then who cares if Uncle Sam taps your phone?”
Hearing these arguments, I can’t help but think, if there is no reason for someone to kill you, why do you need a gun for protection?
i.e If you’re not doing anything bad, why would you need a gun?
April 18th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Cliff,
I think you are confusing a couple of issues. First, the 400k references “defenseive gun uses” not necessarily lives saved or are you saying the only legitimate use of a firearm is to save a life? Preventing robberies, burglaries, rapes, assaults, auto theft, etc are valid reasons to use a firearm, would you agree?
Tiffany,
please tell me you are greatly exaggerating? As I asked Cliff, preventing rape isn’t a good reason for a woman to need a firearm? How about the same reason I listed above?
April 18th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Flawed thinking Cliff. As a society we would have quite along way to go to equal the mass murder perpetrated in Europe before they as a people became “non violent”, they all had guns and have a much worse record than we ever had historically. Heck, they invented shooting people over insults, formalized it, and made rules. It was called dueling.
What is it with credentials? Everyone has a political bias, and it comes out in how they perceive reality. Study does not truth make. It can though bloat ones opinion of what they think is the truth. You spend that much time being wrong, it can be hard to admit. Cognitive consonance.
The reality in the US is that there bad people that can be deterred by guns, it is really that simple. The law abiding shall have them if they desire.
So since guns have limited value in your opinion, should we disarm the police as well in your world? One way or another, criminals will have access to guns. Heck we lost hundreds of thousands of them in Iraq. They are here to stay.
At this rate your terror of who legally uses guns doesn’t matter. Now should we regulate peoples access to the internet, where far more damage can be wrought by one person spreading untruths, than a guy with a pistol in his house for self defense? If we can pass that, would you believe that infringes on your inalienable rights?
Up ahead directly at this rate.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Is it not true that you have had a .44 magnum pistol within the confines of your home Clifford Lyon?
April 18th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Those posts were not posted by me. Cliff once again is changing peoples names in order to serve some purpose not known to me. The fact that he does this should tell you all what you need to know about why he is doing this.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Still running, eh, Cliff?
Rather than respond to criticism, facts, posted references and honest questions you continue to stand on the corner and scream at traffic.
What’s funny is that in your aim to pump up your search ranking, you expose yourself as a hysterical fraud.
You’ve posted that you do own guns. May I suggest that you divest yourself of them until you can control your urges to threaten people with violence.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Someone told a lie on C-Span?
IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Sorry Cliff, couldn’t resist that one.
But I am enjoying the discussion…
April 18th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Glenn, you are not paying attention. Korwin did say 400,000 people use guns to prevent crime, he said save lives. I am well aware that the Kleck study is 400k DGU.
Korwin should correct his mistake.
Now about the 400k. The experts agree, even that number for DGUs is wildly off base.
And, as a matter of fact Glenn. I do not believe that preventing robberies, burglaries, rapes, assaults, auto theft, etc are valid reasons to use a firearm.
Why would you kill someone who is trying to steal your car or your girlfriend. Isn’t that a bit heavy-handed?
Do you seriously want a bunch of folks out there carrying guns just in case they think they see someone trying to steal something?
Don’t you have to polish some bullets or something?
April 18th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I think Cliff is merely arguing semantics. Now, in every situation where a legally-owned firearm is used to protect one’s rights, property, and well-being within the law, one’s life is not therefore saved inherently.
You could use a firearm to deter an assault; not all assaults are inherently life-threatening.
So, if he’s arguing that all DGUs are being recorded as saving one’s life that would otherwise have been taken had a firearm not been used to defend oneself, I guess he’d be correct.
But then again, that’s not really a victory in any way, shape, or form. I think he’s arguing semantics simply because he has nothing else to argue in his favor.
So, uh, exactly when is it okay, in your idealistic, pacifistic mind to defend yourself? Or do you value the life and well-being of a person who ignores laws and attempts to injure you more than your own?
There’s a word for people like you: “victim.”
April 18th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Mr. Berger,
You may accuse me of anything you like, a rather easy thing to do when you are anonymous. Feel free to identify yourself and present your credentials anytime.
In the meantime, lets be clear. I have been very consistent. The Kleck study is absurd. The numbers cannot be proven, and a real man would admit that.
How would you feel if someone began repeating a bad poll that said people named Berger are 1000x more likely to molest children? Would you accept that?
So why don’t YOU answer this question Mr. Berger; do YOU believe what Alan Korwin said on TV? Do you accept his numbers? Do you accept the Keck numbers? Do you have any better proof that the Kleck poll that has been repudiated as unscientific and highly exaggerated?
Is truth and honesty something you stand on? Or are you the type to ignore a lie just because is suits your cause.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Cliff; Keep your opinion in mind when a few robbers want to know a easy neighborhood to knock off.
As for thieves in the house, it isn’t my law, but in Colorado, it is even called the “make my day” law. Yeah, you can shoot people stealing your stuff in Colorado. Your choice of load though, some are less lethal, and cause the home less damage. It is also your choice to shoot or not, if they are armed criminals, at your own peril do you offer license to steal.
Interesting, if you are caught stealing those things, and do not respond to law officers, you can then be tazed, if you resist arrest. If you have a gun in your hand, you can be shot. Hell you can be tazed for just about anything. Believe what you want, leave reality to the rest of us.
Let’s see, if the criminals know that death may await them for their criminal behavior, it is for sure a known deterrent, unless I am dealing with the people in bomb jackets, and then I know it isn’t my possessions they want.
“Is truth and honesty something you stand on? Or are you the type to ignore a lie just because is suits your cause”.
Now go look in the mirror Cliff.
You are silly, who polishes bullets? Dirty ones get thrown out. You don’t know anything about guns, and you fear them like any other thing that requires a bit of physical manipulation. That in your case would be physical labor. If you are unarmed consider quitting smoking, and learn how to run.
Finally, who cares if the figures are wrong, it is irrelevant to the right to have a weapon, and use it for defensive purposes. The whole premise of this argument is plain stupid. If it deters a crime once, good enough. Nothing more than an armed cop/guard/soldier does every day in the field.
Interesting isn’t it that Vermont, where no permit is required to carry a concealed weapon, the rates of gun crime are the lowest in North America?
April 18th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Glenn (Kofi),
I choose to live in a world where people do not place their material possessions on par with human life.
This isn’t a movie.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Gee Cliff? Should I really tell you who I am when you are going around threatening to shoot people?
Yes, I accept Mr. Korwin’s statement. I accept Prof. Kleck’s study. Prof. Kleck has defended his research. I’ve provided you links to his defense. You have chosen to ignore them, stick your fingers in your ears, and scream, “I can’t hear you”.
Mr. Korwin has shown up on your blog to defend himself and you simply shouted him down. You’re Omorosa style of debate is truly the last refuge of a scoundrel.
I’m not quite sure what my credentials have to do with the veracity of my statements. Are you implying that somehow your IR and Philosophy degrees make you a competent statistician? Or, are you simply reverting to effete snobbery to try to bully your opponents with your “vast” resume?
Continually within your blog, you’ve posted outlandish assertions, personal attacks and made physical threats. Your claims have been quickly and cleanly refuted without fail, most times with linked references. You’ve ignored the counter-posts and instead insisted on shifting the goalposts.
Fortunately, you are receiving the attention you deserve. You are being exposed, not just in Utah, but across the entire blogosphere as a narcissistic fraud who couldn’t best an 8th grader in debate.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Good for you, it is a free country. All anyone has to do to stay out of harms way is stay the hell out of others things.
You certainly don’t give any credence to initiation of the process of how a thief ends up at the end of a gun. Resistance isn’t futile.
I figure that every citizen has the same rights as law enforcement within the confines of their home. Considering that felons cost some 50k to adjudicate, and 40k a yr. to incarcerate, the value of home defense is a bargain.
Who knows what a felon in your house may do? We don’t ask them in, and rarely is it asked what their intent is. You are so right. This isn’t a movie. Real life and criminals are not for the squeamish.
Do your views on theft extend to the right of return to Arabs that owned land that was taken from them in what is now Israel? In the interests of making amends, should they get the value back?
jd; Cliff is a polisci major. Make sense now? This is purely political, motivate the “base” you know? It is done in the basest of manner…that’s politics.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Kofi - thanks, I’m aware of what an IR degree is.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Sorry, International Relations connotes a tad of prestige, and polisci is what many take to gut their way out of college. Sure does show in how the country is run. First a polisci degree, then a law degree, then to congress… what a mess.
IR degree: Irrational reductionism.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
A lie told on C-span? Isn’t that where congressmen bather to the bleachers?
At least no one important was watching.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
But, Cliff, you don’t live in that world. Burglars place your goods at a higher value then your life. And, when they try to rob me, they are placing my goods at a higher value their own life. I really don’t care that your the sort of pansy who doesn’t value his own life more then he values those who would take it. I do care that you wish to take away my right to defend mine (or those who I love. Which by the way, if you ever managed to get your disgusting ideas for victim disarmament made law, please understand, I will not follow said laws. And in the social chaos that would follow, who do you think will come out on top?)
April 18th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Bush is the “unitary executive.” Since any illegality he commits will be retroactively made legal, he can use the phone services to wiretap anyone he wants. That means people who will give away EVERY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to Bush, (as they have), in order to prevent liberals from taking their guns away will probably get to keep theirs AS LONG AS THEY STAY LOYAL NO MATTER WHAT BUSH DOES TO THEM OR THEIR CHILDREN.
What a country!
The Bush crime family has learned to:
Create problems.
Pretend to solve problems.
They make tons of money doing both things. Either you’re with them or you’re against them.
I’m against them. Alan Korwin has some reason to be telling this ridiculous lie, but he’s not the only ridiculous lie teller around these days. I’m surprised we haven’t seen a lot more of him. Maybe we will.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Larry, I think that I’m going to start posting nonsensical crap about orchid cultivation or community responses to jenkem abuse in your threads - just as a fun non-sequitur.
Just curious, Larry, are you related to this guy?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
You’re going to START posting nonsensical crap.
What ever they’re paying you, it’s not enough jd, but then it doesn’t matter (to you) because you don’t use your real name anyway like I do. Your mother must be proud.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Yes, Larry, you’ve discovered my secret.
jdberger is an anagram for “Larry is a lunatic”. Put down the jenkem, Larry. Larry, your cat really isn’t saying all those things.
April 19th, 2008 at 5:11 am
Can we move on th the sentencing phase? And lethal injections? Please.
April 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am
[...] Cliff Lyon, see also, in his futile effort to prove Alan Korwin a liar, chooses to ignore all of the evidence his commenters have submitted to the contrary and declares Alan a fraud, proving his quest for the truth about Defensive Gun Uses as only so much mental masturbation. Not content to make personal insults and threats of physical violence against me, he has dedicated three whole posts to trying to expose Mr. Korwin and refuses to accept any evidence to the contrary. What is the saying about leading a horse to water? [...]
April 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
“But that poll never won peer review, and the 1997 National Institute of Justice Research Brief, “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms†concludes, NSPOF (National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms) based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number.”
Where is the peer review on the NIJ-sponsored study? I see none in the methodology on the link you give. I don’t know much about Mr. Korwin, but if you are holding him to the standard of peer review, why are you not offering evidence of peer review of the NIJ-sponsored study?
April 19th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Cliff,
Jd and Kofi are correct, but let’s find out how it stands with you. Please let us know when it is acceptable to defend self or others with a firearm?
You state you don’t want to value property over another human right. Luckily in America you have that right and no one can interfere with it. But does my father who is on home oxygen have a right to defend the property that keeps him alive with a firearm?
How about against bodily assault? Should a person by able to defend themselves with a firearm? Is there a requirement that you have to be outnumbered before using a firearm?
Rape? Child abuse or abduction?
How is a person to know that a criminal only wants to steal property and not kill? Or do you simply feel the criminals have a right to life that is superior to the victims?
Over and over again the cry of the gun grabbers is “if it just saves one life” so how many lives have to be saved by defensive gun use before that is acceptable.
I fully support you freedom to own a firearm or not, all I ask is that no one interferes with my right to defend myself.
Can you support that freedom?
April 21st, 2008 at 5:15 am
The place that exists is in inside your head. Not in the real world.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:10 am
Cliff,
No answer to my post on April 19th at 12:21 p.m.?
April 21st, 2008 at 7:52 am
Hi Bob S,
I believe we should ban handguns and regulate all firearms.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:34 am
Cliff,
Does that ban of handguns include the police and military? Will there be any medical exceptions, e.g. I have a relative who is medically incapable of using a rifle or shotgun to defend himself, should he be allowed to own a handgun?
By the way, how are the handgun bans in Chicago and Washington D.C. working out?
How much regulation on rifles and shotguns? Will anyone be allowed to carry rifles or shotguns in public or will be twenty year old daughter be required to fight off a rapist using only her hands and feet?
Does the regulation you propose allow for defense of self or others with firearms? Still didn’t answer that question.
So we are supposed to respect your right not to own a firearm, but you can’t support my right to own a firearm? By the way, none of the firearms I may or may not own have ever been used to break a law, why should I have to give them up?
April 21st, 2008 at 9:47 am
Cliff,
All firearms are regulated under Federal Law - some are additionally regulated under the laws of the various States.
Why would you want to ban handguns? Please explain.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:05 am
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/21/chicago.shootings.ap/index.html
April 21st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Cliff:
Alan Korwin claimed “hundreds of millions of lives are save each year.â€
“400,000 lives” or “hundreds of millions of lives”? Which is it?
Was this an honest mistake which you will admit and correct?
Or are you intentionally misquoting for hysteria value and to put forth a straw man that’s easier for you to defend?
April 21st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Sir,
You’ve ignored my response, misquoted me, and are publicly calling me names bordering on libel.
There are 13 studies I cited, not just one as you keep insisting. At least get your facts straight.
I sent you a copy of a chart summarizing many of the studies. You have ignored the evidence.
You wrote: “hundreds of millions of lives are save each year” but I never said that. YOU said that.
The figure is foolish on its face.
Your egotistical attitude that you somehow are empowered so I or anyone can be “given the opportunity to apologize or correct his statement” by you is absurd.
The numbers you provided yourself suggest 166,000 DGUs at the low end (1 per 1,800), and the Kleck figure, which I didn’t cite specifically but you are attached to, per your posting, “appears regularly in newspaper articles, letters to the editor, editorials, and even Congressional Research Service briefs for public policymakers.”
Be cautious about any future attacks on my reputation if they are not provably true.
I will overlook your current diatribes.
Alan Korwin.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Hey Korwin,
I heard what you said very clearly. It was on C-Span, and you can go back and check it. You said “hundred’s of thousands of LIVES saved.”
If you please, I will find it for you and post the actual footage, but I charge $250/hour.
This would be the time and place to say, “If I said that, I was mistaken. I meant to say defensive guns uses.”
You are on record.
I know the libel law quite well, and have been very careful to be clear and exact.
BTW: I have not “cited” any numbers in an affirming way. As far as I have seen, NONE of those studies have survived the scrutiny of peer review.
More importantly, the experts claim those numbers do not support you argument for handguns anyway which simply means, you are a middle of the road purveyor of propaganda, bad information and bad arguments that perpetuate deadly policy and law that has resulted in my country being the laughing stock and murder capitol of the world.
You are not a policy wonk or social scientist. You are another hard working stiff who has ch0sen a living as a professional advocate.
I am too. Except, my professional integrity depends on using accurate numbers and honest interpretation. You, on the other hand it seems, have found a cause that depends upon feeding people bad information on top of bad interpretation.
That is your choice. Its a free country.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Cliff,
Care to answer my questions? I am interested in finding out how your ideas would work in the real world.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:26 pm
“hundred’s of thousands of LIVES saved.†Can’t be proven, can’t be disproved.
“As far as I have seen”. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
Dude, yer a yapper and are gonna get sued.
Consider Alan turning his cheek as a favor. All your crap is under review here. You aren’t that smart. Please refer to your chess skills.
The numbers don’t matter anyway, Americans have the Constitutional rights to arms.
The right to bear arms is non negotiable, part of the Bill of Rights. In fact, Mexico has a higher per capita murder rate Cliff, and personal arms expressly illegal.
Find another dick to jerk would you?
April 21st, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Cliff,
You’re moving the goalposts again.
Initially you challenged Mr. Korwin’s assertion that “Guns save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.” You asked for sources and were provided a number of them with links (in case you are like Crazy Larry and only have Dial-up).
You asked where Mr. Korwin got the numbers. He told you. Others provided links to the studies.
You then asserted the the studies hadn’t received peer review. Mr. Korwin and others provided links to peer reviewed journals where the data and studies were published.
You insist that ONE study invalidates all of these previous ones published. Where is the peer review for the NCJRS study? Surely you don’t believe EVERYTHING the government tells you, do you (you might want to consult Loony Larry on this one).
The following PEER REVIEWED journals have published Mr. Kleck’s work. Why don’t you take it up with them if you think that they are all liars.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Criminology
Journal of Criminal Justice
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
Instead of offering evidence to support your position, Cliff, you simply cover your eyes. You asked for an honest answer and received one, with supporting easily confirmable references and data. But because it doesn’t comport with your suprisingly statist worldview, you discount it. That’s pretty reprehensible.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
NB: The NCJRS study that Cliff keeps quoting from take issue with the National Crime Victimization Survey, claiming that the numbers of 1 in 1,800 DGUs was probably too low.
Interestingly enough, the authors of both studies are the same Messrs. Cook and Ludwig.
Further, in the introduction to their book, Evaluating Gun Policyxxxx, they state:
Considering that Messrs. Jens and Ludwig receive funding from the Joyce Foundation, I doubt that it could be claimed that they change their opinions based on funding from Gun Industry sources….
April 21st, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Cathy; The recent killings in Chicago, the police say too many gangs, too many guns. Let’s see, illegal gang activity and illegal guns and murder are some how going to cured by restricting law abiding peoples access to guns.
We can all see how well waiting for law enforcement worked.
Yeah, that’ll work. There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country in the homes of the citizenry.
What would anyone propose? Go house to house an seize them all? A vast majority are unregistered, the criminals will always have them.
Consider that in the Afghanistan one of the poorest nations on Earth, with our military, and nato roaming around applying their law, there is no lack of guns to go around for the people that want them.
Those people in Chicago that are killed acted criminally. Wonder how many people saved their own lives killing or deterring the crazy perps? What a weekend! Yeah, let’s disarm the law abiding…are you NUTS?!!
This is America, guns are going nowhere. They are here to stay.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
From the bumper sticker.
My gun has killed less people than Ted Kennedys’ car.
Let’s ban TED. There ought to be a law.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Waitttt-a-minute….
Handguns are almost totally illegal in Chicago. You’re not implying that the people shooting each other are breaking the law by owning illegal guns, are you?
Why!? That’d be criminal!
April 21st, 2008 at 10:13 pm
What a hoot! Put these people on a reserve or something and charge an entry fee.
Seriously endangered species free foaming at the mouth park.
C’mon in, mingle with the animals, they are harmless.
Please don’t feed them everyone.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I’m implying no such thing; rather, to the contrary, as a mother, sister and wife, I am implying that fewer guns would be a good thing.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 am
The contrary is true, Cathy. By removing guns, you only cede power to the strong, the young and the violent. Essentially you take us back to the Middle Ages.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:12 am
Mr. Berger,
The one thing that strikes me while reading this string of comments is the statements such as yours (and others) that just come out of nowhere. It is fact because you say so, and for no other reason. I choose to feel differently, but do not mean to offend you by saying so. Personally, I think many of you have watched too many episodes of The Wire!
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:30 am
Cathy,
Please show us where our comments come out of “nowhere”. Select a comment and I or others will provide documentation or links to the background information.
You say fewer guns would be better, take a look at the crime patterns and rates in England. Firearms have been controlled and banned for a long time there, has it reduced violence? Here is the crime rate as reported by Victim Surveys comparing England and the USA
Here is the pattern on crimes as reported by the police
Notice anything on the patterns? Hmm, perhaps England is climbing dramatically. How is this comment coming from nowhere?
Did you take the time to read Mr. Lyon’s 2 previous posts? I hope that you noticed a trend within the posts. Over and over again, the civil rights advocates (pro-gun) provided evidence, citations or links to back up most of the claims. Read what the anti-civil rights advocates (gun banners) say and try to find their links.
As a female, do you really want firearms banned or reduced? Won’t that put a woman at dramatically worse odds against a rapist?
If you or anyone else do not want to carry or possess a firearm, more power to you, you won’t find civil right advocates stating that you should. Just don’t deny us our rights to keep and bear arms if that is our choice.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:42 am
“I choose to feel differently”. I respect your feelings, but they have no bearing on my reality.
Cathy, the guns don’t shoot themselves. How about concentrating on having a society with less IDIOTS? Canada has per capita legal gun ownership rates like the US, and they are simply not murder prone.
Vermont has the lowest gun crime rate in North America, and you do not need a permit top carry a concealed weapon. It has to do with the people.
Again, mexico has a higher per capita murder rate than we do and personal guns are expressly illegal. What gives? You have a better chance of you and your kids dying driving to the grocery store, yet I do not see any clamor to quit driving all over the place.
I dislike drunk drivers and rage drivers, you dislike handgun ownership, it is all to bad for both of us. Do something illegal in your car, and people can die, same thing with a firearm. Get caught and there are consequences. Having a gun is like driving a big truck, if there is an incident, you may well have a better chance of survival because you possess more mass. In respect to guns, get jacked with a knife, and you are armed with a gun, you get the picture. Having a gun, and at the appropriate moment letting criminals know, is the obvious means of deterrent. Would you choose to see your kids victims as not have a gun? some people live in places that just are not civilised. If you don’t experience this, consider yourself lucky, but by and large, large parts of the USA are uncivilised.
For a period of time last year, you had a better chance of dying in Detroit that being deployed to Iraq, a place we can agree are full of guns. People are dreaming about what life is like in some parts of America.
Adults deal with this reality. That you may not respect or appreciate the value of sensible firearm ownership is not the problem of those that do.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:43 am
Bob S, I have found your comments to be consistently cogent and informed. At the risk of yet another diversion, I wonder what your take on the recent comment by Condolezza Rice, Sec O State: (Paraphrase) In a fucntioning Democracy, guns should be in the hands of the State…not owned by individuals.
Cliff Lyon’s position may not exactly support hers, but I wonder If you would please attempt a philosophical scetch. Thanks
Blink Da, By your logic, shouldn’t we all be seeking our own nukes?
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:51 am
Anecdote.
Englishmen are fond of brawling. It is nothing for a hooligan to smash a mug into someones teeth at a bar. We have seen this kind of brutal behavior at soccer matches all over Europe with these kinds of idiots.
In Denver once, an Englishman got into some argument with a Mexican over something at the bar I was sitting at. He threatened the man with his beer mug, to wit the man pulled a knife and slashed him, not injuring him, but ruining his coat. He was stunned. When things had calmed down and he was thrown out, I encountered him in the parking lot. He said that he was just in it for the fight and didn’t wish to kill anyone.
I explained to him, in this country, some people are not going to take the chance of losing their teeth, or suffer lifetime alterations in their body because you want to fight, some people would just as soon shoot you as risk it, you are only so lucky the man didn’t have a gun and shoot you. He again was stunned that there were people in his presence not the law, that had lethal force at hand.
I said, you don’t get to be an idiot, your desire for a good ‘ol brawl will not be tolerated here. You may get lucky, you may get shot. I would probably assume more of a mantle of respect and civility as you wander around this country.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:04 am
What do you think proliferation is all about Cav?
It is no surprise to me that psycho republicans and Cliff have agreement on this issue. They share their peculiar Fascism, and propensity to control.
Condi of abu graib, bunker busting, 2000 pounder block bombing, shock and awe. Only the weak get crapped on. This isn’t happening to nuclear armed Korea, France, China, Russia, or anyone else that can respond to crazed interlopers with devastating force.
Keep in mind when America was the only nation to possess nuclear weapons, it nuked human populations twice. There has not been another instance of this since others have joined the game. Better that everyone have them, as only a few assholes.
An armed society is a polite society.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:59 am
Caveat,
A quick search turned up the question and answer from where the quote originated.
“QUESTION: How concerned are you about Sadr and his role at this point? And are you — do you feel like you actually have a pretty good idea of what his goal is here? It seems a little bit scattered.
SECRETARY RICE: I think it’s been very difficult to get a read on what his motivations on, what his intentions are. I assume the Iraqis may have a somewhat better view of that than we do. But I would just make the point that the Prime Minister has made, which is that he’s looking to unite all Iraqis who are prepared to be a part of a political process, eschew violence and lay down their arms in favor of the authority of the central government and the proper security forces that belong to the central government. That’s the point the Iraqis are making. So I think that the issue of Sadr, from my point of view, is an internal Iraqi matter to resolve at this point. But clearly, the Prime Minister has laid down some ground rules which any functioning democratic state would insist upon, having to do with, you know, arms belonging to the state, not to — not in private hands.”
From a 2003 news article ” Iraqi citizens will be required to turn over automatic weapons and heavy weapons under a proclamation that allied authorities plan to issue this week, allied officials said today.
The aim of the proclamation is to help stabilize Iraq by confiscating the huge supply of AK-47’s, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that are used by criminal gangs, paramilitary groups and remnants of the Saddam Hussein government. ”
Personally, I feel the citizens of a country should be able to possess any arms that the military of that country can possess. Key components of that; are the militias in Iraq citizens of that country, are they violating the country’s law, etc.
Disarmament should only occur for violating the law.
By the way, these comments are at odds with Ms. Rice’s previous statements on the 2nd amendment.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 am
This article is in our local paper today- The Salt Lake Tribune. Why would anyone be allowed to have a gun? Why?
Police: Mom told child to fetch gun
Court documents state 12-year-old brought out a .45 caliber during dispute with neighbors
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 04/22/2008 01:25:20 AM MDT
A West Valley City mother is accused of instructing her 12-year-old daughter to wield a handgun when neighbors became angry because the woman’s children were yelling racial slurs at them.
The confrontation began July 3 when the woman’s three children began hurling sticks and shouting racial slurs at five neighbors who were lighting fireworks on South Brock Street (2910 West), near 3400 South, police wrote in court documents filed Monday. When the five confronted the mother, she told the neighbors she was going to shoot them and instructed her daughter to bring a .45 caliber handgun from their home. The child, 12, returned and pointed the gun at the five neighbors, saying she was going to kill them, police wrote.
When officers arrived, the mother concealed the gun in her waistband. She later admitted to carrying the gun, which was listed as stolen in Georgia, and ordering her child to carry it. The woman has no permit to carry a concealed weapon.
She is charged with threatening with a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel, carrying a concealed dangerous weapon, providing a handgun to a minor and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, all misdemeanors. -Erin Alberty
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 am
Utah Mom,
Some people drink, drive and cause accidents that result in injuries and death; why should anyone be allowed to have a car?
Just because some people mis-use a tool, should all those tools be eliminated?
How is the gun at fault here? Did the gun get out of a drawer and point itself at the neighbors? Did the gun steal itself from Georgia?
No, let’s focus on the people, the criminals using the tool and not the tool.
What other tools have been used to threaten or kill someone? Knives, baseball bats, tennis rackets, wrenches, frying pans….are you going to ban those also?
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:47 am
To all on the left,
this is too good of a link to pass up….1 liberal’s view of the 2nd amendment at daily kos.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:32 am
Bob S,
Do you have any idea how pathetic and corrupt your argument is?
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:39 am
Cliff,
How is it pathetic and corrupt?
Please explain and how about answering the questions I asked prior to this. You propose banning handguns and regulating rifles and shotguns (would that be like double secret probation regulation?), what exactly do you have in mind.
How are firearms different from any other tool?
Instead of trying to be insulting, how about trying to have an reasonable conversation?
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:54 am
Bob S.,
Handguns are different from another tool because anyone can pull a trigger and kill another person.
Other weapon arn’t so easy to use, and the attacker’s risk are much higher.
By your logic, we should all be able to own a nuke.
Get it?
You can’t just gloss over application parameters.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 am
Cliff,
Can anyone use a baseball bat? Yes. Will some have to work harder than others to kill with it, yes. But that doesn’t change the fact that it can be used to kill by just about anyone, right?
How about a car? Can teenagers without licenses drive a car? Yes.
Can anyone swing a frying pan? All tools are designed to make work easier, just because one tool is easier to use doesn’t mean it is like others.
And by your very own admission, shouldn’t handgun be given extra protection from confiscation or restriction? People with disabilities, advanced age or infirmities should be allowed to effectively protect themselves. So “because anyone can pull a trigger” shouldn’t those people be given a right to use the easiest tool around for protection?
How are the attackers risks higher with weapons that are harder to use? Are you arguing that we need to do everything we can to reduce the risk to the criminals? Or do you see anyone using a firearm as the attacker, discounting defensive gun uses completely?
You never answered about banning handguns, should the police and military be required to turn in their handguns?
Do you agree that people have a right to protect themselves, their families and their properties?
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Bob S- I don’t know quite how to refute your argument other than I know deep in my core it’s wrong. All of the other “weapons” you listed can’t irrevocably change someone’s life in a blink. It’s not a fair comparison. I don’t think this can be about the right to protect your property or yourselves because by giving yourself this right you are taking away the rights of someone else. Why do you use fear as the motivating reason to have guns?
How do you feel about the laws prohibiting smoking in public, restaurants, airplanes, etc…? Should we allow people to smoke because it’s their right even though it endangers those around them? Of course not.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:40 am
Utah Mom,
Please tell me how a drunk driver or someone committing vehicular homicide doesn’t irrevocably change someone’s life in a blink of a moment? I am sorry you don’t think it is a fair comparison, but is someone any less dead because they were hit with a baseball bat over the head, stabbed in the heart with a knife or shot with a gun? Nope.
I can understand the confusion about my rights versus others rights, but I’ll respond with the wise words of Will Rogers “The right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose.” The person attacking me, my family or trying to take my property has decided to risk his right to life in order to gain from it, would you agree with that?
I’m not sure how I’ve been using fear as the motivating reason to have guns, please explain. I talk about self defense as the primary reason to own firearms, wouldn’t you agree that everyone has a right to protect themselves?
As far as laws about smoking in public I think the government should not be in the business of passing those laws. If a business wants to make a rule against smoking in that establishment, it is the right of the business owner to do so.
If people don’t want to go to places that allow smoking, establishments will open to cater to that desire. Should business owners be allowed to determine what happens in their business?
This is the same approach to firearms that should be taken. If you choose not to own or use firearms, isn’t that your right? All I ask is that my right to keep and bear arms be respected.
Please don’t take this as anyway condoning violence. The misuse of any tool should be punished appropriately.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:59 am
Bob S:
I’ve been calling the guests here “gun nuts”, not because I think they’re stupid or crazy, but because I’m always on the look out for liars. They are everywhere these days. I disagree with Cliff that people should have their guns taken away, but I am very glad he provides a free speech forum where people can say anything they want.
I think the perception that liberals are against guns is a bunch of BS. I saw Bill Maher say he carries a big handgun with him last week. My favorite (only real) liberal talk show host, Mike Malloy carries a gun because he got threats from the religious right reconstructionists.
The liberals I like, believe we should talk things out and reason to keep the violence down. Todays conservatives want to shut down discussion and blow people away that don’t agree with them. If you think that’s a ridiculous statement, just look at who the NRA put in as a spokesman. Ted Nugent.
Keep your gun, just help me stop Bush from taking every other right away. Why does everybody want to avoid that subject here. Bob G isn’t answering my post here because I knocked down his argument that it was only the Democrats that took peoples guns away in New Orleans. What do YOU think about the short Gore video link I provide at the end?
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Bob S and Blink Da, Thanks.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Bob S:
You raise an interesting point with your rhetorical question:
An equally valid rhetorical question is, however: Don’t you agree that the government has the responsibility to protect its citizens?
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Larry,
Currently the only information I can find is that Ray Nagin ordered the confiscation of firearms in New Orleans. It was carried out by elements of the N.O. Police department, parish sheriff’s office, U.S. Marshals and State National Guard. Many of those elements were required to obey the orders of the mayor.
I apologize if I have mistakenly claimed that all liberals/democrats want to ban guns. I try to be very careful in not casting too wide of a claim like that. I think that most gun banners are liberal, but not all liberals are gun banners.
I have not watched the video. I will try to do that this evening and comment later.
As far as the conservatives wanting to shut down discussion that is not been my experience. Do an internet search on “Reasoned Discourse” a term coined by a blogger to describe the sequence of events for my anti-gun people’s websites. I believe it has gotten to the point where pro-civil rights advocates are tired of compromising. The compromises usually mean not all of our rights will be taken away immediately.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Bob S. - That’s a great link and an excellent representation of why liberals should oppose “gun control” schemes.
Cathy,
Guns are an equalizer. No other instrument allows a 115 pound woman to effectively deter or fight back against a 200 pound man. Men are on the average stronger and more aggressive. They’re also statistically more likely to be predators. This isn’t a “statement out of nowhere”.
Now, if you’ll indulge me a little, let’s look at history.
Prior to the Renaissance, there weren’t really any guns. Power was wielded by force of arms. Swords, spears, clubs, knives, etc. Training at arms was a lifelong pursuit that often could only be afforded by the wealthy. And only a well trained man had a chance against an armored man, thus, only they held power.
The invention of the gun changed that. Men could be taught to load and fire a gun in a day. It didn’t require a lifetime of training. Suddenly, the average man could contribute to the defense of his community. This gave rise to walled towns where unlike previously where only the lords and their armored guard held sway, the merchants held power.
With this newly held power, the merchants were able to negotiate more liberties for themselves. They no longer needed the sponsorships of the local lords. They could provide for their own security. And so we have the rise of the Bourgeoisie.
From this new political class comes revolutionary concepts promoted by thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Calvin and Rousseau. These ideas were picked up by our Founding Fathers - thus spawning our (and the French) Revolution.
In the majority of America, due to the influence of the gun, people need to negotiate by pursuasion, not by force.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Albert,
Thanks, but the courts do not agree that the government has an obligation to protect its citizens, at least not as individuals.
There are many cases such as Warren v. District of Columbia that the courts have consistently determined that the government does not have a responsibility to provide protection. Should they, yes; is the government capable of providing protection to every single person, NO.
Many gun bloggers have covered this subject better than I could ever hope, try an internet search on the subject.
It ultimately boils down to who do you want to be responsible for the safety of self and others when it is absolutely needed, yourself or the police who might get their in 2 to 30 minutes?
The most recent college shooting, NIU I believe, had an incredibly fast police response of 6 minutes. Imagine being faced with a criminal, intentions unknown and count out 360 seconds.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Albert,
Government may have the “responsibility” to protect its citizens, but it does not have the DUTY. See Warren v. DC. (444 A.2d 1, 1981). Ultimately, the citizen has to be somewhat self-reliant.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Jd,
I am not sure if you know the source of the quote, but it is from a fantastic blogger named Marko Kloos at the Munchkin Wrangler. That link will take you to his full essay in case not everyone has read the entirety
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Thanks, Bob. I knew the source of the quote. I’ve been having posts rejected as spam when I post too many links - that’s why I just put it in quotes.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Reading this series of posts among what I see primarily as American males either for or against allowing government to regulate a so-called “right” to possess firearms makes me wonder how you same folk feel about my right to privacy - i.e., my right to choose. I am particularly curious whether those advocating a “right” to bear arms will also support my “right” to choose. What say you?
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Cathy,
Sorry, but it’s not a so-called right to keep and bear arms. It is a inherent or God given right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Are you talking about the right to choose abortion Right to choose your sex partner? I support the right of women to choose abortion. I don’t like the idea and the abuse of it by some women. Also, I believe that the father’s rights should be respected also.
The government that governs the least is usually the best. Hope that answers your question
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Bob:
The “right to choose” generally refers to abortion, so yes, that is what I am referring. I am just curious how you folks feel about the subject.
PS I am struggling with the concept of the right to bear arms being a “God given right” as you suggest. That seems a bit strained to me.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Cathy,
The right to choose and the right to keep and bear arms derive from the same source. Is our body our property or does it belong to the government or society as a whole?
Our body is our ultimate property right, if we don’t “own” it we don’t have any right to do as we choose. Defending our life or physical well being is a God given right. It is inherent in our right to exist. If we have a right to exist, do we have a right to effectively defend ourselves? I’m in my mid 40’s, should I be limited to hands and feet in defending myself against someone, maybe younger or in better shape?
In California, a school resource officer (police) was struck in the face with a baseball bat by a student. The student was a male, 6′1″ and 250 pounds, is it far to ask a female to defend herself without a weapon.
Did you read the link to Marko Kloos essay “Why the gun is civilization”?
This is where abortion gets tricky. If we have a right to life, doesn’t a child also?
As I said, I don’t like the idea of abortion, but at some point it is a person’s body and I have to respect that right. The decisions each person makes are their own responsibility.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Bob:
I did read the essay by Kloos, although I greatly question one of his major points. Kloos states:
I guess the point is all well and good until someone having greater “force” comes along and negates Kloos’ attempt to negate the threat or employment of force. Call me silly if you will, but where does it end?
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Cathy,
I don’t care how you regulate your fertility as long as it doesn’t harm someone else and I don’t have to pay for it.
Like Bob S. says, I don’t like abortion as an elective measure, but it’s really none of my business.
I’d hope that you respect my right to bear arms in the same way. I won’t use them in any way to illegally harm another and I won’t ask you to pay for it (though I did find a neat historic Colt SAA that was purchased by the Wells Fargo Co. and I’d be tickled if you sent me a check to pay for it). :p
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Bob S:
I don’t know how many more times I have to bring this up to get a response, but BLACKWATER, a private mercenary army cultivated and incorporated into the US military during the Bush presidency with very dubious right wing ties sent members to New Orleans and was paid a lot of money by the Homeland Security Department. The leading expert on Blackwater is a man named Jeremy Scahil who was astonished to find members of the organization in New Orleans who told him they were there to “confront criminals and stop looters.†Do you think they confronted the “criminalsâ€, but let them keep their guns? I’ve provided the link for you.
Would an organization striving for “reasoned discourse” put Ted Nugent in a leadership position. Do you think Ted was a good choice to bring liberals over to pro-gun arguments? My brother in law used to write hunting articles for “Field and Stream” and was horrified the NRA hired Ted.
The people who are not compromising and who NEVER will are not the liberals. It’s today’s “conservatives” who are taking away your civil rights in the light of day. Please help me!
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Utah Mom. Your statement is truly a feeling. The majority of murders in Mexico are conducted with knives and bludgeons. The people are just as dead. Someone shooting you in an instant and someone killing you with a club in a single blow take about the same amount of time.
In addition Mexico has a higher per captia murder rate that the US.
Let’s just say you are afraid of guns, because they are a DEDICATED weapon. You know when you see one, it is expressly made for killing. You define hoplophobe. There are retired law enforcement officers that have never pulled their weapon in offense or defense in their entire careers. Like any reason to arms that are defensive, they DETER. This simple fact is de facto recognition that there are elements that would do you harm in life. It is really simple.
Cliff you can kill people quite easily with a nail gun, and the new ones require no hoses, and operate on gas cartridges. Not only that, but they come with a 100 round “clip”.
To date there are doctors prescribing drugs that kill more people, and drugs that have no use at that, people are taking and ruining their lives, and they are legal. 100,000 people died last year from legal prescription drugs.
The fixation on guns being bad is an obsessive/compulsive mental disorder, so profound, that the afflicted cannot see any purpose to having a gun. This is due to the dis-ease, and fear of an inanimate object. It becomes real and ill used when an IDIOT or a CRIMINAL picks it up. They are often one and the same.
Why does this compel a person to demand that others that have capacity to safely and responsibly use firearms, to stop them from utilizing a tool that can stop crime, and keep the right people safe?
It is a mental disorder.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Cathy,
I wish I could answer that question, but I do know that most criminals are like bullies, they want helpless victims not people willing to use force in return.
I hope that the right to keep and bear arms makes a little more sense as a God given right now. Thanks for keeping an open mind and a having a reasonable discussion about the issues.
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Yes, Cathy. Thank you.
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Larry, there is no reason to compromise, the right to bear arms(non specific) is in the Bill of Rights.
Ted is an excellent choice, there is no way that guy is getting rolled by some liberal hoplophobic bandwagon.
Compromise is the slippery slope, that leads to disarmament. You want to be disarmed with neo-cons in control of the government? In such cases of wayward governemental movements, disarmament is followed historically by persecution of minoroties, and then genocide. Plain and simple history.
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Anonymous Coward:
Ted Nugent is a chickenhawk coward and you don’t give a crap about the Bill of Rights!
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Cliff:
I note that you’ve corrected the misquote in your post - it now says “hundreds of thousands of lives” rather than “hundreds of millions of lives”.
I do also note that you did not acknowledge the error - and, in fact, you appear to now be attacking Mr. Korwin for pointing out the same misquote that I pointed out:
“I heard what you said very clearly. It was on C-Span, and you can go back and check it. You said “hundred’s of thousands of LIVES saved.—
What is going on here? Was this an intentional ambush or an honest error?
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Utah Mom:
You say “I don’t think this can be about the right to protect your property or yourselves because by giving yourself this right you are taking away the rights of someone else.”
Defending yourself is an inherent right, like the right to life. Nobody gives it to you.
But, pray tell: when I arm myself in order to defend myself against someone who would attack me, what right of yours am I taking away?
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
John Hardin says:
The right you are taking from me is the right to be secure in my house, among other places. DGUs are just as likely to result in projectiles being sent into the noggins of the innocent as they are the guilty.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Larry and Albert, you are the last dying gasps.
If you wish to disarm honest law abiding citizens, would think it is you that doesn’t give a damn about the Bill of Rights. Nugents’ politics have nothing to do with him not being rolled by the hoplophobes Larry. If finding a way not to go Vietnam is bad, then look at the crowds left and right that did it.
Albert, there is ammo that can be used in airplanes, that will effectively stop a wayward human, so you need not be worried. Learning to aim helps. I’m not current on DGUs. Fill me in.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Albert,
Do you have evidence of your claim that DGUs (defensive gun uses) are as likely injury bystanders as the attackers?
This is strange when most DGUs do not even result in shots being fired. In a perfect world it would be possible to guarantee that no third party would ever been involved, but this world isn’t perfect. Does it happen yes, but very rarely.
Can you provide statistics on the number of injuries in that type of situations?
Check out the crime statistics in areas before and after the concealed carry laws have been liberalized? Crime goes down then compare that to the violence rates in England.
On the flip side of the issue is the benefit non-gun owners receive from gun-owners. As I stated, crime goes down when concealed carry goes up. Criminals don’t know who might be carrying so they are reluctant to anybody.
Is that a fair trade off for the minimal risk of stray shots?
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Mr. Hardin,
Yes, honest mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.
Go back and read the original post and comments.
I am challenging the “hundreds of thousands” number.
The Kleck number is a bad one, and everyone knows it except the pro-gun propagandist.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Mr. Lyon,
Nice to see you back, care to respond to the questions posed?
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Sorry, Bob, no, I don’t have the statistics you request.
But, on the other hand, when I hear outrageous statements like God bestowed on his people an inalieanable right to keep and bear arms, then I have every right to respond as above - i.e., to respond without supporting data.
Are you guys really that nuts? God gave you a right to keep and bear firearms?
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
So then we are to be at the mercy, all of us law abiding in your world, to all of those that initiate offensive gun, or any other, actions in a criminal manner Albert?`
This is beyond any logic anymore. There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country. Do you propose to alleviate your fears in a military style house to house operation to “clear” the country?
Just say you are scared of guns and people who are not, and leave it at that.
I’ll leave the night light on for you guys.
Albert,
The inalienable right is not granted by “God”, but by natural law, that of self preservation by any means.
From the smallest creature at the teeth of predators, to the great carnivores hunted by men, the right to destroy those that would harm and destroy you is a right of simple natural law. Fighting back is a basic human right, no a basic “living right”. For those without faith in afterlife, this reality is all there is. It’s defense has no price, or excuse to deny.
It is nonsense to instill it with some high minded morality based upon your own thoughts. It has been this way since life existed, if you will not defend yourself and your treasure, then you can become prey at the hands of predators.
It is the most basic right of being alive. Ask a Jew, or any others that have been enslaved or persecuted.
Though not all are cut to defend their peoples, and personal treasures right to life, and peace, martially, there will come among any society, family, band or group of humans, individuals that WILL, and they will do so against those that will not leave them in peace…with extreme prejudice.
I applaud and support them their right to do so, though to be sure, it is a fearsome thing.
We would not deny them their tools to do so.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Albert,
Do you have a god given right to life? Or if you are an non-believer, an inherent right to life ? Does anyone have the right to kill you at their will?
Read the Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
If we have an right to life, do we have a right to defend that life? Simple answer is absolutely, undeniably, YES. Throughout history the answer to that question has been Yes, we have a right to life and to defend; read John Locke if you haven’t.
If there is a right to life, isn’t there a right to defend it using the most effective weapons available?
By the way, can you show an argument that I have made without support evidence?
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Actually, Blink, that is not at all what I said - you are letting your shrill atmospherics get ahead of you.
What I said was at some point, reason needs to enter the equation, and when I hear that GOD has bestowed upon us a “right” to carry a handgun, I find the proponents of such a statement to have abandoned all reason, replacing such with tribalistic arguments designed to stir emotion (Karl Rove comes to mind) but devoid of reality.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Mr. Lyon:
I realize you’re challenging the “hundreds of thousands” number. However, when Mr. Korwin responded:
“You wrote: “hundreds of millions of lives are save each year†but I never said that. YOU said that.”
In other words, “you misquoted ‘millions’”. Rather than saying “yes, I misquoted”, you said:
“I heard what you said very clearly. It was on C-Span, and you can go back and check it. You said “hundred’s of thousands of LIVES saved.†If you please, I will find it for you and post the actual footage, but I charge $250/hour.”
What that looks like to me is an ambush.
Sorry if I am making a mountain out of a molehill over this. It just looked really bad to me.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Please Hardin,
Read all the other posts and comment. Korwin knows what he said, and he knows what I heard. Everything else is pathetic drivel.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Well Albert, I effectively took “god” out of the equation, and placed it squarely in atheistic terms.
That a persons right to preserve his life in extreme is shrill to you speaks volumes. The disarmed are persecuted. Go look, anywhere there are unarmed people there is subjugation.
Now Albert, if I wish to conduct myself in todays world, within my rights to carry, and not freak the hoplophobes out by wearing a sidearm with a holster, their is no other REASONABLE choice but to carry a handgun concealed.
It is a matter of practicality, and to provide a means to defend myself, and respect the faint sensibilities of those who are afraid of guns.
Legal concealed carry, what a concept.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Cliff, you aren’t helping yourself, that is about as lame as it gets, your reply to Hardin.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Blink Da!,
There is another who posts here regularly with almost the precise writing style (or lack thereof) that you exhibit - e.g., positing incredible statements followed by circular logic that, but for its circularity, would lead to nowhere.
I wonder if that same person is you, just under the guise of a new name.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Look Cliff, Jim, I know it is you so you can stop playing merry go round, because this particular style is all you.
Rather than call the writing a name, address the content, for if it falls to the commonality of name calling, you lose, and here on your home turf. This is when a person knows what they write is clear, understandable, and outside the boundary of the opposition to refute. Hence the name calling.
Then again you brought yourself the onslaught, so if it makes you look like it does, there is no one but yourself to blame.
Identify the incredible statements, then show the flaws in logic, as credentialed as you must be, it should be easier than thinking up names.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Blink:
I think you confuse “natural rights” with animal instinct. A prime example of the circularity of your argument.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
That is silly. I could as well say you confuse animal instinct with natural law. Please look then if you cannot understand the terms to the concept of all living things having a inalienable right to preserve themselves by any means they can find at their disposal.
As if you are an atheist you are most certainly an animal by any description, you know nothing of any animals’ motivation, anymore than you know mine or another person that you don’t know.
If is as you incorrectly apply, animal instinct, do you then deny the human animal the biological imperative to preserve themselves?
You are not doing a very good job Albert, I was hoping for a workout.
Explain how this is circular to you.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Cliff, you’re delusional. The National Institute of Justice survey was authored by two men who clearly had a financial motive (grant from the Joyce Foundation).
But, that’s what I expect you are trying to do here - wrangle yourself a fat grant from the Joyce folks, no? You’d be better off creating a Blog like Mark Karlin’s Gun Guys where folks can’t debunk your inane rantings, then.
Best of luck.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Cliff,
Care to address the questions posed or do you just want to criticize and offer nothing constructive?
You’ve called my argument pathetic and corrupt but you haven’t been able to counter it or even explain why.
By the way, the number you claim is consistently over estimated is not the 400k, but the 2.5 MILLION DGU. Even granted that 2.5 Million is exaggerated, how is not hard to believe that 0.13% of the population uses a firearm defensively each year?
(400,000 DGU divided by 303 Million USA population)
Waiting patiently (okay, maybe not so patiently)
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Albert,
How about we break it down in simple terms.
An organism exists.
An organism has a right to continue to exist.
An organism has a right to defend its existence.
An organism has a right to use a tool to defend its existence.
Firearms are a tool.
All natural laws and not a circular argument to be seen. Care to make a counter argument that uses reason.
Call it natural, inherent or God Given, it’s still a fundamental right whether you regard it as such or not.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Bob, In high level chess, there is a time clock, and mulling over moves can only go on so long. There is no clock here, and anything that makes Cliff look, well, like he does, will not get a reply.
However, at some point he cannot help himself, and when that happens, after the opposition has hogpiled logic upon him, an unreasoned ad hominem attack bursts forth, a sort of quasi intellectual Tourettes’ syndrome outburst.
I might add that as in chess there is always an opening, in this case the letter to Alan. Then as moves add up, his game falls apart.
I might add that Cliff is not so good at chess under duress, so maybe do not get anxious, as there may well be no answer.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Albert, you are probably familiar with these words:
God may not have expressly given me the right to own a revolver, but it’s a tenet of American philosophy that I have the right to protect my life - correct? If that requires the use of a handgun, why should I be denied? Is the method I use to protect my life and the lives of my family members somehow suspect because it comes in the form of a handgun? Would the same apply to a shotgun? Rifle? Baseball bat? Knife? Sword? What’s so horrible about a handgun that makes it unsuitable to protect myself and my family?
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Blink,
I understand the analogy and hope that Cliff will respond. I just want to make sure the questions do not get lost in the string of posts without being answered.
I have found that if the author of a post is unable or unwilling to answer questions, others will step up or try to. That is my ultimate goal, to get those who normally don’t post to do the research for themselves. Most who research the issue comes around to a Pro firearm position.
As an open post to those who have never fired a gun, I’m in the Dallas area. If you would like to learn the basic firearm safety and try shooting, I’ll treat to a trip to the range. If you aren’t in the area, please post or search for a gun blog in your area. Pro-gun advocates are some of the most generous folks around and would enjoy taking folks out to the range if you are receptive to the idea.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Yes Bob, people trained professionally in using guns take the responsibility very seriously. They give that knowledge freely as anyone that wishes to preserve what is good from the corrupted around us all.
To this day, I still remember being taught to use them safely, In this order, rifle, shotgun, carbine, pistol. My friends ex air force Dad, did the instruction.
Every lesson began with, “all guns are loaded, do not point your weapon at anything you do not wish to destroy”. The gravity of the act has stuck with me to this day. While there is pleasure in using firearms and achieving skill, the ultimate reason they are here, is never to be forgotten.
Certainly no one has any use for armed yahoos.
It is hard to impart this to anyone that isn’t trained so, or has political reasons for disliking guns. One wonders how such people would react when they, or their treasure is endangered by those without care or criminal intent.
I am certain, just like we would, minus the means to change the outcome effectively should things go terribly wrong.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Why, they’d shoot them….
Especially if they were in his swimming pool….
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Cliff, you’re full of crap. Did you read Martin Wolfgang’s take on Kleck’s study?
Do you know who Marvin Wolfgang is?
I await your answer.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
The first page of Wolfgang’s article sounds almost identical to the BushCo logic for invading Iraq - the most ill-advised decision ever made by a US President.
Wolfgang states - if I may summarize - there is nothing on the record to dispute Kleck’s findings so they must be correct.
Yea, right. Pass me another Pinot Noir, preferably slightly warm and freshly opened!
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Keep reading, Albert.
Did you read anything about Mr. Wolfgang? Do you doubt his credentials?
I prefer the Santa Barbara County Pinots, myself.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:06 am
Did somebody hear something?
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:10 am
Lay off the jenkem, Larry.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:17 am
I knew I could get a response. How about this?
Sorry. The discussion around here was so intense, I just had to add some comic relief . I mean, we were so close to saving our civil rights. Damn!
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:06 am
“unalienable rights, that among these are life,” - I believe that one means you and the gov’t can’t take that right away.
I has nothing to do with the right to own anything you think protects that right.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 am
Cliff,
Right to own firearm
Utah State Constitution with right to own firearm for defense
If it means the government can not take away my life, it follows than that I must be allowed a means to defend that life, right?
It’s a little ridiculous to imply - You can defend yourself, but you can’t defend yourself with any tools, only the government is allowed tools. How else am I to enforce my right to life against those that might seek to take it away?
Bob S. (forgot to sign in)
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 am
Read the 2nd amendment, and the intent of the founders, and the historical context of arms in America.
No matter what is legislated to attempt to remove that right, it will become irrelevant, once a need for defense is required the means and tools to do so appear, irrespective of any attempt to legislate otherwise. As it has ever been.
Government does not own the individual, or their cause to action. This control approach is statist, and the bearer of all horrors of man upon man that the world has ever known.
I am well secure in the knowledge that no matter the drive to form this kind of world, the right of individuals to be free and secure in their person by whatever means they see fit, will surely prevail over it.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:51 am
Almost, Cliff - but not quite.
How should those rights be protected? What mechanism protects your right to life? Government? Government at best is a reactionary force.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 am
Jd,
Thanks for the quote.
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Cliff, as JD has quoted the government has powers based on the consent of the governed? If the governed, or People, to use another term do not have the rights to use tools in self defense how can the government have more power than the people?
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Hmmmm.
So, with all these God given rights to own a firearm for protection, is it likely that God did or will carve out an exception for illegal aliens while in this country? In other words, did God put conditions on the right He bestowed upon us? Is it a God-given ri