Guns

I recently read an interesting thesis on aggression, in wich it addressed the use of hand guns.

It indicated that research done by TIME magazine as well as other Police Departments in the US studied the occurences of deaths by firearm. They found that the overwhelming majority were deaths due to suicide or accidental death.

Very few were homicides.

So this poses some questions.

People say that they feel safer in their homes because they have a firearm, even though the majority of burgalries and thefts from dwellings occur when the occupants are away.

Second, which has also been highlighted by police training, the gun is extremely difficult to draw and use accurately and effectively (first shot stops attacker) in stressfull situations. Even trained individuals find it difficult to do so.

So really doesn't the gun mearly propagate its own use and misuse and as such makes it a pointless addition to "self" defence??

Budo.

Whether guns propogate their own use is an arguement that will never be agreed upon. What I do feel to be proven fact is that the majority of weapons used in non military / law enforcement scenarios are used for their psychological effect rather than their physical effect. In the same way that a punk mugger holds up his shiny flicknife both as a barrier and a tool of coersion, the handgun in the home has psychological effectiveness. The findings that you highlight (which I agree with and have experienced)confirm the view that shooting accurately and quickly whilst under stress is hugely difficult. However, this fact is generaly unknown, not believed or not risked by the majority of people. To the majority of people including muggers and burglers, the handgun or shotgun is still the most lethal killing tool they are likely to face. Therefore when faced with one or considering whether a crime may lead them to face one, the psychological fear of serious injury or death (statisticaly unlikely though it may be)is a powerful deterent to many would be offenders. The flipside result of this mistaken view is that many people have a weapon in their house to take advantage of this perceived fear on the part of some criminals. In many ways then, it is the perceived fear of the gun by its potential victims that propogates its use both for self defence and criminal purposes. It is seen as the ultimate tool of coercion and control (which to be frank is at the essence of both self defence and violent crime) because it is believed to offer a high probability of the ultimate sanction and expression of control - death. Trite as it may sound to state, is is surely a fact that if nobody feared the gun or at least certain persons in society rose above a psychological reaction and took an instant statistical standpoint, guns would lose their attraction. This is never going to happen though is it!


Regds
Mr V



[This message has been edited by MrVigerous (edited 08-12-2003).]

I think the answer to your question changes a lot based on where you live.

I always want my response to remain appropriate to the threat I am likely to face.

Here in the United States, that threat is very likely to involve a firearm. I don't want to be the guy who showed up for the gun fight armed with only his knife or fists. Sure, I train for that, but it is the last thing I want to be involved in.

The truth be told, I am not all that excited about the prospect of having to shoot someone either, but the environment I live in may force me to make that choice.

The way I understand it, my odds of surviving that decision point greatly improve if I have made all of the decisions that happen in that moment in advance and I have become proficient with the tools required.

This is where I think the crux of your argument is... many people in the US who own guns do so purely out of an "arms race" mentality, but they do not put in the time required to make sure that they are proficient with their firearm, nor do they take the time to educate their families to the point that they are proficient or at least safe in handling.

My parents were both involved in law enforcement, so we had several firearms in the house. Everyone in the house got gun training from an early age, no exceptions. I think people who believe they can keep a weapon in the house hidden from children or other family members are taking a naieve risk. Education is always the safest route.

Owning a gun requires a lot of introspection and tough decisions. If you (and everyone you share living space with) are not "OK" with using it for its intended purpose then it is best not to have one around at all.

It would be very interesting to see that study extended to include ALL shootings, not just deaths... a surprising number of self-defense shootings are non-fatal-- probably do to the difficulty of shooting well under duress. It also fails to take into account all the times when a gun is used to deter an attack but no one is shot (threats, warning shots, or plain missing the target on both sides...). If the bad guy is not around, and you are not hurt, that was a successful gun defense... even if the coroner is not called.

Like the old saying says, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

statistics are not cold hard facts.I KNOW THIS GOES AGAINST THE DEFINITON OF A STATISTIC. The fact is anyone doing a study, writing an article, or supplying statistics to prove a point interprets them the way they want.
If I am anti-gun, I will seize upon any statistic involving children being killed by firearms.I will run around screaming how deadly they are to children.This will cause an emotional response and I can hide behind the fact I want to save children.I will of course ignore that the biggest cause of fatalities in children are motor vehicles and bicycles/skate boards. If I truly wanted to save children I would try to outlaw cars and bikes, but the real agenda is to outlaw guns.
Having said that-A firearm is a tool.Nothing more, nothing less.It is up to the owner to properly learn how to use it, just like any tool.

I don't want to copy 504mikey's quote in order to save space, but I agree with his views.
If I lived in the U.K., where gun crime is so comparatively rare, I'd be willing to give mine up, despite missing it as a hobby. The trouble is, the States aren't the U.K.
The use of a gun to repel assault need not require the actual firing of it. Case in point: On one occasion, while on vacation I took my fiancée (Who was visiting) and my mom to a mountain forest in a public park. It was a weekday and off season, so it was pretty much deserted and Park Rangers/ police nowhere in sight. Therefore I was more alert than usual. At a given point we stopped at an observation post to admire the view. After some time there, I noticed a car occupied by four young guys, which slowed to watch us as it drove by. I got the wrong vibes off the occupants and became even more alert. Sure enough, after less than a minute they'd bactracked and pulled into the area where we were parked. Noticing this, I ordered the womenfolk back to our car. While they got in, I reached into my glove compartment for my 9 m.m. to cover their retreat. I held it in a two handed combat grip, but muzzle up, making sure the occupants of the other car saw it. One look at the S & W, and the car took off like a bullet. So did we, once everybody was aboard, in the opposite direction. I shudder to think what might have happened if that pistol hadn't been available.
This type of incident doesn't get reported (I sure didn't. I'd've been in all kinds of trouble had I done so. It was a National Park, firearms are banned. Yet there was no law enforcement presence to deter the possible attack).
Personally, I think of the above incident as one of my better firsthand self defense experiences: Alertness, common sense, the proper tools in place (The gun) and the appropriate levels of willingness to use force (The threat of the gun sufficed) defusing a potentially hazardous situation.

P.S.: Yes, Judderman, I realize the article you are writing about is in an AMERICAN magazine. My comments about living in the U.K. weren't influenced by it.



[This message has been edited by MAGon (edited 08-13-2003).]

on here there is all the controversy about martial arts versus guns


well why not train with both

i plan on getting a semi auto pistol once i turn 21 and getting license for conceled and firearm training etc

Rand, I will paraphrase an author of an article I read, can't quote because I can't remember who or where I read it.

Firearms and hand to hand fighting skills are both tools.A gun is a sledge hammer,hand to hand is a tack hammer.You would not use a sledge hammer to drive a penny nail into a plaster wall, just as you would not use a tack hammer to knock down a cinderblock wall. Each has it's place and time.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by the504mikey:

Like the old saying says, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.[/QUOTE]

Since that old saying has been attributed to both Mark Twain (the American author) and Benjamin Disraeli (the British prime minister), I suppose I could start a trans-Atlantic debate by asking who REALLY said it...

But all I really want to say is this: guns, knives, swords and all penetrating weapons are virtually incapable of being used reliably as self-defense weapons WITHOUT risking killing. Many people who think they're OK with that have trouble shooting or stabbing when the time comes. Understandably so. One of the reasons I started training with the nunchaku at an early age, and consider that weapon an integral part of my art (and I have dabbled to varying degrees in shooting, knife techniques and fencing) is that the nunchaku can be used in a restrained manner without applying "deadly force." (Hit the hand holding the weapon. Hit the knee. Don't hit the temporal bone unless you have to kill...) Also, the nunchaku, unlike the knife or the gun, can't really result in tragedy if it gets into the hands of your 4-year-old child. What an injustice that mere possession of nunchaku in your home is a misdemeanor here in the "Empire State" in the so-called "Land of the Free"...

But see http://homepages.nyu.edu/~jmm257/nunchakucomp.html

I will direct your attention to the studies of John R Lott, who proved statistically that guns have a correlation to murder rates that is neutral or negative.

And states in the US with more liberal gun laws, less regulation have less violent crimes.

If you can't look after your gun and others can, they shouldn't have to suffer.

If you think you're going to have a gun and not use it (Just frighten someone with it) I believe you're deluding yourself.

When you pull a gun, things have got so out of hand, that you'd better be prepared to use it.

On this basis I believe that if you carry a gun, you are a danger to all around you that cannot be justified.

I will not carry or own a gun.

JohnL

Part of being a Martial Artist or a warrior is to be familiar with and capable of using any weapon we might be confronted with. While I personally do not like firearms, I still feel that it would be reckless to neglect the possibility of using one in a combat situation. So firearms use is a part of my training, but that doesn't mean I go around with a gun waiting to use it.

It is the same as deciding whether or not to ever kill. Given our skills, it would be easier to kill people than to have to deal with them. Yet we train so that we don't have to kill, we can choose to avoid, injure, or maim them. But that doesn't mean that one day one of us isn't going to be in a situation where it is kill or be killed.

Guns are part of reallity, whether someone chooses to deal with it or not. Not dealing with it could get me killed.

I realise that if your stupid enough to pull a gun you had better be smart enough to use it.


What im saying is that i would rather have the option to use it if it were needed, than not have the option at all.


I also train on my own with the nunchuku


i wouldnt say im that good with them though.

Good posts.

MaGon, I agree, and this will always be the case. We can only go what information is provided. I would certainly agree that, in the situation you decribe, a firearm would may have been the sensible (?) option.

I realise statistics can be manipulated to the author's want. The statistics I have seen have varied from those similar to Joe6, but with a difference, althought the rate of crime did not appear to change much, the number of gun related deaths do. I have seen stats that compare the number of imported firearm with the number of firearm homocides. There appears to be a direct correlation. This to me is common sense. If you increase the availability of firearms, you increase the possibilty of someone being shot.

It has also been said that there are now too many guns (US) to make any sort of reasonable impact on control.

My point was, what is the point of carrying a firearm if the time it takes to draw and fire it is slow and, to the untrained individual, difficult to shoot effectively?

Compare this also with keeping one in the house. Wise? I'm not convinced.

Perhaps its use is more psychological. Those who hold a firearm fell safer. This image is projected, which makes them less of a target. If this was the case, surely any weapon would do ~ even Nunchuka?

Just a thought.

Budo.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by judderman:


If you increase the availability of firearms, you increase the possibilty of someone being shot.

It has also been said that there are now too many guns (US) to make any sort of reasonable impact on control.

My point was, what is the point of carrying a firearm if the time it takes to draw and fire it is slow and, to the untrained individual, difficult to shoot effectively?

[/QUOTE]

You make three intersting statements here.
I do believe the increase of availability has a concommitant impact on gun crime. The fact is that the gun is a more effective and easier to use tool than alternative weapons. If made widely available, common sense would prompt more people towards obtaining one instead of having, say, a baseball bat in their car. The trouble is guns are much more lethal and it's use takes up much less time than other weapons. If someone loses their temper and pulls out a gun, you're far more likely to wind up with a dead body. Multiply that by a higher proportion of armed citizens (Some of whom would, inevitably, be hot heads or just irresponsible), and your gun death rate take off. That's only a partial explanation, but it's a probable factor.
I'd be willing to, reluctantly, give up my guns if it would realistically make a difference. The trouble is Pandora's Box has well and truly been opened in the States. All we're left with is hope.
Lack of training in handgun use is one of my pet peeves. In the States, handgunning is sometimes called "The American Martial Art". But in contrast to the many hours that people are willing to put into unarmed MAs, some believe themselves to be well protected just by purchasing a gun. It'd be hilarious if the possible consequences weren't so dire. If anyone is interested, I wrote a post in the "Sword Arts" forum concerning what I witnessed in TRAINING sessions dealing with gun self defense against a knife wielder standing 21 ft. away (The thread's entitled: "Who would win up close?"). It says a lot (At least to me) about the necessity to reach a modicum of skill with firearms prior to carrying them around.



[This message has been edited by MAGon (edited 08-17-2003).]

For home defense a pistol is not the wisest choice-a shotgun is.A shotgun is more effective for 2 reasons 1) minimal skill is needed to hit target
2) bigger psychological impact.
Criminals know you might miss with a pistol, they are less willing to risk it with shotgun.

As for other points brought up. Ok, go ahead and ban guns.Now the criminals will use knives, bats, lead pipes, etc. instead.Crime will not drop, decrease, go down.Hot headed idiot will now stab you to death as illustrated in this news piece:
Slain man's 911 call indicates road rage

Tue Aug 12, 7:27 AM ET
By Deanna Boyd, StarTelegram Staff Writer
FORT WORTH - A Garland man who was found stabbed to death in a Luby's parking lot this month was on the phone to a 911 dispatcher when he was attacked in what police believe was a road-rage killing.


Juan Gallegos never talked to the Haltom City dispatcher, but police say the approximately 15-second telephone call recorded the killers' voices and the gruesome sounds of Gallegos' slaying.
Despite the call, no officers were sent to the area in northeast Fort Worth. Now, the Haltom City Police Department is investigating why.
Detective Jeff Gray, a spokesman for Haltom City police, said the 911 dispatcher received information concerning only the location of the phone tower through which the cellphone call was routed.

Ban guns?
ask yourself this question:

Did it work with drugs?

Neko, I agree. Removing guns would not necassarily reduce the crime rate as other weapons are available. It is reasonable to assume that the death rate may reduce, simply because, apart from explosives, guns generally are more effective at killing people than other weapons. It takes a lot more energy to wield another weapon then to shoot a gun.

As for the shotogun, I would reiterate my previous posts. Given that the vast majority of burgalries occur when the properties are vacant, whats the point of having a gun to defend the home? You could argue that its better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. To me the risks outweigh the pros.

Admittedly this does not take into consideration those who are adequetly trained and responsible.

Perhaps this is the way to go about gun control. All owners must have a liscense and recieve proper training. The likelyhood of this happening? I'm too sinical to judge.

Budo.

A gun isn't for theft and break and enter. A gun is to defend yourself when your are there. Security systems and alarms are what is needed for your theif who avaoids homeowners and violence. My preference is for both and secure entry points.

When the Government bans something, it merely cuts supply, and prices rise, and organised crime profits, leading to more violence. Guns do deter crime. If you can't look after yourself with a gun in your house, you are a bloody idiot. We have had knives in my house all my life and no one yet has been stabbed.

Judderman,please dont take too much of what Time Magazine has to say too seriously. If ever there was a media source with an agenda Time is it. Joesixpack got it right. The definitive work on the subject is by a researcher named John Lott. A social scientist from chicago. His latest work is entitled "more guns less crime". The numbers are pretty conclusive and sobering. 70% of gun homicide occuring in 2% of counties in the U.S. Crime in general and murder in paticular dropping by 13% in jurisdictions that freely give handgun permits to law abiding people. 1.5 million incidents nationwide per year of ordinary people using a firearm to defend themselves or stop a crime. (half of those being handguns). Overwhelmingly just the presence of the armed citizen sufficient to stop the assault or crime with no shots fired. Armed citizens having fewer cases of mistaken identity shooting the LEO's. Firing fewer shots per incident than LEO's and scoring more hits!
The much touted "study" that suggests a gun in the home is a danger to the occupants is comppletly discredited. Shown to be a survey of criminals incarcerated for crimes in their own homes with no control group.
And Sweeny, Iv'e always attributed the damned lies quote to Franklin Delano Rosevelt when he was responding to critics.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!(unknown frontiersman)

Guns are part of the reality where I'm at (Winston-Salem, and, Charlotte, North Carolina).

We have a rapidly growing number of Mexican (and other) gangs in this area and it's getting worse here every day. This isn't "West Side Story" I'm talking about either. They don't go out with knives and chains. They go out with AKs!

-John

The real interesting question to me is that I've always heard this argument from the pro-gun crowd: "we need our guns so that if the government starts taking away our rights or starts destroying the country we can overthrow it."

An incredibly stupid argument to begin with, because a couple of NRA members with rifles aren't gonna stop a tank, but that aside. . .

Our government IS taking away our rights (Patriot Act, Patriot Act 2, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, etc) left and right, and they ARE destroying the country with their idiotic economic plans (cut income, boost spending, and then close our eyes and pretend the deficit isn't happening) and the war (where are the WMD's? Where are the alleged ties between Saddam and 9/11?) which has basically the entire world mistrusting and despising us, and which has caused our country to become an aggressive bully, attacking a country that hasn't done anything to us.

So now that all this stuff that the NRA boys claim they need guns for is happening, why aren't any of them starting an uprising? I'm not encouraging that, but if this is the supposed reason they need guns so badly, then why aren't they reacting when the reason comes true?

(disclaimer: No, I'm not for banning guns.)

Shadowfax - All interesting points and I find myself in agreement with you. I guess that no one is trying to overthrow yet because the NRA appears to be a minority compared to the over-all population (not that an overthrow would happen anyway).

However, our rights ARE definitely being taken away, slowly but surely, little by little.


-John

If the NRA are so firm, than other people will be firm on the loss of their rights - alliances will form e.g, Heston and MLK used to march together and would discuss matters.

dont u think learning how to use a gun is important since I can't seem to find a technique that works when somebody points a gun 5 m away from you...

Well I keep one anyways since you can actually have a few if you're in the firearms club even a shotgun if you are nice to the cops <:

Shadowfax (gandolfs horse?) Your grasp of military history is somewhat lacking. To date there has never never been a popular guerrilla movent that has truly failed. China, Malaysia Cuba, Vietnam, Afganistan. All inferior forces that were more or less successful against overwhelming force. Once the conditions exsist to support such a conflict( complex topic) they seem destined to some measure of success. So your argument re the NRA and the U.S. Gov is fundementally flawed. As to your other comments? Straight democrat party propaganda. plenty of counter claims and evidence availible once you acess more than one source. Old saying- If youre young and conservative you have no heart, If youre old and liberal you have no brain!- Winston Churchill.

wowsers. As a new dad (10 months with no sleep), i find myself grappling with a dillema. Should i get rid of my guns? I don't think i will. Last night a drunk smashed the gate/fence behind my house with his car. I did NOT reach for the baseball bat, or a kitchen knife. i strapped on a .357, THEN went to investigate. Brought the dogs, too. A neighborhood stray got in the yard last week and scared the hell out of my girl. I woke from a sound sleep hearing her screaming. I did NOT grab that bat. When her car was broken into, i got that gun. When 12 punks were sitting on my porch and wouldnt let her by, they didnt leave when i ASKED them, they left when i SHOWED them. In all these situations, less well-armed, my family would have had to rely on something other than me. What? kindness of strangers? Luck? Please. I live and work with the people you guys talk about. the desperate, stupid, insane. If you have it, and they can take it, they will. Whatever it is. Better make sure they cant.

"Doesn't this make the pistol useless as a self defense tool?"

Answer: Use whatever martial art you do against my 45 cal hollow then we can compare notes.

Bringing up 1 and two year old threads to say how useless martial arts is pointless to say the least.
Have you had any martial arts training? Will your gun protect you in every situation? Do you know about the 21ft(7 step)rule?

martial artists are equally screwed by the 21 ft rule.

1st rule of a knife fight, don't get in one.

Personally I am looking toward the martial arts for better focus and self discipline. Self defense, should never be limited, to fists and feet, or a .45. Ideally it will encompass all and allow you to stay alive when the SHTF.