Gun poll

[Joe Guy]

Don't you think that any meaningful and effective public policy should be based on actual risk-benefit data, rather than what people feel about their (usually terrible) choices?

What kind of evidence are you using to determine that people usually make terrible choices?

[Gob]

My personal experience is the same as Econoline's, although set in the Camden-Philadelphia locale. (But I have fired guns on a couple of occasions.)

Sorry Sue, neat, but not as impressive as Econoline's man of steel routine!

Only eight days into 2013, Chicago is already on a grim pace to not only continue the bloody trend of an elevated homicide rate -- but to surpass it.

NBC Chicago pointed out that, as of Sunday, 12 people had been murdered in Chicago this year, which, at a rate of two a day, but the city on a pace for a devastating 730 homicides, higher than any one-year murder total in Chicago since 1997.

[Andrew D]

I am talking about public policy in the sense of articulating a society's desired goal and implementing the rules to achieve it. ... My point in addressing your comments was that individuals consistently make bad choices because they are terrible at estimating risk. Don't you think that any meaningful and effective public policy should be based on actual risk-benefit data, rather than what people feel about their (usually terrible) choices?

In a free society, one of society's desired goals is permitting people to make their own choices. Even foolish choices.

[Guinevere]

Personally, I have lived for over 66 years in the Chicago area (most of that on The South Side of Chicago, the Baddest Part of Town) and have never owned a gun, never fired a gun, never wished that I owned a gun, and never been in a situation where I thought (either at the time or in hindsight) that having a gun in my possession would have been necessary, desirable, or useful.

It's not 66 years, but at 24-years-old I lived alone on Capitol Hill in DC for two years, when it was the murder capitol of the world (474 homicides in 1990 and 479 in 1991 - in a city 25% the size of Chicago). The Hill and just to the South and East was the center of much of the violence. I never had a gun, never wanted a gun, and never needed a gun. And I also know how to shoot.

[Sue U]

Sorry Sue, neat, but not as impressive as Econoline's man of steel routine!

Only eight days into 2013, Chicago is already on a grim pace to not only continue the bloody trend of an elevated homicide rate -- but to surpass it.

NBC Chicago pointed out that, as of Sunday, 12 people had been murdered in Chicago this year, which, at a rate of two a day, but the city on a pace for a devastating 730 homicides, higher than any one-year murder total in Chicago since 1997.

Is that how you judge impressive? Chicago's 2012 homicide rate is 19.4 per 100,000. Care to guess what Camden's was? ETA: Oops, that was 2011. Last year it was at 76.6.

In a free society, one of society's desired goals is permitting people to make their own choices. Even foolish choices.

I agree. But there is properly a limit to an individual's foolish choices that pose a risk of serious injury or death to others.

[Rick]

I agree. But there is properly a limit to an individual's foolish choices that pose a risk of serious injury or death to others.

There is no end to foolish choices that cause death and serious injury...

[Andrew D]

But people are notoriously terrible at estimating risk. And their individual "knowledge and experience" doesn't actually help.

However, it [my owning a revolver, which I do not] does entail a substantially increased risk that the revolver will be used to injure or kill a member of, or a visitor to, your household (both intentionally and unintentionally).

Actually, individual knowledge and experience is crucial in assessing real risk.

The real risk that a child will accidentally injure or kill her- or himself or someone else with a gun in a particular household depends heavily on how much presence of children there is in that household. No child has set foot in my house in years. Thus, even if I had had a firearm in my house during those years, the actual risk of a child's killing anyone with that firearm would have been exactly zero.

The aggregate statistics may say that having a firearm in one's house poses a risk that a child will injure or kill someone (her- or himself or someone else) with that firearm. But in the case of my house, that statistic is utterly meaningless.

The risk that my revolver (if I had one) would be used to injure or kill a visitor to my house depends heavily on how often there are visitors in my house. If there are visitors here two or three times a week, that is one thing; if there are visitors here ten times a year, that is quite another.

So that is a second reason to permit people to make their own choices, even if those choices appear, by statistical aggregates, to be foolish: An individual is not a mere statistical datum.

[Gob]

Is that how you judge impressive? Chicago's 2012 homicide rate is 19.4 per 100,000. Care to guess what Camden's was? ETA: Oops, that was 2011. Last year it was at 76.6.

There you go, boasting again.

[Sue U]

There is no end to foolish choices that cause death and serious injury...

Let me put it this way, keld. In the small city where I work (and where I used to live), we have a homicide rate that is about 20 times the national average. Almost all of the killings are by handgun, and almost all of them are related to drugs. I am sick to death of having to worry about whether the foolish choices of others get me killed in the crossfire.

[Sue U]

There you go, boasting again.

Y'know, Camden is probably one of the worst tragedies in North America. I try not to think about the violence of the drug gangs, but even more depressing is the poverty. This is a city that was once a mighty industrial center, manufacturing literally everything from battleships to tomato soup, providing jobs that gave the working class access to the American Dream. What it has been allowed to become over the last 40 years is a national disgrace.

[Sue U]

So that is a second reason to permit people to make their own choices, even if those choices appear, by statistical aggregates, to be foolish: An individual is not a mere statistical datum.

One of the findings of the studies demonstrating people's inability to gauge risk is that individuals always place themselves outside of the statistical class, believing they are far less at risk. They're not.

[Sean]

Sean, we obviously come from completely different quadrants of the galaxy on this....

Let me present an analogy to illustrate how I view what you're attempting to require:

Suppose I and my family walk into our doctor's office and I say to the doctor, "We'd like to get flu shots, please"...

And the doctor says, "Well, why do you want them?" And I say, "well, so we'll have a better chance of not getting the flu"....

And he replies:

"I'm sorry, that's not good enough. Either give me a better reason, or explain to me why you don't want to get the flu."

To me, that is a precise analogy to what you are saying.

Sorry Jim, that is a terrible analogy... Unless of course you know of a way that I could kill or maim others with a vaccine...

Mind you, it's nothing like Andrew's ridiculous assertion that I would not see survival as a good reason...


Is there anyone here who thinks that they could validate their reason(s) for gun ownership?
How about rather than just "self/home defence" using a reason like "self/home defence because of factors x, y & z". Maybe the crack house on the corner makes you nervous... Maybe you live next door to Steve...

Anyone?

[Econoline]

By the way, I didn't intend my statement to be a boast or a claim to be a "man of steel"; I was simply stating my own (personal) attitude and my own (personal) experience, because I find that there are so many people who wouldn't dare live in--or even visit--a large American city (especially one with a reputation like Chicago's!) without keeping a concealed handgun on their person at all times. They imagine they would need this protection; I know from experience that they wouldn't.

[Gob]

Y'know, Camden is probably one of the worst tragedies in North America. I try not to think about the violence of the drug gangs, but even more depressing is the poverty. This is a city that was once a mighty industrial center, manufacturing literally everything from battleships to tomato soup, providing jobs that gave the working class access to the American Dream. What it has been allowed to become over the last 40 years is a national disgrace.

Well if nothing else us foreigners get an eductation here!

By the way, I didn't intend my statement to be a boast or a claim to be a "man of steel"; I was simply stating my own (personal) attitude and my own (personal) experience, because I find that there are so many people who wouldn't dare live in--or even visit--a large American city (especially one with a reputation like Chicago's!) without keeping a concealed handgun on their person at all times. They imagine they would need this protection; I know from experience that they wouldn't.

I was genuinely impressed mate. To hear the tales of Chicago from a remote perspective, and from an unarmed country, as we do, I wouldn't expect anyone to nip down the corner shop in Chicago without at least kevlar and an AK 47.

[Sean]

Well I reckon that Econo is either the Man of Steel or Chicago's Crime Kingpin.

Fess up mate! Which is it?

[Andrew D]

So that is a second reason to permit people to make their own choices, even if those choices appear, by statistical aggregates, to be foolish: An individual is not a mere statistical datum.

One of the findings of the studies demonstrating people's inability to gauge risk is that individuals always place themselves outside of the statistical class, believing they are far less at risk. They're not.

Oh, please.

In a household in which there are firearms and children, there is a risk that a child will kill someone with a firearm. In a household in which there are firearms but no children, there is no risk that a child will kill someone with a firearm.

That should be stunningly obvious.

[SisterMaryFellatio]

Felt the urge to post on this topic as it has been debated at our dinner table and I do see both sides!

I do not agree with you have a right to bear arms just cos its in the second amendment. I do think that protecting your home and family is a valid reason to own a gun. I have travelled the USA extensively and I feel that in my personal experiences from that, if I lived their I would own a gun to protect my family.

However the lack of gun control is why these diabolical events and loss of innocent lives will continue to keep happening unless something is done.

The second amendment is out dated they were written in a different era. When guns were a lot more basic. Surely it's common sense if you have mental issues and there's a slight chance you might go apeshit you have no right.

My take on it....there should be 2 different sorts of licenses and its up to the individual to which license they hold as they can only hold one at a time. I am no gun expert but I have watched enough movies to know the difference between a gun that's used for hunting and a hand gun!

You can apply for either license and this entitles you to own one gun on either a hunting license or a hand gun if you have no use for a gun to hunt! The license applies to a household so it's a one gun per household rule. An annual psych evaluation should be undertaken by every person capable of firing that weapon in that household at the households expense. If I wanted to bear arms and not a shady nutter I would have no problem with these laws if It meant I had a right to protect my family and home!!

I know there are a lot more points raised by my opinion ie what if I want to go hunting when I already have a handgun license and other issues but that can be finely tuned when I rule the world.

As a non us resident, an outsider looking in but has experienced the American way of life you no should nolonger have a right to bear arms simply because of the second amendment and you are a citizen. surely that is quite plain to see after all these tragic events. However I also believe that the society you live in you have every right to protect you family and home but with certain criteria met to make sure fruit loops are stopped doing the atrocities that keep happening because of the archaic gun laws.

[Joe Guy]

Is there anyone here who thinks that they could validate their reason(s) for gun ownership?
How about rather than just "self/home defence" using a reason like "self/home defence because of factors x, y & z". Maybe the crack house on the corner makes you nervous... Maybe you live next door to Steve...

Anyone?

I can think of a few off the top of my head without giving a lot of time thinking about it;

A neighbor was raped and assaulted and a person wants to lessen the likelihood that it could happen to his family.

A person lives in an area where dangerous animals roam.

You are someone who enjoys target shooting.

A person who collects firearms as a hobby.

You are a person who often goes out tiger hunting with his elephant and gun.

You live next door to an electrician in Vermont that is a conspiracy theorist and has uncontrollable fits of rage.

You sympathize with what Louis Ferrakhan says and you want to intentionally upset anti-gun pacifists that hate guns and that believe the 2nd amendment is an outdated idea that should be eliminated.

[dales]

You live next door to an electrician in Vermont that is a conspiracy theorist and has uncontrollable fits of rage.

Good one!

[Gob]

You live next door to an electrician in Vermont that is a conspiracy theorist and has uncontrollable fits of rage.

Tim Geithner's right hand man has you under investigation.