Should We Publish Names And Addresses of Gun Owners?

[Night Strike]

You don't think that the hard core criminal wouldn't love to find out where he could steal firearms.

Only if he was absolutely sure the nobody was home. Most criminals prefer to get away with their crimes with the least amount of hassle possible. If they get addresses of places that are much less likely to have a gun in the house, they know they have a much lower chance of being hurt while committing their crime.

[notyou2]

Of course, the only good thing is that maybe the thieves will be smart enough to look at that map and only go after people who don't have guns.

For those of us who prefer not to own a gun, I do not see this as a good thing.

So you don't like what could happen, yet you want to get rid of ALL guns so that the same thing can happen to other people as well?

Not sure Mets has ever said get rid of all guns, but he should answer this.

[HapSmo19]

Or he could just slam his head back into the sand and pretend he didn't just realize how retarded he is.

[MegaProphet]

This is great! We can go disarm all of these people now!

Why stop there, just go the next step and force all law abiding gun owning citizens to wear yellow stars on their coats.

see how ya are?

Will the stars say deputy sheriff?

[Metsfanmax]

Of course, the only good thing is that maybe the thieves will be smart enough to look at that map and only go after people who don't have guns.

For those of us who prefer not to own a gun, I do not see this as a good thing.

So you don't like what could happen, yet you want to get rid of ALL guns so that the same thing can happen to other people as well?

I never said I want to get rid of all guns.

But look at the story you linked in the other thread. Because the guy had a gun in his home, he ended up getting shot, and one of the robbers died. If he didn't have a gun, they most likely would have taken some jewelry and electronics and left, with no one seriously injured or dead. Yes, bad things happen in this world; but guns aggravate the problem in almost all circumstances, rather than being a successful deterrent.

[Night Strike]

Of course, the only good thing is that maybe the thieves will be smart enough to look at that map and only go after people who don't have guns.

For those of us who prefer not to own a gun, I do not see this as a good thing.

So you don't like what could happen, yet you want to get rid of ALL guns so that the same thing can happen to other people as well?

I never said I want to get rid of all guns.

But look at the story you linked in the other thread. Because the guy had a gun in his home, he ended up getting shot, and one of the robbers died. If he didn't have a gun, they most likely would have taken some jewelry and electronics and left, with no one seriously injured or dead. Yes, bad things happen in this world; but guns aggravate the problem in almost all circumstances, rather than being a successful deterrent.

You would rather hope that an intruder won't physically harm you than have a method of self-protection at your disposal? What happens if he decides to take those things and that he doesn't want to leave a witness?

[notyou2]

Of course, the only good thing is that maybe the thieves will be smart enough to look at that map and only go after people who don't have guns.

For those of us who prefer not to own a gun, I do not see this as a good thing.

So you don't like what could happen, yet you want to get rid of ALL guns so that the same thing can happen to other people as well?

I never said I want to get rid of all guns.

But look at the story you linked in the other thread. Because the guy had a gun in his home, he ended up getting shot, and one of the robbers died. If he didn't have a gun, they most likely would have taken some jewelry and electronics and left, with no one seriously injured or dead. Yes, bad things happen in this world; but guns aggravate the problem in almost all circumstances, rather than being a successful deterrent.

You would rather hope that an intruder won't physically harm you than have a method of self-protection at your disposal? What happens if he decides to take those things and that he doesn't want to leave a witness?

THAT RIGHT THERE IS THE DIFFERENCE. Either you watch way too much TV or America is still the wild west.

[Metsfanmax]

You would rather hope that an intruder won't physically harm you than have a method of self-protection at your disposal? What happens if he decides to take those things and that he doesn't want to leave a witness?

I would absolutely rather hope than an intruder won't physically harm me. According to a 2009 study by UPenn, people who were in possession of a gun at the time of an assault were nearly five times more likely to be shot than people without a gun.

There's some intuitive reasons for this. For example, most of the time, the intent of the intruders is simply to take your stuff, and not to harm you (statistically speaking). When you aggravate the situation by brandishing your own weapon, you force the robber into a defensive situation, where they are more likely to fire the weapon they brought.

[notyou2]

So you are saying that a gun gives you a false sense of security as well as taking the situation with most likely a habitual criminal to another level?

[Metsfanmax]

So you are saying that a gun gives you a false sense of security as well as taking the situation with most likely a habitual criminal to another level?

That is my conclusion from this study, yes. That being said, there are obviously exceptions to this general rule. If you are a weapons expert or have advanced combat training, then you are probably able to handle your gun for self-defense with much more ability than the average citizen.

[saxitoxin]

You would rather hope that an intruder won't physically harm you than have a method of self-protection at your disposal? What happens if he decides to take those things and that he doesn't want to leave a witness?

I would absolutely rather hope than an intruder won't physically harm me. According to a 2009 study by UPenn, people who were in possession of a gun at the time of an assault were nearly five times more likely to be shot than people without a gun.

I reject the results of this study for 3 reasons:

1- the study was limited to 677 people

- sample set is too small

2- the study was limited to residents of Philadelphia

- sample distribution is too small

- Philadelphia has an atypical crime rate (http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_p ... te-matter/)
- Philadelphia is an urban area; sample distribution limits can't account for different gun ownership and use trends in rural and suburban areas
- Philadelphia is a Northeastern city; sample distribution limits can't account for different firearms use cultures in western states

3 - most importantly - the study did not attempt to explain a difference in injury rates between persons lawfully possessing a firearm and those unlawfully possessing one (most likely a person unlawfully possessing a firearm will inherently be at greater risk of violent assault than a person lawfully possessing one or a person possessing no firearm at all; persons who have access to black market sources for firearms, logically, are moving in a different and more dangerous segment of society than the average person)

[saxitoxin]

There seems to be no correlation between firearms ownership laws - either positive or negative - and high or low homicide rates. Different trends must be considered. Some I would like explained are: economic inequality, presence of (contact) professional sports teams per capita, average July temperature, percent of population on psychoactive medications, population density.

edit: only 1 of the 10 states with low homicide rates have a NFL team / 4 of the 6 states with high homicide rates have a NFL team

Eleven U.S. states have a homicide rate lower than Luxembourg (2.5 per 100,000):

Hawaii - 1.8
Idaho - 1.5
Iowa - 1.3
Maine - 2.0
Minnesota - 1.5
New Hampshire - 0.9
North Dakota - 2.0
Oregon - 2.3
Utah - 1.4
Vermont - 1.3
Wyoming - 2.0

Six U.S. states have a homicide rate higher than Lithuania (6.6 per 100,000):

District of Columbia - 24.2
New Mexico- 10.0
Louisiana - 12.3
Illinois - 8.4
Alabama - 7.1
Maryland - 7.7

Severity of Gun Laws
Restrictive Gun Laws
Middle-Range Gun Laws
Permissive Gun Laws

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ... 2s0308.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... By_country
http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard

[HapSmo19]

So you are saying that a gun gives you a false sense of security as well as taking the situation with most likely a habitual criminal to another level?

That is my conclusion from this study, yes. That being said, there are obviously exceptions to this general rule. If you are a weapons expert or have advanced combat training, then you are probably able to handle your gun for self-defense with much more ability than the average citizen.

What's the the deal with you?
What business is it of yours and why do you care whether or not a person has advanced combat training while defending themselves in their own home?
Should they be a master teppanyaki chef if they're defending themselves with a knife?

[Metsfanmax]

I reject the results of this study for 3 reasons:

1- the study was limited to 677 people

- sample set is too small

What would be an appropriate sample size for such a study? I am not sure, but at most this means there are significant error bars on that ratio of 4.5. I really doubt that the error bars approach the 100% level.

2- the study was limited to residents of Philadelphia

- sample distribution is too small

- Philadelphia has an atypical crime rate (http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_p ... te-matter/)
- Philadelphia is an urban area; sample distribution limits can't account for different gun ownership and use trends in rural and suburban areas
- Philadelphia is a Northeastern city; sample distribution limits can't account for different firearms use cultures in western states

These aren't reasons to reject the study, they're just reasons to not generalize the results to outside of Philadelphia.

3 - most importantly - the study did not attempt to explain a difference in injury rates between persons lawfully possessing a firearm and those unlawfully possessing one (most likely a person unlawfully possessing a firearm will inherently be at greater risk of violent assault than a person lawfully possessing one or a person possessing no firearm at all; persons who have access to black market sources for firearms, logically, are moving in a different and more dangerous segment of society than the average person)

The 4.5 times more likely result was given after already having taken into account general characteristics that made a person at higher risk to be involved in gun violence. It does not seem to have taken into account the difference between legal and illegally owned guns, but I would argue that this is subsumed in the general "high-risk" category they describe in the paper.

[Metsfanmax]

What's the the deal with you?
What business is it of yours and why do you care whether or not a person has advanced combat training while defending themselves in their own home?

It is my business to the extent that as a member of society, I would like fewer people to die in gun-related violence.