American Gun myth no 1. Guns for home/self defence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

Jimmy's Wikipedia has great write ups on the cultural history of guns in the various English speaking nations. The attitudes and views and histories are way different.

One way to explain the difference in the American views from those of the others is due to the American experience.

First, America did not "peacefully" gain independence from the UK -- She fought for it.

And prior to that time, hostile native American indians threatened American settlements all along the frontier.

I doubt that Auzzies or Brits or Canadians (ABC's) will ever see guns the same way that Americans do.

Having said that, the first democracy (structured more like a Roman republic actually) will always be the arsenal of democracy all around the world.

The American government exists solely as the will of its People. No other nation can say that.

All other nations are subjects of their government, especially the British. They always have been and they always will be.

The Australians and the Candians are not so far fetched from their British big brothers, with very similar attitudes on all things. And this includes guns.

If it weren't for America, the UK would be speaking German right now, and the Australians would be speaking Japanese.

So you shouldn't bite the hands that have fed you, even if the viewpoints held by those hands are way different than your own.

Because it is all about viewpoints, and nothing more.

 

Just as you are PERCEIVING my posts as condescension so I PERCEIVE many posts on here has having an undercurrent belief that if we remove the gun then they are helpless

 

That is true - however thanks to hollywood, and particularly the early Westerns a lot of that history was romanticised and it is doubtful there were as many guns as claimed - in fact there is historical research that supports that, and when my headache is throbbing less I will try to dig it out

BTW - thank-you for the consideration of supporting your post with links - it is a refreshing change

Why?? Have we asked that of you?

From where I stand mate - there is precious little difference between our two governments and in some ways it is EARIER for us to topple a government than it is for you - we have "double dissolutions" not too infrequently - Forget the monarchy they are titular leaders only good for trotting out and displaying every so often otherwise they can sod off back to England

How does being a "subject" give you any less freedom than "citizen"? Remembering that America did give at least a passing nod to the Westminster system when developing it's system of government

And where were you lot at the start of the war??? You have been claiming "we won the war for you" ever since and that is because, for America, the history books have been re-written. Yes you won the battle of the coral sea but it was thanks to Australian intel - intel that OUR troops faced torture from the Japanese to get to you. Japanese advance were stopped at Kokoda by australian troops - did that ever make your history books?. We are under no illusions that you "saved us" through altruism - you were there to save yourselves!!

Yes it is about differing viewpoints and I could live with that - if YOUR views were not plastered all over the media and re-inforced by "internet Commandos" who sit at computers dreaming of saving people by waving guns

 

So am I wrong in my perception? You are sure wrong in yours.

Unless you wish to narrow it down a great deal more than you have...

and accept it that it is true that in some rare situations, a person will in fact be a helpless victim if they are not armed.

You have only "perception" as evidence that anyone other than you thinks otherwise.

 

Thanks. I dont think Bower is heartless, she means well as far as I can tell.

She does for sure lack experience tho, or a realistic perspective.

 

Don't forget that the evidence suggests that guns are more likely to be used to attack family members than in their defence. A rather disturbing finding!

 

And dont forget that evidence 'suggests" is not proof nor still less does it apply to all situations. Do you suggest otherwise?

In this particular situation my having a gun with me would have made for a lot better outcome for me.

Are you denying this?

 

[video=youtube;RjZsZKcu_KQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjZsZKcu_KQ&feature=related[/video]

Police arrive just in time to clean up the store. Whew that was close.

 

What is says is clear: guns are found to be more likely to be used against a family member than in their defence. In terms of the probability of being a victim, this has to be considered.

 

Your answer here would in the grant biz be deemed "unresponsive".

It is clear that for some people, some families that is the case.
First you had "suggests" now it is "clear".

It is clear that you are applying a facile overgeneralization.

And it has zero to do with me or my situation. Still less to whether I'd have been better off if I'd been armed.

That is not something you can address with stats or sunk cost fallacy or economic models.

 

Of course its clear. Its written in ink after all. What's obvious is that the topic needs further research (as with sex attacks, the problem is acquiring better data to make more robust conclusion). However, just because more research is required, doesn't give folk an excuse from ignoring what the evidence implies: more guns, higher risk of being a victim.

 

you have no plan, no outcome, just information.

 

"suggests", now "implies" i guess we can agree that the cost/ benefit of analysis concerning guns in the USA can stand more research.

If they all vanished and there was no point in my having one I'd be, we'd all be better off.



I dont need research to tell me that I personally am safer if I have a gun. it is, true, more a response to hypervigilance, I kind of cant not have one, plus alarms, etc. But one actual example of how a gun would have saved me is enough to convince me it can happen. That was study enough for me.

My focus is on the specific, yours is on the general-

and as before, you are applying the general to the specific where it does not apply.

"more guns' meaning......?

More guns in my house wont mean that. There wont be more guns anyway.

More guns in police hands wont mean that.

More in the hands of responsible citizens wont mean that.

"More guns" meaning what? Huge numbers freely available to everyone?

Why yes, then, we'd have a whole lot more victims.

Now, its late, what am I doing at 2:30 am awake!!!!! Bye!

 

What is important here is that we have evidence completely inconsistent with the self-defence angle. This might help us understand why deterrence effects are found to be relatively small.

 

Full Comment:

you have no plan, no outcome, just information, a presentation of some quasi-allegorical data that really doesn't function off paper.
Communism looks good on paper, but doesn't work in reality. Like your theory, you fail to take into account the one thing Marx failed to do,
a full understanding of the true nature of man.
To deny the relationship of the one unpredictable variable shores up your argument, and that is lame. You deliberately evade dealing with the unknown, making the substance of your empirical evidence unsupported, but only appearing solid.
Your study fails to take into account the unpredictability of Man. And that is why your theory will fail in the real world.
market=people
people=unpredictability

 

I'm not interested in your rant. This is about knowledge and why exactly the deterrence hypothesis is not found to be important. That of course impacts on gun control policy (e.g. the social costs from gun ownership will be higher)

 

..the end result is cost exceeds personal value.(want/need)
Plus the lawful individual will also carry the social cost.
social cost=financial output by purchaser.
Can you utilize a percentage? I assume you might have a dollar figure, percentage, in mind.

 

No, the end result is that total costs reflect personal value. Teach yourself supply and demand

 

How or in what manner is the personal value determined.
Gave that supply and demand lesson to you several posts back.
The only real assignment you can give "value" and "costs" is economic value (coin of the realm) for your theory to be tested to determine impact. Anything else would have zero impact to change attitudes, perceptions, responsibility (socially or economically)
or
You institutionalize anti-gun doctrine throughout society. Re-educate or reprogram, if you will.
The problem you've presented the that proliferation of firearms is based on delusional or misrepresented illogical concept generated by the manufacturers to enhance their profit margins, and that owners must also accept responsibilty for the actions of another (societal costs).
You merely wish to change the status quo.

 

It doesn't have to be. We can assume that demand operates which, by definition, gives willingness to pay and therefore personal value. You're croaking about naff all!

 

It can only be. Economic impact is far more measureable. Anything with less impact lacks the force of change

 

I haven't got a clue what you're trying to say! What we have is simple: personal gains? Measured; Social costs? measured; evidence-based result!

 

so two unknowns (??)make a perfect theory....................droll
I'll explain to you .................the only way to accurately determine the validity of your claim is to test it with numerical values. If it has not been tested in this manner, it is only an untested theory and NOT empirical evidence

 

Again you reply with random remarks. Please read what you're replying to before attempting a response. It will save time.

 

"...personal gains? Measured; Social costs? measured."
How? by whom? What measure?

Value in dinero