PDA

View Full Version : Does armed populace make us safer?


CalCop
11-09-2008, 9:27 AM
lrdchivalry said in another thread: "A better armed populace is a safer populace in my opinion and if I am not mistaken there are facts out there to back that up."

You are right, lrdchivalry, consider the following:
Some people suggest that providing training to the members of society who carry concealed handguns would somehow result in a safer society. Statistics do not support this assumption. For instance:
In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the “Safest State Award.” (Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press, 2004)

Some people think that a street cop’s training makes him more efficient, accurate, or responsible in discharging firearms. Statistics also disprove this idea:
Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."
While citizens are credited with killing TWICE as many criminals as street cops, the police kill FIVE times as many innocent persons. (George F. Will, "Are We a Nation of Cowards?," Newsweek, 15 November 1993)

Trendkill
11-09-2008, 9:37 AM
Good post.......an armed populace also keeps an aggressive government at bay as well.

elsolo
11-09-2008, 9:37 AM
Those statistics are worthless, not quite as absurb as the doctors vs. guns death statistics however.

The differences in probability of a citizen compared to a LEO of being in a lethal threat sitaution are without corrected in the above 'rate's.

Matt C
11-09-2008, 9:38 AM
Good post.......an armed populace also keeps an aggressive government at bay as well.

Does it?

Trendkill
11-09-2008, 9:40 AM
Does it?

Yes.....if that populace demonstrates a willingness and determination to "Not" be disarmed.

CalCop
11-09-2008, 9:42 AM
The differences in probability of a citizen compared to a LEO of being in a lethal threat sitaution are without corrected in the above 'rate's.elsolo, I totally agree that an on-duty cop is MUCH more likely to be involved in a lethal encounter...that wasn't the point. The point is the PERCENTAGE of times that an armed citizen's action turns out well. It also shows that without an armed populace, we would have 1500 more bad guys per year still walking around to hurt our children, and for cops to have to deal with. Armed citizens: this cop thanks you for permanently rehabilitating 1500 bad guys each year.

Matt C
11-09-2008, 9:54 AM
Yes.....if that populace demonstrates a willingness and determination to "Not" be disarmed.

Big if. Arguably, our populace has demonstrated the opposite. In fact, that seems to be the rule rather than the exception. Look at the brits and the aussies.

CalCop
11-09-2008, 10:14 AM
IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO USE A GUN IN SELF-DEFENSE?

Is it legal to brandish a firearm in self-defense? YES! Read the following from the CA Penal Code:
Penal Code 417. (a)(2) “Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel is punishable.”
(According to this penal code section, brandishing is ONLY punishable if it is NOT done in self-defense.)

Is it better to fight off an attacker by using physical force, a gun, or not fighting back at all? The statistics say that the best option is to use a gun! Consider the following:
Women offering no resistance to attack are 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than women resisting with a gun. Women who resist their attackers without a gun are 4 times more likely to be seriously injured than women resisting with a gun. Men who do not resist attack, or resist without a gun are 1.4 and 1.5 times more likely, respectively, to be seriously injured than men resisting with a gun.
(Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey (1979-1987), and Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Journal of Criminal Justice, “Self-Defense with Guns,” tables 5 and 6, and Dr. Gary Kleck, “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America” 1991)

But will brandishing my weapon actually escalate the situation by angering the attacker? Statistics do not support this idea. What the statistics DO show is that brandishing effectively stops the attack 90% of the time.
Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 10% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
(Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185)

But wouldn’t allowing a bunch of people to carry concealed weapons be dangerous? Actually, the statistics show exactly the opposite; that the more citizens there are with guns, the safer society is. Consider the following:
National crime rates have been falling at the same time as gun ownership has been rising. Likewise, states experiencing the greatest reductions in crime are also the ones with the fastest growing percentages of gun ownership.
A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed that the murder rate dropped by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%.
In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission...without paying a fee...or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the “Safest State Award.”
(FBI Uniform Crime Reports from 1977 to 1992, and John R. Lott, Jr., “More Guns, Less Crime” 2000, pg. 19, and John R. Lott, Jr. & David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996), and Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press (2004)


So, what does this all mean?
-BRANDISHING A FIREARM IN SELF-DEFENSE IS LEGAL.
-THE MOST SUCCESSFUL WAY TO FEND OFF AN ATTACK IS TO FIGHT BACK WITH A GUN!
-BRANDISHING ALONE STOPS THE ATTACK 90% OF THE TIME.
-THE MORE GUNS THERE ARE, THE SAFER A SOCIETY IS.
-THE MORE CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS THERE ARE, THE SAFER A SOCIETY IS.

Trendkill
11-09-2008, 10:25 AM
Big if. Arguably, our populace has demonstrated the opposite. In fact, that seems to be the rule rather than the exception. Look at the brits and the aussies.

Agreed.....My hope is that the "Will" of the American people hasn't been too diluted.

Matt C
11-09-2008, 10:33 AM
Calcop you are preaching to the choir AND using statistics which is like a boring from of mental masturbation. Everyone here is (hopefully) familiar with John Lott.

Ironchef
11-09-2008, 10:39 AM
I've always thought upon the phrase "An armed society is a polite society" in the light of everyone knowing the other is packing and that you better not get too confrontational with someone. Likewise, a criminal would be stupid to begin their career of robbing and assault in said community.

I never considered actual statistics. Thanks for the posts.

Would be nice to reverse the commonly accepted aspects of 'cops being armed, trained, and the only or best to respond to crime' and the mistrust of lawful citizens with guns as being the nutjobs shooting up school children, killing their families and themselves because things are going bad in their lives.

Gun Culture Restoration FTW.

CalCop
11-09-2008, 10:39 AM
Calcop you are preaching to the choir AND using statistics which is like a boring from of mental masturbation. Everyone here is (hopefully) familiar with John Lott.Sorry for boring you...mental masturbation?...LOL. On another note, I was happy to be referred to this site. I applaud those who are part of California's 2nd amendment movement, and the open carry movement, particularly. I am here as a LEO in support of all citizens' rights to carry the firearms they choose to.

CalCop
11-09-2008, 10:42 AM
I never considered actual statistics. Thanks for the posts.Hey, at least someone likes my statistics.

Matt C
11-09-2008, 10:52 AM
Sorry for boring you...mental masturbation?...LOL. On another note, I was happy to be referred to this site. I applaud those who are part of California's 2nd amendment movement, and the open carry movement, particularly. I am here as a LEO in support of all citizens' rights to carry the firearms they choose to.

Welcome to calguns! Sorry if a came off a bit snide.

Soldier415
11-09-2008, 10:53 AM
Welcome to calguns cal cop :D

halifax
11-09-2008, 11:17 AM
Welcome Calcop.

Does your employer know you're on here spreading facts? :)

CalCop
11-09-2008, 11:40 AM
Does your employer know you're on here spreading facts? :)It's my first amendment right, is it not?

1859sharps
11-09-2008, 5:23 PM
Calcop you are preaching to the choir AND using statistics which is like a boring from of mental masturbation. Everyone here is (hopefully) familiar with John Lott.

you worried that though mental masturbation we will all get hairy brains and go blind :D

seriously though, even the choir needs a refresher from time to time.

Liberty1
11-09-2008, 5:45 PM
The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."
While citizens are credited with killing TWICE as many criminals as street cops, the police kill FIVE times as many innocent persons. (George F. Will, "Are We a Nation of Cowards?," Newsweek, 15 November 1993)

Good points and welcome! Glad to have another 830 PC brother on the board. Of all the shootings my dept has had in the last several years I can't recall that we hit anyone, ever.

Granted the circumstances are very fluid for most officer shootings. And most private person shootings have the benefit of being truly defensive (bad guy coming at them and not fleeing and being chased) and usually on their home turf too.

So I do find it hard to compare the two groups. But the Vermont statistic, with carry totally unregulated, does shoot holes in state licensing and training schemes.

I'm all for Vermont/Alaska carry YESTERDAY for Californians. I also believe the invisible hand of Darwin will play it's role too and regulate behavior through natural risk and consequences.

Matt C
11-09-2008, 5:59 PM
Of all the shootings my dept has had in the last several years I can't recall that we hit anyone, ever.


LOL at that one. I'll give them free marksmanship lessons if they want.

oddball
11-09-2008, 6:04 PM
Thanks for the post Calcop :).

Liberty1
11-09-2008, 6:04 PM
LOL at that one. I'll give them free marksmanship lessons if they want.

Qualifications can provide for a good laugh several times a year. :( Thank God some have promoted and are now further away from the public.:D

lrdchivalry
11-09-2008, 8:31 PM
I am here as a LEO in support of all citizens' rights to carry the firearms they choose to.

I also am an LEO in support of citizens rights to carry firearms.

Trendkill
11-09-2008, 8:45 PM
I also am an LEO in support of citizens rights to carry firearms.

Thank god there are at least a few of you guys still out there.

Riodog
11-09-2008, 8:54 PM
"Armed citizens: this cop thanks you for permanently rehabilitating 1500 bad guys each year."

CalCop, you are my new hero. Welcome aboard, and thanks for the sig material.
Rio