Gunman Opens Fire During "The Dark Knight Rises"

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

No. Bad analogy.

And opinions are opinions. Unlike insurance and fire extinguishers, data does not suggest that it is better to have a gun and not "need it" ("need" is relative) than to need it and not have it.

I my personal experience, on two separate occasions, I needed and had access to a gun which saved either myself or a loved one from harm without a shot being fired. I did need it, I did have it, but that is two days in 30 years of carrying a gun and I carry everyday, all the time. Seldom during the 24 hours day is a firearm out of reach. It is like a watch or cell phone to me. If I walk out the door without any of those things it is immediately noticable and I go back in and get what is missing. Did I need it those other 10,948 days? No, but I didn't know that when I left the house. I can't predict the future. I wish I could, it isn't easy carrying a gun everyday. It takes thought and consideration weighing concealment, comfort, clothing, and caliber. What data suggests that I am not correct in my statement? It would have been horrible to have not had the gun with me on those two occasions. One thing that I also learned was that if you do not see the problem coming it may be too late even if you have a gun. Awareness is key.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Rather, the data finds that owning or having access to a gun increases likelihood of victimization among law abiding civilians and the rate of offending for certain offenses. "Having it and not needing it" does not reduce the likelihood and rate of victimization.

It looks like you are saying that the access to firearms increase the chance that a law abiding individual becomes a victim of a crime? Please explain. It has not had that affect on me.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

If Japan was a culture in which gun access was more highly regarded, and they lacked proper social control mechanisms in a similar fashion as the United States of America, they would most likely have a homicide rate more comparable to the United States of America (we have the highest rate among "industrialized nations").

I don't know what difference it would make if Japan has guns or not, their suicide statistics are a cultural thing, just as violent crime tends to be culturally based around the world. I do take issue with the US having the highest suicide rate of 'industrialized nations'. Japan is industrialized and their rate is higher. In fact I count the US at about 26 on the industrialized scale. Iceland, Ireland, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, China, Hong Kong, Sweden, New Zealand, Austria, France, Belgium, Finland, and more all have higher suicide rates than the US. We aren't even close to the highest.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

I my personal experience, on two separate occasions, I needed and had access to a gun which saved either myself or a loved one from harm without a shot being fired. I did need it, I did have it, but that is two days in 30 years of carrying a gun and I carry everyday, all the time. Seldom during the 24 hours day is a firearm out of reach. It is like a watch or cell phone to me. If I walk out the door without any of those things it is immediately noticable and I go back in and get what is missing. Did I need it those other 10,948 days? No, but I didn't know that when I left the house. I can't predict the future. I wish I could, it isn't easy carrying a gun everyday. It takes thought and consideration weighing concealment, comfort, clothing, and caliber. What data suggests that I am not correct in my statement? It would have been horrible to have not had the gun with me on those two occasions. One thing that I also learned was that if you do not see the problem coming it may be too late even if you have a gun. Awareness is key.

Maybe, maybe not. Either way, this complex topic is not about your hypotheses and your personal experiences. Individual hypotheses and personal experiences are unreliable because people believe that they have reinvented the wheel and that their logic can defy gravity.

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

It looks like you are saying that the access to firearms increase the chance that a law abiding individual becomes a victim of a crime? Please explain. It has not had that affect on me.

This complex topic is not about your personal experiences. And always remember that what makes personal sense to you right now can shift in an instant if things do not go as your gun toting imagination has planned.

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

I don't know what difference it would make if Japan has guns or not, their suicide statistics are a cultural thing, just as violent crime tends to be culturally based around the world.

Lethal violence around the world is correlated with culture and other factors. Culture and other factors includes but is not limited to access to lethal methods and widely held practices regarding the use of lethal methods. Now that we have gotten the cultural, socioeconomic, legal, and geographic backdrop of societies out of the way....

It is interesting that you respond about culture yet you are contending that gun access would make some difference at least in the United States of America for certain forms of lethal violence. Why would gun access make a difference in the United States of America for certain forms of lethal violence (despite cultural trends that have contributed to the high rates of violent crime in the United States of America) but not in other countries and for other forms of lethal violence? And if gun access does not make a difference (no increase or decrease but instead incidents and rates stay the same) in the United States of America partly because of culture (since you bring up culture as though it is a buffer), what is the rationale behind your gun access claims?

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

I do take issue with the US having the highest suicide rate of 'industrialized nations'.

I did not say that. Read my post again.