Blogalwarning

The truth that was swept under the rug

Excise Tax On Gun Owners?

I would like to thank E Schwartz for this idea, in his/her response to my pervious entry 30,000 Gun Deaths per year. The idea in the comment is that with 10,000 gun homicides/year at cost of $1,000,000 per death, it makes sense to impose an excise tax of $10B/year on guy owners.
Well. I LIKE THE IDEA. I like it so much that I think its application should be significantly expanded.

Expansion#1: A 1993 nationwide concluded that  162,000 incidents in which a person would have been killed if not used a gun for self defense occured per year.” This figure excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”[12].”  Now, I will ignore the US population growth since 1993. I will also take a more conservative figure since these are reports of “would be” situations that are not 100% factual. Let’s assume “only” 100,000 situation in which a homicide was avoided by a gun owner. By the same logic presented by the commenter E Schwartz, Gun owners should get tax credit at the rate of $1,000,000 for every death avoided. Deduct the 10,000 deaths from the 100,000 deaths avoided and we are left with 90,000 deaths avoided. Tax credit of $90B for gun owners! Now, how are we going to spread this tax credit around? The more guns the person owns the higher the tax credit? Or the highest the caliber of gun the person owns the highest the credit? Maybe this discussion is a little bit premature? However what’s clear is that properly applying the idea from E Schwartz could make gun ownership an unexpected tax shelter for the non-rich!

Expansion#2: I will give E Schwartz the benefit of the doubt. I will assume he/she is an individual who is not gun control biased. Rather an individual who is honestly worried about the well being of Americans. The question now is why focus on deaths that are a fraction of the overall deaths from all reasons? Car accidents deaths greatly surpass those from guns. Should we apply the same excise tax on car owners? Well, with cars also saving lives (ambulances and such) this may be a wash. (I don’t know) But how about imposing such tax on alcohol sales that will cover cost of deaths from DUI accidents “only”?

Reminder: The constitution says “Government shall not infringe” about guns. It does not say that about cars ownership. Nor about alcohol drinking…

January 16, 2011 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Privacy of Conceal Carry Permit Holders in Oregon

By Bigblock57, Blogarwarning blog.

The question if identities of Conceal Carry Permit holders should be a public record or kept from public eyes’ is now being dealt with by the Oregon legislature. Here is my response to an article on the subject in the Portland edition of Examiner.com.  (Edited since initial posting).

To begin with, all licensing of firearms or the permission to carry them in a certain way, and the background check now required to purchase them are infringements on the basic constitutional right to bear arms. It is all part of the grand plan of left-leaning organizations and politicians to take guns away from citizens. First, a gun owner shows up on a state list of people who purchased a gun. Then the fact that a person has a permit to carry concealed weapon is a public record which gives anti-gun activists access to his/her name and address. At the right time, these activists will begin to personally harass permit holders (which is exactly why their identity needs to be kept from the public). In the end owning a gun will involve so much hassle and controversy that many people will want to have nothing to do with that. In case of a decision to completely ban guns, the list compiled by the state from background checks will automatically become a confiscation list. Look at this childish excuse why identity of permit holders needs to be public: “people deserve the right to know who is packing a gun”; Really? what makes them deserve that? Is there a hint here that if someone “packs” a gun he/she is someone bad? dangerous? The funny thing is that the guns in the hands of really dangerous people (i.e criminals) are not on any state list, and are being carried concealed with no permit. How come anti-gunners are never concerned about the inability of law enforcement to deal with those? Instead they are obsessed with guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens who (unnecessarily and against their constitutional rights) went through a background check before they could purchase their weapon, or granted concealed carry permit. Rights aside, society should have the proper ratio bewteen guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and guns in the hands of criminals. This necessity is confirmed when comparing crime trends and rates in states and cities that make it easy to own and carry guns vs. states and cities that make it hard. Anything that makes it harder or less convenient to own and carry a weapon, is unconstitutional and bad for public safety. Privacy of Conceal Carry Permit holders is important for both.

March 13, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Dreaded 43:1 Ratio

By Bigblock57, Blogalwarning blog.

One of the most beloved slogans of the gun control crowd is that for every justifiable gun-related death (i.e self-defense) there are otherwise 43 gun related deaths. The reader is supposed to conclude here that “it is not worth it” to have guns among the general population. Second amendment and gun rights aside, what is that 43:1 ratio?

This ratio is a result of the famous research of doctors Kellerman and Reay that was published in 1986. It studied reasons for gun related deaths in King County, Washington (population 1,270,000), from 1978 through 1983. The table below is a summary of their results:

Unintentional deaths

12

Criminal homicide

41

Suicide

333

Unknown

3

 

 

Total

389

Self-protection homicide

9

 

 389:9 = 43:1

 

 

There are two phases for evaluating this study.

Phase 1: What’s in it.

The most obvious observation is that 333 of the 389 gun related deaths are suicides. Including those in the research must be under the assumption that with no access to guns those 333 suicides would have been alive today. Which is utter nonsense. A person who is determined to commit a suicide will do that, with or without a gun. So now we are left with 56:9, which is more like 6:1. We can leave it at that, or go further to say that out of the 56, 42 are criminal homicides. Since we know that gun laws only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, there is no point in discussing these 41 in the context of gun control. Criminals will keep having guns and will keep using them to kill people. So what are we left with? 15:9? Which is 1.5:1. The dreaded 43:1 have shrunk quite a bit hasn’t it?

Phase 2: what is not in it.

The 9 justified self defense deaths, are just the tip of the iceberg of self defense by a gun. The body of the iceberg, all underwater is the many times that guns were used in self defense, which either a stopped a crime without shooting, or in which the attacker was shot but not killed. The numbers are astounding. Since no such research was conducted for the same population during the same period of time, there is no way to establish an alternative ratio for the research of Kellerman and Reay. However, there is no need. The numbers speak volumes.

In their study, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,” 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995) Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz concluded that guns are used to defend law abiding citizens against crimes 2.5 million times each year. Out of them As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

Anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America” — a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig

The good news about using guns for self-defense is that in only less than 3% of the cases that a gun was used in self defense, a shooting actually occurred. In most cases guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps only referred to (“I’ve got a gun”) or displayed, and this is sufficient to stop a crime.

In summary, not only the dreaded ratio of 43:1 is nonsense and baseless, it is also completely not important as it looks at those cases that are less than 3% of the self-defense-by-guns story.

March 9, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The ratio of 43 to 1

 

The Fallacy of “43 to 1”
The all-time favorite statistic of the gun-prohibition lobby.
   

By Dave Kopel, of the Independence Institute
January 31, 2001 11:10 a.m.

 
erhaps the most enduring factoid of the gun prohibition movement is that a person with a gun in the home is 43 times as likely to shoot someone in the family    

 Printer-Friendly

as to shoot a criminal. This “43 times” figure is the all-time favorite factoid of the gun-prohibition lobby. It’s not really true, but it does tell us a lot about the gun-prohibition mindset. 

The source of the 43-to-1 ratio is a study of firearm deaths in Seattle homes, conducted by doctors Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay (“Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine, 1986). Kellerman and Reay totaled up the numbers of firearms murders, suicides, and fatal accidents, and then compared that number to the number of firearm deaths that were classified as justifiable homicides. The ratio of murder, suicide, and accidental death to the justifiable homicides was 43 to 1.

This is what the anti-gun lobbies call “scientific” proof that people (except government employees and security guards) should not have guns.

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.

Counting a gun suicide as part of the increased risk of having a gun in the home is appropriate only if the presence of a gun facilitates a “successful” suicide that would not otherwise occur. But most research suggests that guns do not cause suicide.

In the book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck analyzed suicide data for every America city with a population more than 100,000, and found no evidence that any form of gun control (including handgun prohibition) had an effect on the total suicide rate. Gun control did sometimes reduce gun suicide, but not overall suicide.

Notably, Japan, which prohibits handguns and rifles entirely, and regulates long guns very severely, has a 

Japan, which prohibits handguns, has a suicide rate of more than twice the U.S. level.

suicide rate of more than twice the U.S. level. Many of the northern and central European nations also have very high suicide rates to accompany their strict gun laws. (Of course, if you have any suspicion that anybody in your home might be suicidal, it would hardly be a mistake for you to ensure that they do not have ready access to guns, tranquilizers, or other potentially lethal items.) 

Putting aside the suicides, the Kellermann/Reay figures show 2.39 accidental or criminal deaths by firearm (in the home) for every justifiable fatal shooting. Now, 2 to 1 is a lot less dramatic than 43 to 1, but we still have more unjustifiable gun deaths than justifiable gun deaths in the home.

But just as many other people who would commit suicide with a gun would use an equally lethal method if guns are unavailable. Many of the people who kill themselves in firearm accidents may also be bent on destruction, regardless of the means. One study of gun-accident victims found that they were “disproportionately involved in other accidents, violent crime, and heavy drinking.” (Philip Cook, “The Role of Firearms in Violent Crime: An Interpretative Review of the Literature,” in Criminal Violence).

Or, as another researcher put it, “The psychological profile of the accident-prone suggests the same kind of aggressiveness shown by most murderers.” (Roger Lane, “On the Social Meaning of Homicide Trends in America,” in Violence in America, Vol. I, 1989.)

Without guns, many accident victims might well find some other way to kill themselves “accidentally,” such as by reckless driving.

So by counting accidents and suicides, the 43-to-1 factoid ends up including a very large number of fatalities that would have occurred anyway, even if there were no gun in the home.

Now, how about the self-defense homicides, which Kellermann and Reay found to be so rare? Well, the reason that they found such a low total was that they excluded many cases of lawful self-defense. Kellermann and Reay did not count in the self-defense total of any of the cases where a person who had shot an attacker was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, or cases where a conviction was reversed on appeal on grounds related to self-defense. Yet 40% of women who appeal their murder convictions have the conviction reversed on appeal. (“Fighting Back,” Time, Jan. 18, 1993.)

In short, the 43-to-1 figure is based on the totally implausible assumption that all the people who die in gun suicides and gun accidents would not kill themselves with something else if guns were unavailable. The figure is also based on a drastic undercount of the number of lawful self-defense homicides.

Moreover, counting dead criminals to measure the efficacy of civilian handgun ownership is ridiculous. Do we measure the efficacy of our police forces by counting how many people the police lawfully kill every year? The benefits of the police — and of home handgun ownership — are not measured by the number of dead criminals, but by the number of crimes prevented. Simplistic counting of corpses tells us nothing about the real safety value of gun ownership for protection.

Finally, Kellermann and Reay ignore the most important factor of all in assessing the risks of gun ownership: whose home the gun is in. You don’t need a medical researcher to tell you that guns can be misused when in the homes of persons with mental illness related to violence; or in the homes of persons prone to self-destructive, reckless behavior; or in the homes of persons with arrest records for violent felonies; or in the homes where the police have had to intervene to deal with domestic violence. These are the homes from which the vast majority of handgun fatalities come.

To study these high-risk homes and to jump to conclusions about the general population is illogical. We know that possession of an automobile by an alcoholic who is prone to drunk driving may pose a serious health risk. But proof that automobiles in the hands of alcoholics may be risky doesn’t prove that autos in the hands of non-alcoholics are risky. Yet the famous Seattle 43-to-1 figure is based on lumping the homes of violent felons, alcoholics, and other disturbed people in with the population as a whole. The study fails to distinguish between the large risks of guns in the hands of dangerous people, with the tiny risks (and large benefits) of guns in the hands of ordinary people.

But then again, treating ordinary people according to standards that would be appropriate for criminals and the violently insane is what the gun control movement is all about.

 Here is the table that generated the famous ratio of 43:1 
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 12
Criminal homicide 41
Suicide 333
Unknown 3
   
Total 389
Self-protection homicide 9
 389:9 = 43:1

March 7, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , | Leave a comment

STRAIGHT FROM CPAC: The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre Rocks the House!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTdO-w3xnpw&NR=1

Need to copy and paste to your browser. Link does not work directly.

March 4, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

IOWA National Guard Drill…

From the Daily Times Herald of Caroll Iowa.  Is this what  James Madison’s friend Tench Coxe meant when he wrote “As civil rulers… may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces… might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens” as a reason for the people to bear arms? 

Why exactly does the National Guard of Iowa need to train in searching for firearms in homes of American citizens on U.S soil?

Saturday, February 28, 2009

2/17/2009  Email this article • Print this article 

The primary phase will be done Saturday, April 4, when convoys will be deployed from Carroll to Arcadia. Pictures of a suspected arms dealer will be shown in Arcadia, and soldiers will go door to door asking if residents have seen the suspect. … The drill will culminate in the apprehension of the suspected arms dealer.   

 


Guardsmen to conduct urban training at Arcadia in April 

By BUTCH HEMAN
Staff Writer

 

The Carroll National Guard unit will train on urban military operations by holding a four-day exercise at Arcadia.

The purpose of the April 2-5 drill will be to gather intelligence, then search for and apprehend a suspected weapons dealer, according to Sgt. Mike Kots, readiness NCO for Alpha Company.

Citizens, law enforcement, media and other supporters will participate.

Troops will spend Thursday, April 2, staging at a forward operations base at Carroll. The next day company leaders will conduct reconnaissance and begin patrolling the streets of Arcadia to identify possible locations of the weapons dealer.

The primary phase will be done Saturday, April 4, when convoys will be deployed from Carroll to Arcadia. Pictures of the arms dealer will be shown in Arcadia, and soldiers will go door to door asking if residents have seen the suspect.

Soldiers will knock only at households that have agreed to participate in the drill, Kots noted.

“Once credible intelligence has been gathered,” said Kots, “portions of the town will be road-blocked and more in-depth searches of homes and vehicles will be conducted in accordance with the residents’ wishes.

“One of the techniques we use in today’s political environment is cordon and knock,” Kots explained. “We ask for the head of the household, get permission to search, then have them open doors and cupboards. The homeowner maintains control. We peer over their shoulder, and the soldier uses the homeowner’s body language and position to protect him.”

During this phase of the operation, troops will interact with residents and media while implementing crowd-control measures and possibly treating and evacuating injured persons.

The unit will use a Blackhawk helicopter for overhead command and control, and to simulate medevacs.

The drill will culminate in the apprehension of the suspected arms dealer.

Alpha Company will conduct a review of the drill on Sunday, April 5.

A meeting to give residents more information and accept volunteers will be held 7 p.m. Monday, March 2, in the Arcadia American Legion hall.

Kots said the exercise will replace Alpha Company’s weekend drill for April.

“We have a lot of extended drills this coming year,” he added.

In addition to surveillance, searching and apprehension, the exercise will also give the troops valuable experience in stability, support, patrol, traffic control, vehicle searches and other skills needed for deployment in an urban environment.

“This exercise will improve the real-life operational skills of the unit,” said Kots. “And it will hopefully improve the public’s understanding of military operations.”

The pre-drill work with residents is as important at the drill itself.

“It will be important for us to gain the trust and confidence of the residents of Arcadia,” said Kots. “We will need to identify individuals that are willing to assist us in training by allowing us to search their homes and vehicles and to participate in role-playing.

“We really want to get as much information out there as possible, because this operation could be pretty intrusive to the people of Arcadia.”

February 28, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why bear arms? and where does it go?

(Excerps from “Shooting Blind”,  by William R. Tonso | November 1995 Print Edition, Reasononline.

…But the most important reason American civilians should have access to these guns has nothing to do with recreation or even with defense against criminals. It has to do with the main purpose of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, an aspect of the “assault weapon” story that the national press has almost completely ignored. The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

…the meaning of the Second Amendment is very clear to the vast majority of scholars who have examined the paper trail left by the Founders. James Madison’s friend Tench Coxe expressed their concerns succinctly in 1789: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

The Founders also made it clear that the “militia” consisted of the whole armed people. The Federalist Papers and other writings indicate that they feared large professional military forces and select militias (like the National Guard). Citizens and their privately owned guns were part of the system of checks and balances that the Founders felt was necessary to keep government from drift ing into tyranny. Authors of the 50 law review articles that support this interpretation include such prominent, liberal, non gun-owning scholars as Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, Akhil R. Amar of Yale, and William Van Alstyne of Duke.

According to Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code, the National Guard is still only the orga nized part of a militia that consists of practically all able-bodied males and some females between the ages of 17 and 45 who are citizens of the United States or have declared an intention to become citizens. The only 20th-century Supreme Court ruling touching on the Second Amendment ( U.S. v. Miller, 1939) acknowledged that militiamen called to service “were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time “ [emphasis added].

…American citizens have traditionally had access to rifles and pistols with more power and magazine capacity than those issued to common soldiers. In keeping with the traditional American view of the militia, the Army’s Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship has long sold sur plus pistols, rifles, and carbines, including semi-automatics, to the public at bargain-basement prices. No one claims that Americans have caused problems with these surplus military small arms. Yet since common soldiers started carrying automatic or burst-fire rifles, American citizens have no longer had access to up-to-date military small arms, and federal law now even restricts their access to semi-automatic variations of these guns. So not only do we have the large professional military and select militia that the Founders feared, but there is a movement afoot to get militarily effective small arms out of civilian hands.

February 28, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why carry a gun?

Recently, I was reading a short article on why that author carried a gun.  In my opinion it was thought provoking, so I thought I would post it here for your comments.  It is written by a gentleman named Marko Kloos and was originally entitled “Why the Gun IS Civilization”.

“Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another:  reason and force.  If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument or compelling me to do your bidding under threat of force.  Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.  Reason or Force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.  Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as that might sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.  You have to use reason to try and persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.  The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.  The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.  These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job.  That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed, either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of the mugger’s potential marks are armed.  People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society.  A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

There’s an argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would “only” result in injury.  This argument is fallacious in several ways.  Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.  People who think that fists, bats, sticks and stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip, at worst.  The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker.  If both are armed, the field is level.  The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of a octogenarian  as it is in the hands of a weight-lifter.  It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it weren’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone.  The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded.  I don’t carry it because I am afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.  It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only those who would do so by force.  It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.”

February 28, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment