And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[Skipjack]

For us in the UK it is very strange to hear that people in a democracy feel the need to have weapons to stage a coup just in case the government turns bad.

I think that it is because in the US they more or less have the choice between two parties and they are more or less the same (as we could see with certain decisions) where it really counts. The rest is just smoke and mirrors to make people believe they really have a choice.

[williatw]

It is well established that those who carry knives to school are more at risk of serious harm due to knives than those who do not. This is causative: carrying a knife means that quarrels with others who carry kives become more serious and lead to injury. You may wish to argue that the children who do not carry knives are slaves of those who do. It is not true, generally the more confident children do not carry knives.
It is an ironic fact that the main reason given for children carrying knives to school is fear of knives, in spite of strong evidence that carrying a knife makes a knife attack much more likely.

Correlation is not causation. I suppose it would be pointless to point out...a person who feels at greater risk of physical violence would be more likely to arm themselves with a gun or knife. A frightened kid going to a dangerous inner city school who runs afoul of a gang banger might arm himself with knife, and I am sure he is more likely to be a victim of violence than a disarmed someone going to a nice safe upper middle class suburban school. If a frightened ex-wife arms herself because she fears her abusive ex-spouse will make good on his threats to kill her, I am sure she is at greater risk of harm than the average woman who is disarmed because she feels no particular danger A person in a dangerous line of work legal(cop) or illegal(gangbanger/drug dealer) arms themselve because they quite correctly realize they are at greater risk of danger than the largely disarmed general public. If you truly believe that it is the act of arming yourself that puts you in danger, tell you what: maybe we should disarm the police too. Sure that will make the life of a cop(or soldier) safer if only we took away those pesky guns.

[KitemanSA]

The Fear/Flight response is part of human firmware. It is rare for someone to initiate violence against someone who they are certain will hurt them badly.

This is one reason I don't particularly like "concealed carry" laws. Seems to me it voids the deterance but not the potential consequences for failing to be detered.

Yes, the general uncertainty is a positive for deterance, but I'm not sure it balances.

Just saying.

[choff]

I've always objected to guns and knives being used for protection, in my view, there should be a amnesty period wherein the populace must hand in all privately owned firearms.

As a substitute, it should be mandatory that at all times all citizens 18 and up be armed with military grade flamethrowers. This would prove a vastly superior deterrant to crime and lawlessness. The gunfight at the Okay corral would have been a very different affair, likewise, the battle in Seattle with both the police and protesters so armed. We limit ourselves by thinking traditional gunpowder technology is the only way forward.

[tomclarke]

I've always objected to guns and knives being used for protection, in my view, there should be a amnesty period wherein the populace must hand in all privately owned firearms.

As a substitute, it should be mandatory that at all times all citizens 18 and up be armed with military grade flamethrowers. This would prove a vastly superior deterrant to crime and lawlessness. The gunfight at the Okay corral would have been a very different affair, likewise, the battle in Seattle with both the police and protesters so armed. We limit ourselves by thinking traditional gunpowder technology is the only way forward.

We should think bigger. How about a 10Mt nuke underneath each city controlled by all the adult population in the city, but no-one else. No-one could oppress anyone else, for fear of the consequences. The logical extension of MAD.

Hmmm... On reflection maybe there would be issues.

[vernes]

I've always objected to guns and knives being used for protection

When people say "protection", I think "armor", not "bullet".

I can has armor?

[tomclarke]

It is well established that those who carry knives to school are more at risk of serious harm due to knives than those who do not. This is causative: carrying a knife means that quarrels with others who carry kives become more serious and lead to injury. You may wish to argue that the children who do not carry knives are slaves of those who do. It is not true, generally the more confident children do not carry knives.
It is an ironic fact that the main reason given for children carrying knives to school is fear of knives, in spite of strong evidence that carrying a knife makes a knife attack much more likely.

Correlation is not causation. I suppose it would be pointless to point out...a person who feels at greater risk of physical violence would be more likely to arm themselves with a gun or knife. A frightened kid going to a dangerous inner city school who runs afoul of a gang banger might arm himself with knife, and I am sure he is more likely to be a victim of violence than a disarmed someone going to a nice safe upper middle class suburban school. If a frightened ex-wife arms herself because she fears her abusive ex-spouse will make good on his threats to kill her, I am sure she is at greater risk of harm than the average woman who is disarmed because she feels no particular danger A person in a dangerous line of work legal(cop) or illegal(gangbanger/drug dealer) arms themselve because they quite correctly realize they are at greater risk of danger than the largely disarmed general public. If you truly believe that it is the act of arming yourself that puts you in danger, tell you what: maybe we should disarm the police too. Sure that will make the life of a cop(or soldier) safer if only we took away those pesky guns.

The police have been (nearly always) disarmed for a very long time in this country. And you are right, it makes them much safer. Check the statistics.

[tomclarke]

http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/pol ... d-weaponry

The police have been increasingly armed to respond to mounting levels of violent crime and the on-going terrorist threat.

Throughout the 1990s, the reform of police equipment was objected to in some quarters as a form of militarisation and Americanisation of an organisation that historically had had no need for lethal weapons. Opponents also argued that arming the police more heavily would harm carefully built community relations.

On the other hand, the 1980s and 1990s saw rising violent crime, and the increased use of firearms by criminals. The 1993 killing of PC Pat Dunne in Clapham, south London, was a particular watershed.

Nonetheless, the public and the police themselves remain largely opposed to the routine carrying of firearms. A 2003 Police Federation survey found 80 per cent of officers opposed, a similar figure to that found in the Federation's previous survey in 1995. However, 80 per cent of officers wanted more officers trained to use firearms.

Any decision by the police to use firearms raises questions of propriety and proportionality. Some incidents have been particularly controversial, such as the shooting of a man in Brixton in 2001. After firing six rounds into the target, the police discovered that the lethal firearm they thought the man was carrying was actually a cigarette lighter shaped as a gun. This incident followed the shooting of Harry Stanley, shot dead by armed police in East London in 1999 as he was returning home from the pub carrying a coffee table leg in a plastic bag.

And in July 2005, Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead at Stockwell Tube Station by police who had mistaken him for a terrorist. The Crown Prosecution Service decided there was insufficient evidence to bring prosecutions against any individual officers, but implemented proceedings in 2007 against the office of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for failing to protect the health, safety and welfare of Mr de Menezes. The Metropolitan Police Service was fined £175,000 with £385,000 costs.

These incidents have undermined public confidence in the ability of the police to assess what is a proportionate response to individual threats, and have fuelled calls for the police to use only non-lethal weapons in all operations.

A 1998 Police Complaints Authority report warned that US-style baton training regimes and a lack of refresher training was resulting in an excessive number of injuries, and a 2000 report expressed concern about a lack of research into the health effects of CS gas, following a number of deaths related to incidents involving its use.

Consequently the Home Office regularly carries out assessments on - and introduces when possible - equipment that is less lethal than conventional firearms.

In 2004 Taser stun guns were made available to authorised firearms officers in England and Wales and a twelve month trial began in September 2007 in ten police forces to decide whether Tasers should be issued to specially trained police units who are not firearms officers. Following the success of the trial it was decided to allow Chief Officers of all forces in England and Wales to extend Taser use to specially trained units with effect from 1st December 2008.

In June 2005 the attenuating energy projectile (AEP) was introduced into operational service as the successor to the L21A1 baton round. It is said to be significantly safer, whilst retaining overall effectiveness.

And research continues into the development of the discriminating irritant projectile (DIP). The objective for the DIP is to deliver a discrete, localized cloud or burst of sensory irritant in the immediate proximity of an individual aggressor. It is not intended to cause serious or life threatening injury.

In the Summer of 2010 the Government carried out a review into the on-going programme of work to improve the police and military response to a possible terrorist attack, which resulted in the programme being "significantly expanded and accelerated":

All firearms officers in England and Wales now have access to higher calibre weaponry, enhanced tactics and training.
There is permanent additional police firearms capacity in major cities and improved procedures to provide rapid back-up from neighbouring areas.
Specialist Olympic-related training for police firearms officers has been brought forward.
Unarmed police officers in England and Wales are now trained to identify and respond to the initial stages of a possible terrorist attack involving firearms.
This work is now being taken forward by the Cabinet Office through the National Resilience Programme.

During the riots in August 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron stated that police would be allowed to use rubber bullets – known as baton rounds - and also that the water cannon stationed in Northern Ireland was available to be deployed within 24 hours notice. However, both tactics were widely opposed, the former because rubber bullets have been reported to have killed several demonstrators in the past, and the latter because it would be not be effective in that particular situation.


Statistics

The latest figures on police use of firearms in England and Wales 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 show that:

The number of police operations in which firearms were authorised was 18,556—a decrease of 1,395 (7%) on the previous year.
The number of authorised firearms officers (AFO’s) was 6,979—an increase of 111 (1.6%) officers overall on the previous year.
The number of operations involving armed response vehicles was 14,089—a decrease of 2,475 (15%) on the previous year.
The police discharged a conventional firearm in six incidents (up from five incidents in 2008-09).

Source: Home Office minister Nick Herbert – June 2011

[tomclarke]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html

Not conclusive, but controlled for obvious variables, ethnicity, socio-economic background.

Here is the predicatable response:
American Journal of Public Health
June 2010, Vol. 100, No. 6 : pp. 967-968

FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT

The study by Branas et al.1 contains errors in
design and execution that make it difficult to
determine the meaning of their findings.
Their study assessed risk for being assaulted
and then shot, a compound outcome event
whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable
given the first (being assaulted). Persons
who were assaulted but not shot are not
studied. We do not know whether any association
between firearm possession and their
outcome measure applies to assault, to being
shot given an assault, or both.
The study does not control for time and
place. The authors invoke stray bullets to argue
that residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
June 2010, Vol 100, No. 6 | American Journal of Public Health Letters | 967
LETTERS
are at equal risk for being shot, no matter
where they are and what they are doing. This
ignores the fact that violence is not randomly
distributed and is unfair to Philadelphia.
The control group is inappropriate, as was
probably guaranteed by its selection from all
adult Philadelphians. There were large differences
between case participants and control
participants in prior criminal history and alcohol
or drug involvement, all of which influence
gun-carrying behavior and risk for violent
victimization. Personal and geographic differences
compounded one another: 83% of
shootings occurred outdoors, yet while those
shootings were occuring, 91% of control participants,
arguably at lower risk already for
personal reasons, were indoors. A list could
easily be made of likely differences between
case participants and control participants that
were not addressed.
The problems with geography and control
selection are not insurmountable. A classic
study of alcohol use among adult pedestrian
fatalities in Manhattan enrolled the first 4
pedestrians reaching the site where the fatality
occurred ‘‘on a subsequent date, but on the
same day of the week and at a time as close
as possible to the exact time of day of the
accident [italics retained]’’2(p657) as control
participants for each case participant.
Branas et al. have omitted critical detail from
their results. Assaults can be independent of
any prior relationship between perpetrator and
victim—a would-be robber spies a prospect
emerging from a bar—or can occur in the
context of, and perhaps because of, some prior
relationship. The association between gun
possession and risk of being assaulted or shot
may differ greatly between these 2 types of
encounters. Attacks by strangers are common,
accounting for 50.5% of robberies and aggravated
assaults reported by males and 34.7%
of those reported by females.3 The authors
should present separate results for assaults
independent of and related to prior personal
involvement between victims and shooters.

And here is Brana et al's reply:

American Journal of Public Health
June 2010, Vol. 100, No. 6 : pp. 968-969

BRANAS ET AL. RESPOND
Charles C. Branas, Therese S. Richmond, Dennis P. Culhane, Thomas R. Ten Have, and Douglas J. Wiebe
(doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.188045)

We are grateful for Wintemute’s comment and
the opportunity to address the areas of our
research about which he was unclear. We
designed and executed a case–control study
that was different than the study suggested by
Wintemute, but that does not mean it was
erroneous.1 Our study did indeed control for
both time and place and included an appropriate,
population-based control group that
improved on the shortcomings of prior, related
case–control work.1,2
Assaults not involving gun injury have the
potential to go undetected by police and hospitals.
Our case detection system likely missed
few, if any, shootings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
over the study period. Wintemute is
correct that the association we observed applies
to either an increased risk of assault or an
increased risk of being shot given an assault.
This raises an important, but different, etiologic
question to subsequently pursue, given the
overall association between gun possession and
gun assault that we observed.

Because appropriate assumptions regarding
the etiologically relevant timing between
short-lived exposures and acute outcomes are
important to avoid biases,3 we controlled for
time through a common risk set sampling
approach.1,3–10 We also controlled for place
with 7 confounders including being indoors
versus outdoors and numerous neighborhood
characteristics. We did not ‘‘unfairly’’
assume that violence was randomly
distributed across Philadelphia, but rather
that Philadelphians were not somehow immune
from being shot based on their location
and that their risk changed depending on
factors for which we statistically controlled.
Stray bullets were just 1 argument in support
of this; we also argued that guns were mobile
and could be carried into practically any
neighborhood street, home, or workplace
environment in Philadelphia. Ours was not
a study of pedestrian injury where being
indoors would have essentially eliminated the
risk of being hit by a car.3
Restricting our analyses to cases in which
victim and shooter were thought to have some
prior involvement produced an odds ratio (OR)
of 9.30 (P=.03) under the same full model
specification. Cases in which victim and shooter
were thought to have no prior involvement
produced an OR of 4.28 (P=.40). This remains
consistent with our conservative interpretation
that, on average, urban gun possession was
not protective.
Built on prior work, our study has contributed
to understanding the link between gun
possession and gun assault. Future studies
employing similar, and alternative, designs are
certainly in order to address new research
questions which follow from our work.

[tomclarke]

And here is a (one-sided) list of points:
http://www.east.org/content/documents/gun__violence.pdf

Note that the statistics etc are referenced. The above quotes relating to the Branas study should answer most of the questions about whether the most recent research (Branas) establishes causal links. Note that Branas is very careful in not over-egging his results.

Frankly, any contention that gun ownership increases personal safety in general looks very flaky, with strong evidence that it does the reverse (for rather obvious reasons).

It is more difficult to argue against gun ownership reducing the risks of oppression. How do you determine oppression? Maybe families with guns in the house are less likely to have cases of domestic assult etc? That would be possible to research, and control. I don't however have any references for it at the moment.

For those interested, here is an in-depth description of the Branas study methodology. I like this study, it is sophisticated and careful.

Novel Linkage of Individual and Geographic Data to Study Firearm Violence
Charles C. Branas, Dennis Culhane, Therese S. Richmond, and Douglas J. Wiebe
University of Pennsylvania
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Charles C. Branas, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, 936 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021; Email: cbranas@upenn.edu.
Abstract
Firearm violence is the end result of a causative web of individual-level and geographic risk factors. Few, if any, studies of firearm violence have been able to simultaneously determine the population-based relative risks that individuals experience as a result of what they were doing at a specific point in time and where they were, geographically, at a specific point in time. This paper describes the linkage of individual and geographic data that was undertaken as part of a population-based case-control study of firearm violence in Philadelphia. New methods and applications of these linked data relevant to researchers and policymakers interested in firearm violence are also discussed.

[tomclarke]

It is worth pointing out that conclusions about advisability of guns must be contingent upon social factors.

if living in wild west with hostile and aggressive native indian neighbours, probably firearms are necessary.

if living in an inner city ghetto controlled by drug barons it is unclear: unaligned people with guns might be seen as a greater threat and so more likley to be eliminated, or guns could prove a deterrant. i would expect the former effect to predominate, but I'm not an expect so who knows.

if living in a society where intra-family violence is more common than extra-family violence, true for many populations once you exclude young males, guns clearly increase risks. And of course for young male groups (much more likely to indulge in many types of risky behaviour), risks increase with the lethality of the weapons habitually used.

[KitemanSA]

If the risk of death or serious injury in a geographic area with strict gun control has been 10X for many years and then the strict gun control laws are repealed and the risk in the area drops to 1X for those who do NOT carry and 2X for those who do, does this prove that carrying is more dangerous that not being allowed to carry?

[tomclarke]

If the risk of death or serious injury in a geographic area with strict gun control has been 10X for many years and then the strict gun control laws are repealed and the risk in the area drops to 1X for those who do NOT carry and 2X for those who do, does this prove that carrying is more dangerous that not being allowed to carry?

For society yes, individually no. So it is relevant to whether gun control laws increase safety.

But the Branas study is very carefully controlled and quite powerful evidence for even individual lack of safety under weak gun control laws.

[KitemanSA]

If the risk of death or serious injury in a geographic area with strict gun control has been 10X for many years and then the strict gun control laws are repealed and the risk in the area drops to 1X for those who do NOT carry and 2X for those who do, does this prove that carrying is more dangerous that not being allowed to carry?

For society yes, individually no. So it is relevant to whether gun control laws increase safety.

But the Branas study is very carefully controlled and quite powerful evidence for even individual lack of safety under weak gun control laws.

Relative to other people in the same area, but still much SAFER than they would have been with STRONG gun control laws.

[tomclarke]

If the risk of death or serious injury in a geographic area with strict gun control has been 10X for many years and then the strict gun control laws are repealed and the risk in the area drops to 1X for those who do NOT carry and 2X for those who do, does this prove that carrying is more dangerous that not being allowed to carry?

For society yes, individually no. So it is relevant to whether gun control laws increase safety.

But the Branas study is very carefully controlled and quite powerful evidence for even individual lack of safety under weak gun control laws.

Relative to other people in the same area, but still much SAFER than they would have been with STRONG gun control laws.

Well the Branas study shows pretty conclusively that your premise (individually 2X safer with gun) is wrong. It is worth reading, tho probably behind a pay wall, and the sumaries do not of course do it justice.