The author, a doctor, makes the case that in our climate of daily random violence and desperate drug addicts, a doctor would be wise to have a gun in his office. He brings up the example of emergency rooms having metal detectors and bullet proof glass because shootings have actually occurred there. So he asks:
Would you not see a doctor if you knew he had a gun in his office?
To those who would fear ....... I ask you this, why would a doctor having a gun bother you? Do you live in fear that your physician is trying to kill you? I mean if he really wanted you dead, he could stab you with a scalpel or inject you with something lethal. He could do so with the tools of his profession in a much more efficient manner than with a gun.
I guess you weren't in Elko, NV a few months back when a stalker husband came into a club and killed two people, wounded four and stopped to reload. His rampage ended when another patron killed him. You weren't in that church in Colorado Springs when a deranged man bolted exits shut and started walking down corridors shooting at people. He was killed by a lady with a gun. You weren't riding in the car with my sister (who has MS and can't walk) when she was cut off in traffic and a deranged man began trying to bash in her driver's side window. (He wasn't nearly as enraged after looking down the barrel of her 45 cal. Smith and Wesson. In fact he reached way down deep into his inner self and found a completely new and novel sense of calm.).
Yes, you've compiled here a small handfull of anecdotal information. This can and does go both ways, in favor of both sides.
THen you have to read the book(s) by John R. Lott, JR (or any of his multiple interviews in mainstream media) in which he has systematically collected the very data you seek.
The same guy who's work has been brought into serious question by many researchers? The way he gathered much of his data appears to be sloppy at best.
Have a gander at this published review of some of Lott's findings
It's long, but perhaps you'll find some interesting information regarding his data obtaining methods, plus some insight into why anecdotal evidence is more or less useless. It also discusses how while there are obviously many cases in which handgun ownership has prevented a crime, it has also caused many more, or exacerbated existing situations.
These things are admittedly hard to quantify, and at this point I am not satisfied that Lott has done so sufficiently. There are more examples of published research that agree with this opinon, should you not be convinced.
States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes.
I'm sure you understand that correlation does not equate to causation? What other factors have been controlled for and examined/tested when letting loose that nice statistic?
Go to Amazon. The information you say you would "love to believe" is available. If you are objective... you've sort of committed yourself to become more informed.
I spend a great deal of time with this issue as it is. I would 'love to believe' that the world you describe exists, because it is always entertaining and fascinating when I hear people describe it. It sounds like it came straight from Hollywood! I love stuff like that, but in the real world, things get a little murky, and pop-sci books published with questionable data extraction methods and unreviewed by peers just don't get the job done.
Let me be clear on my position...I recognize that, just as the war on drugs, poverty, Media and everything else has failed, so too would a war on guns. People want to have them, so they will and there is more or less nothing that the government can do to stop it. However, I believe it is disingenuous to speak of it as though handguns have not caused a great amount of harm to our society. Again, most other societies go without handguns, and do just fine. What is uniquely deficient about America that this would suddenly go away if handgun ownership were to also decline?
Let's be clear...Lott didn't collect any data so his methods can't be flawed. He simply looked at the existing data kept by law enforcement sources.
But... if you want the most compelling data, how about this one. Irrefutable. My sister had a close call and she is 100% alive and well.
Another statistic. My family has had guns (lots and lots and lots of them) for however many generations it takes to reach back to the Civil War. (Seven???) There has never been a gun crime. Now, I have to tell you in all candor, our family has had some colorful members. If we can be temperate with fire-arms, then almost anyone can.
Perhaps you will argue that my family history is simply another anecdote. I would argue that it's a 150 year longitudinal study with a very large "N". Now consider that my family is not at all unusual. There are thousands and thousands of average folks who've grown up in "gun families". I can take you to any gun range in America and introduce you to them.
Do you start to see my point? You imply that those of us who believe we can use firearms to defend ourselves have seen too many movies. I would argue that you are the one who is way too influenced by fiction. The "deranged" gun owner makes headlines because it is so very, very rare. And, these rare cases make SUCH good scary stories for screen-plays.
You know what??? Those Chainsaw Massacre movies started with a true story. Let's outlaw logging instruments!!!! And, hey, while we're at it, remember Lizzie Borden!!! Just proves the point. Normal people shouldn't own the means to chop wood.
But I digress...
Being serious now, I would argue that this whole discussion is not about data. It's not about crime. It's not really about constitutional law. It's about culture. It's about world-view. And it is also really about emotion. (Note how many times you use the verbs "feel" and "believe")
I don't want you to feel fearful, but the truth is, you know and rub shoulders with many more gun owners than you realize. You just don't know that they are carrying. (Now isn't that a scary thought?)
Everyone should have a gun. They are much more effective at solving problems than kisses, hugs and hippies when confronted by people who intend to harm you. A syringe full of succinylcholine is effective too....but you have to get really close:loveya:
Everyone should have a gun. They are much more effective at solving problems than kisses, hugs and hippies when confronted by people who intend to harm you. A syringe full of succinylcholine is effective too....but you have to get really close:loveya:
Hey, wasn't there a famous case recently where a nurse killed his wife (a politician in NV) with a syringe full of sux? Just proves that nurses are deranged and no one should be allowed to carry syringes.
Come to think of it, if government is serious about creating a safe society, they have their work cut out for them. Maybe we should just all be shackled so we can't hurt each other. We can petition the government for the use of our limbs if we have a really good reason. And then they might issue us a permit.
And good god, I would LOVE to live in a world where everyone carrying guns means a safer place, but how many of you have been involved in a room where people are shooting to kill each other? Consider the VA tech shooting. Some said that if the students were armed, it wouldn't have been as bad.
Think for a second...you're in a classroom, and someone comes in and starts shooting....some people start shooting back, it is chaotic. Who will know who the original shooter was, and who to aim at? What about when the cops show up and 15 different people have guns drawn?
This is a recipe for disaster. Nearly every other civilized country has banned handguns, and they do juuuust fine.
I would love to believe that we are all clint eastwood and draw fast and never miss, and ONLY hit the bad guy. However I think we all know that's nothing more than fantasy.
Examples such as this are why I continue to carry and make light of responses such as the one you gave. One problem with banning handguns in the United States of America is that there is already an abundance of guns ready to be bought just about anywhere on the streets. People who break laws and choose violence to solve problems don't really give a damn about some politician banning guns. In this scenario, law abiding citizens hand in their firearms leaving them vulnerable to attack from those who disregard the very laws meant to protect us.
Hey, wasn't there a famous case recently where a nurse killed his wife (a politician in NV) with a syringe full of sux? Just proves that nurses are deranged and no one should be allowed to carry syringes.
Come to think of it, if government is serious about creating a safe society, they have their work cut out for them. Maybe we should just all be shackled so we can't hurt each other. We can petition the government for the use of our limbs if we have a really good reason. And then they might issue us a permit.
Good point. Flower Power it is then! We will defeat the evildoers with butterfly kisses:bugeyes:
2. Was threatened by heroin addict who was dealing on our unit. A few weeks later, got my concealed carry permit, a nice .380 auto, a swell Galco "purse" that conceals it completely and have it with me everywhere I go. Very comforting actually.
3. Can I "draw" it fast enough if the assailant is confronting me with a pistol. I don't have to. The safety is off and my hand is on the grip, my finger on the trigger when I walk out the door.
4. The gun is so beautifully concealed you wouldn't know I am always prepared to protect myself.
BTW: I object to the initial question: Should doctors BE ALLOWED to have guns? Excuse me... Should you BE ALLOWED to attend the church of your choice? Should you BE ALLOWED to express your political opinions? Should you BE ALLOWED to have habeus corpus rights?
The .380 semi auto is really a very wise selection to choose. Has my endorsement.
It's small, and light and gives your hand a nasty slap when you shoot it. I prefer the 9 mm Sig my dad bought years ago from a Navy SEAL. At 15 yards... I cannot miss. SuhWEEET! But concealment issues preclude it from being my "everyday gun".
Let's be clear...Lott didn't collect any data so his methods can't be flawed. He simply looked at the existing data kept by law enforcement sources.
The data is flawed, regardless of who obtained it. That is what the report I linked demonstrates. If you disagree with a published, reviewed journal article, then just say so.
Perhaps you will argue that my family history is simply another anecdote. I would argue that it's a 150 year longitudinal study with a very large "N".
No, it isn't. Anyone here who is a nurse has taken psych and knows how real studies are done. Your stories are fascinating but do not prove a single thing.
You know what??? Those Chainsaw Massacre movies started with a true story. Let's outlaw logging instruments!!!! And, hey, while we're at it, remember Lizzie Borden!!! Just proves the point. Normal people shouldn't own the means to chop wood.
Handguns serve literally one purpose. We all know what that is. There is not a single thing that they are good for other than killing other human beings. A chainsaw is not a useful comparison.
Being serious now, I would argue that this whole discussion is not about data. It's not about crime. It's not really about constitutional law. It's about culture. It's about world-view. And it is also really about emotion. (Note how many times you use the verbs "feel" and "believe")
That's all well and good, but you attempted to present an argument based on stats and facts originally, and those stats and facts have been shown to be unreliable. If you are ok with that, then we are in agreement. If you want to talk about feelings and emotions, then yes we can talk about that all day, and we'll likely just agree to disagree. I'm ok with that, it's part of the fun of debating an issue!
I don't want you to feel fearful, but the truth is, you know and rub shoulders with many more gun owners than you realize. You just don't know that they are carrying. (Now isn't that a scary thought?)
I'm not sure what I said to give the impression that I am afraid of gun owners/carryers. I think it's an unecessary element of personal defense, and often plays a direct part in killing someone you care about, rather than someone banging on your car window.
I won't allow them in my home, but as I said before, I recognize that attempting to make them illegal would have exactly the same effect that prohibition and the war on drugs has had.
Examples such as this are why I continue to carry and make light of responses such as the one you gave. One problem with banning handguns in the United States of America is that there is already an abundance of guns ready to be bought just about anywhere on the streets. People who break laws and choose violence to solve problems don't really give a damn about some politician banning guns. In this scenario, law abiding citizens hand in their firearms leaving them vulnerable to attack from those who disregard the very laws meant to protect us.
These are all very interesting stories, but again they are anecdotal. (and many of them are impossible to verify as googling many of the names comes up only with exact reprints of the exerpts there)
I'm sure that many times throughout the history of guns, someone has used them to defend themselves against an intruder. But what about the countless other times when loved ones are the ones who end up shot? What about when producing your weapon escalates a situation from bad to worse? These are also situations which must be considered.
canoehead, BSN, RN
6,909 Posts