Pharyngula

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 22, 2008 3:34 PM

Love thy neighbor and turn the opther cheek, indeed.

Posted by: Kim | July 22, 2008 3:38 PM

Greg Moore, assuming it is his real name, is a common name, with probably more than several hundreds of people.

Posted by: Keith B | July 22, 2008 3:42 PM

Murderous nutjobs like this are why I will not be encouraging my children to accept religion or small arms into their lives.

Posted by: Keith B | July 22, 2008 3:43 PM

Well, maybe the small arms by themselves, but definitely not in combination with most religious ideology out there.

Posted by: AdamK | July 22, 2008 3:43 PM

Well, since Christianity teaches Peace and Love, he's obviously coming to bring you a nice present. A delicious cake, perhaps, or some lovely mums.

Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 22, 2008 3:47 PM

Strange, Google doesn't add the client ip of the person using their webmail?

Posted by: Itzac | July 22, 2008 3:47 PM

Yes, do forward the email to abuse@gmail.com. It'll probably also help to get the process started if you need a police investigation.

Posted by: raven | July 22, 2008 3:52 PM

Send it to the FBI cybercrimes division. These are federal cases and there are a number of federal statutes being broken, felonies.

And hold off doing anything with the crackers. You've made your point, catholic terrorists=moslem terrorists. You have attracted some seriously mentally disturbed individuals and you don't want this.

I have a friend who evaluates incoming to a secure psychiatric lockup. Usually brought in by the police and often turned in by their families and friends who are scared. Some of these troll posters sound just like the poor bastards he has to deal with.

Posted by: Jason Failes | July 22, 2008 3:53 PM

Yes, I am in the same boat as Taz: If you intended to print the content of the letter, it is not coming through, for me at least, at this end of the intertubes.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 22, 2008 3:56 PM

People who issue threats shouldn't be able to hide, and I can think of no more public place wrt this issue than Pharyngula, BG.

Posted by: llewelly | July 22, 2008 3:58 PM

And hold off doing anything with the crackers.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 22, 2008 4:00 PM

I'm embarrassed to admit it wasn't until my 30s that I fired a pistol of larger caliber than .22 LR, and I didn't own a rifle above that caliber, nor a shotgun above 20 ga. until my 30s either.

I'm embarrassed that you consider that embarrassing. What the hell is wrong with you?

Posted by: Fez | July 22, 2008 4:03 PM

(Un?)fortunately Google's gmail product goes to some length to keep the original sender as anonymous as said sender wishes to be and sanitizes it's added information of things like the original sender's connecting IP address, etc.

In short - all that can really be determined is that yep, there's a high confidence this came from Google. For further action you'd have to hand it off to some authority (be it Google themselves or law enforcement). Sorry.

Posted by: Jason Failes | July 22, 2008 4:06 PM

Zeno @24,

That is excellent.

Is there any way we can duplicate the look of Han-Solo-encased-in-carbonite for PZ's cracker?

The messiah should be quite well preserved, assuming he survives the freezing process....

Posted by: Mooser | July 22, 2008 4:09 PM

Sorry, folks- all the available evidence shows that "accepting small arms into your life" is like sending an engraved invatation to the Grim Reaper to come and get someone close to you, and he'll take you, at a pinch.

I have found that the ideas which a person "accepting small arms into your life" espouses are very much religious ideas, from the ancient cult of firearms worship, as promolgated through the megamedia-church.

But as far as making you safer, by any available evidence, nope.

Of course, if you wish to base your conclusion, and bet your life (and those around you) on myths, legends and self interested lies, no one can stop you. They haven't outlawed religion yet.

Posted by: PatrickHenry | July 22, 2008 4:12 PM

This is why I won't use my name at my own blog. I don't discuss religion the way PZ does, but I do criticize creationists. Most of those people are harmless, but it only takes one maniac to ruin your day -- or your life -- and they've got a lot more than one maniac in that camp.

I doubt that Ben Stein has received death threats from biologists, yet he claims that science kills. Reality to Ben: it's anti-science you gotta watch out for!

Posted by: James Goetz | July 22, 2008 4:13 PM

PZ, you and Donahue deserve each other. But you don't deserve this Moore.

Posted by: zaardvark | July 22, 2008 4:14 PM

It sounds like you've already contacted the local police, which is a good thing. If you haven't already, it would be worth contacting da Feds (I'm not a US American, so I don't know how that works). It is a federal offence, isn't it? Or is that only if he's explicit?

Anyway, I'm glad you're not just shrugging this stuff off. Kwazy kwacker kooks.

Posted by: Greg | July 22, 2008 4:16 PM

Is that all the info? I checked the headers on the type of mail I usually get from gmail and one looks like this:

Received: from ?192.168.1.3? ( [76.99.204.242])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h17sm4718723wxd.13.2008.07.18.10.16.35
(version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:16:38 -0700 (PDT)

This one is the original sent-from address, with the "reported" IP being different than the actual IP - essentially behind a home LAN. It's the IP address in brackets (76.xxx) that's useful for looking up the IP address. You can even look up the general geographic location:

http://www.ip2location.com/demo.aspx

Posted by: Greg | July 22, 2008 4:21 PM

Update: another thing to check is the original email, *before* it was forwarded from the university mail server to gmail. Some of the important headers may have been replaced, or dropped, or something. The IP address of the original sender should be in there. If "134.84.119.105" is the original sender and not the machine that forwarded it to gmail, then that means this guy lives around Minneapolis. http://www.ip2location.com/134.84.119.105 I strongly believe that this is the machine that forwarded the message. I'd love to see the real original.

Posted by: RarusVir | July 22, 2008 4:21 PM

PZ, you should turn all threatening email over to the police now. Don't wait to be acosted by a nutcase.

Be safe.

Posted by: Michelle | July 22, 2008 4:23 PM

I agree, it's time for the police. These are probably all empty threats, but you gotta show them you mean business and you won't tolerate such things.

Posted by: MP | July 22, 2008 4:26 PM

What Would Jesus Do?

Seek pre-emptive vengeance, no doubt.

Posted by: jj | July 22, 2008 4:31 PM

237
"This one is the original sent-from address, with the "reported" IP being different than the actual IP - essentially behind a home LAN. It's the IP address in brackets (76.xxx) that's useful for looking up the IP address. You can even look up the general geographic location"

FYI - Not always the case, if the sender is using a proxy, then the header would be invalid. Also these are the numbers coming from the ISP, so although they'd give you a general geographic location, they wouldn't be too close. Take for instance, I'm in Santa Cruz, but if you do an rDNS lookup my IP will be coming out of San Jose, it's close, but not that close.

I'm a big fan of
http://www.zoneedit.com/lookup.html?ipaddress=&server=&reverse=Look+it+up
for geographic and domain lookups

It does look like sender info is missing

Posted by: Despittreler | July 22, 2008 4:33 PM

Unfortunately, Google is one of the only webmail providers that doesn't put the actual originating IP address in their messages, nor do they provide much of a mechanism for reporting abuse.

Posted by: zaardvark | July 22, 2008 4:35 PM

@Despittreler: are you sure? I sent myself mail, from my ISP addy, to my gmail addy, and my IP went through. Maybe we're not seeing the sender's IP because this message has been forwarded at some point, between PZ's gmail/uni accounts.

Posted by: Craigp | July 22, 2008 4:36 PM

There's some background noise about guns coming up here, so I thought I'd throw my cents in:

I don't own any guns, nor would I really consider it, but I have lived with people who owned guns. Outright gun nuts, actually. And you know what?

They're not insane.

All the ones I know are good people and they have a variety of reasons for keeping guns. None of those reasons are delusional or paranoid.

The stats on gun ownership and gun control are also very iffy... so before you start condemning people you consider to be insane, perhaps you should read up on it. Maybe even meet a few?

Now VERY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE... they're insane. I've met quite a few. I can say that I would rather live with a gun nut than a religious nut.

Posted by: zaardvark | July 22, 2008 4:39 PM

nevermind me, Despittreler, I had that backwards >_

(now im spamming)

Posted by: Karen James | July 22, 2008 4:40 PM

Keith B, Your "clarification" is almost more disturbing than JJR's "embarrassment". Wars do not make one great ...and guns do not make one safe.

Posted by: jj | July 22, 2008 4:43 PM

"I have to agree with Keith B in #46. Law enforcement can't possibly prevent all crime (even if that were their intended role). Guns are evil, but a necessary evil, and one I'm willing to fight to defend if need be"

What about in countries where guns are not allowed? Who would you be defending yourself against if they no one had them? I think the 'protection' argument is nothing but bunk, but I do understand the use of guns for hunting, although the badass buck hunters use bow...

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 22, 2008 4:44 PM

In any case, tell that to my great aunt (were she still alive).

Anecdotes, even those concerning family members, do not constitute data. Why even bring them up?

Posted by: Qwerty | July 22, 2008 4:47 PM

Donohue's Catholic League website says that Webster Cook (the UCF student who first stole the cracker or wafer or Eucharist) is being impeached from his position as a member of the student senate. I guess Donohue will get his pound of flesh even if it means picking on some kid who is still in school.

Posted by: N.K. | July 22, 2008 4:50 PM

So much for, "Christian love."

What a fucker.

Also, forward it to abuse@gmail.com.

Posted by: jj | July 22, 2008 4:50 PM

@60
Partially correct, the web mail server would be the originating IP address, as that's where the message is coming from, but actually some Services will mask this with the IP of the message composer. Google does not do this, but it does happen on certain systems, usually for ease of traceability within an enterprise.

Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | July 22, 2008 4:53 PM

Nice people, these Catholics.

That would be stereotyping.

Posted by: BluesBassist | July 22, 2008 4:55 PM

#61 wrote:

Anecdotes, even those concerning family members, do not constitute data. Why even bring them up?

I bring it up to illustrate the point that any such "data," should it exist, is irrelevant. That's the point of individual rights.

My particular security needs and situation are very personal, and so it's not valid to assume it's not in my best interest to own a gun because of an (alleged) statistical correlation over a large population.

Posted by: jj | July 22, 2008 4:59 PM

@72
FYI - My google mail does send my IP info, but I use POP3/SMTP protocols, not HTTP.

Posted by: gwgangung | July 22, 2008 5:00 PM

Anecdotes, even those concerning family members, do not constitute data.

Data is not quite as useful when it comes to a particular life.

Throwing it out is just as nonsensical as throwing it in.

Posted by: Greg | July 22, 2008 5:04 PM

Interesting. I checked more of my messages from fellow gmail users. Some have IPs, some don't - and I know which people use the webmail and which do not. The insertion of IPs is not consistent.

Posted by: Randy | July 22, 2008 5:07 PM

"What about in countries where guns are not allowed? Who would you be defending yourself against if they no one had them? I think the 'protection' argument is nothing but bunk"

Lets. Japan where an indiviual is not allowed to own sporting equipment such as baseball bats and those who practice martial arts with swords must register them the same as a US firearm. England where it is quickly becoming illegal to carry screwdrives, awls, sharp pointy sticks, etc. due to the stabbing violence (BBC report).

So what do we have here? People will kill people. Criminals will use whatever they can. Preventing the honest population from leveling the playing field, thats criminal. I guess you have to ask yourself "Do I want to be a victim?". Rely on the police when you can, but can they be in your house between the time it takes to go from your front door to your bedroom?

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | July 22, 2008 5:09 PM

jj:

The problem with your argument is this: you (intentionally?) confuse "guns are illegal" with "nobody has a gun".

Posted by: jtradke | July 22, 2008 5:10 PM

PZ - I would forward it on to abuse@gmail.com, as well as the police, as well as even a local news station (possibly one of the ones that have already interviewed you regarding Crackergate). Sure couldn't hurt.

As for the headers, they're unfortunately useless to anyone here because it's gmail-to-gmail. This means that any SMTP messages stayed within Google's walls, until it was forwarded to your UMN account. Had he sent the messages from a home e-mail client rather than a web-based one, we might have had something to go on, but otherwise it's a mystery.

In any case, abuse@google.com should have the necessary IP information for that particular username, and therefore would be able to tell you more info. Or more likely, they'd send it to the police, as it may be a violation of privacy laws or their own terms of service to reveal one user's info to another.

Posted by: JackC | July 22, 2008 5:13 PM

This Greg Moore is described as "Right Wing"

http://illegalcurve.blogspot.com/2008/07/rangers-sign-greg-moore.html

OK - I apologise. I just HAD to!

JC

Posted by: Fez | July 22, 2008 5:17 PM

I suggest folk please do not start looking up Greg Moore's in any location that you were led to by these headers - there is no personally identifiable location in the plain text of the mail headers.

There may be something encoded in the DomainKey that could identify the sender's IP, but that's something for Google to take up.

Below is an analysis of this header, starting with the bottommost Received: [note: I'm operating on the assumption that none of the mail handlers identified in the Received chain have been p0wned/are under the control of Greg Moore; this is probably a safe assumption. Also keep in mind that RFC1918 addresses are *not routable on the general Internet* unless something has gone horribly awry.]

10.143.36.9 with HTTP - This is an internal-to-google (see RFC1918) system that received a message via HTTP (ie. a browser).

10.142.229.5 - still inside the Googleplex

yw-out-1718.google.com - this is the first system that can be identified as existing in the "outside" world. And it's owned by Google (do a DNS lookup and you'll get back a list of A records, all located in the same 74.125.46.x block)

from yw-out-1718.google.com by mtain-m.tc.umn.edu - note the source machine (yw-out...) matches the host in the previous line. They match, so there's a good chance this is a legitimate handoff. The receiver was identified as a umn.edu system, so unless our Mr. Moore has access to the email gateways at umd.edu there is a verifiable chain of evidence that this email was not forged and did indeed originate within Google.

from mtain-m.tc.umn.edu by mx.google.com - this is like the above, but in reverse. Note the original delivery address of myersp at morris.xxxx; at this point PZ has his mail forwarded back to his google address (and/or also passed along into UMNs systems). Now mtain-m.tc.umd.edu has turned the message around and handed it off to mx.google.com, which means

10.65.137.5 - we're back in the Googleplex now (RFC1918, remember?)

10.100.126.5 - the final server to accept the mail into PZ's gmail mailbox, whereupon he opens a web browser, logs in, and is met with the deranged rantings of an anonymous lunatic.

No identifiable source. Again, please do everyone a favor and don't pick some random Greg Moore out of a google search because there's a geographic correlation - it's meaningless.

Sorry to ramble, but I'm hoping the full explanation will prevent other innocent people from being dragged into this kerfluffle.

Posted by: AgnosticTheocrat | July 22, 2008 5:19 PM

oops, sorry about the double post, was screwing with the html tags

Posted by: Keith B | July 22, 2008 5:21 PM

I'll be the first to admit: the data on whether or not gun control or having arms in the home is safer is still very foggy. However, until I see some strong evidence saying that having a firearm locked away is very, very highly unnecessary, I'm not even going to consider relieving myself of a firearm.

And even beyond the issue of what the majority consensus of the data might end up being, just because a scenario is extremely unlikely doesn't mean that it still cannot occur. Gun control could come out on top as the best policy, I could sell my gun and yet I could still be held at gun or knifepoint by some statistically anomalous assailant. I don't like the idea of taking such a risk, no matter how small it is. It's my life I am having to consider, you know? The same holds true for PZ, and that's why I feel he should at least consider the option of obtaining and registering some kind of legal small arms weapon.

Posted by: Xeno | July 22, 2008 5:22 PM

Randy @ #79

"I guess you have to ask yourself "Do I want to be a victim?"."

How about "do I want to perpetuate a culture of fear by constantly being afraid and hoping weapons will save me from the Unknown Assailant"?

Personally, I'd rather be come at with a knife than a gun, and rather a stick than a knife. You see how that ties together? *

I mean, ultimately, using your idea, since criminals could have access to tanks and nuclear weapons, obviously so should I. What with being a lawful person and all.

A battle where the sword is drawn is already lost.

* Note: I guess you took that Monty Python sketch as plain truth. "How to defend yourself against someone armed with a piece of fresh fruit"..

Posted by: J | July 22, 2008 5:26 PM

OK, the "J" who last posted wasn't the J you all know and loath. No idea who it is. Maybe one of the Nick Gotts crowd.

Posted by: Xeno | July 22, 2008 5:28 PM

Glen @ #78

"I thought about saying so myself, but thought that he almost certainly has done so. Doesn't this imply as much?"

Well, alleviating the confusion (and possibly some of those comments), would be as easy as a new entry stating as much.
I've pulled my imaginary goatee for a couple of minutes, trying to figure out what would be negative about such action, and came up blank. Which suggests to me he either has not done this, or is reluctant to advertise the fact based on things I cannot figure out.

Posted by: J | July 22, 2008 5:30 PM

PZ would be wise to invest in some firearms, especially if he's going do play any monkey business with a Koran.

Posted by: Bert Chadick | July 22, 2008 5:33 PM

The genuflecting cracker nibblers and their snake handling allies have made life very difficult for folk who work at Women's clinics, and the majority of them, especially the doctors carry pistols and wear body armor. Is there something in History I'm not seeing that will protect our beloved PZ from their rage?

I was born and raised in Texas, and have seen the religious fanatic up close and personal. They are serious as cancer and just as insidious.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 22, 2008 5:34 PM

OK, the "J" who last posted wasn't the J you all know and loath. No idea who it is.

Maybe, but he does a good impression of you. Perhaps you guys are using the same dry-cleaning bags to wrap your heads in while you sleep.

I predict a Facebook group in the future!

Posted by: Geral | July 22, 2008 5:38 PM

Over a cracker? This world is hopeless.

Posted by: Jams | July 22, 2008 5:41 PM

I don't need guns. I'm happy to insert the bullets manually.

Posted by: Maitresse | July 22, 2008 5:47 PM

Why can't their god defend himself?

Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 22, 2008 5:52 PM

@Xeno, it doesn't matter what a religious nut job would say. What matters is how you view the defense of your and your family's life.

Posted by: Rystefn | July 22, 2008 5:54 PM

"Guns have no place in a civilized society."

Really? How would your civilized society protect itself from an uncivilized one? Pacifism only works when everyone else is a pacifist, too. Now, if you're comfortable with the government having guns, but the people having none, that's your call. I, for one, am not. The first move of any tyrannical despot is to disarm the people.

Posted by: Dlux | July 22, 2008 5:56 PM

"If Mr Moore shows up at my door, the only people who will be meeting him are the local police."

What makes anyone think that 'Mr. Moore' will be so obvious as to show up at the door? I would get the process going for law enforcement to investigate him, assuming those threats appear sincere. At the very least, have the FBI and Google comb through his past email. Common sense...

Posted by: PatrickHenry | July 22, 2008 5:59 PM

Few of us will actually have the need for armed self-defense; but there's no sound reason for the law-abiding citizen to be denied that opportunity. The ultimate argument for guns is that their presence throughout the populace is an immense deterrent to tyranny.

Posted by: Greg Peterson | July 22, 2008 6:01 PM

Another biology professor dissing the Catholic Church, in front of a large audience.

Dr. Greg Graffin and Bad Religion, with "Sinister Rouge":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wERP_p6NCg

Posted by: BrainFromArous | July 22, 2008 6:01 PM

"Guns have no place in a civilized society."
---
"Really? How would your civilized society protect itself from an uncivilized one? Pacifism only works when everyone else is a pacifist, too."

Well put, Rystefn.

Civilization involves harnessing and controlling force - including violence - folks, not in hallucinating some Eloi-like sanctuary where we can pretend such things don't exist.

There is nothing enlightened or altruistic about being helpless.

Posted by: Paul Hands | July 22, 2008 6:04 PM

BrainFromArous : I didn't say a civilised society can't have very well funded armed services :-)

However, there is still no case for guns being randomly available on every street, especially to those are barely able to use them.

P.

Posted by: Tina | July 22, 2008 6:08 PM

Some of the anti-gun comments made show me people know nothing about guns, and do not want to learn.

The actions taken against PZ show me there is NO DIFFERENCE between religious extremists -- be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc., etc., etc.

Do any of the anti-gun, anti-religious-extremism, folks really think they will be protected by the "authorities", when the Theocrats come for them?

Self defense is a time honored tradition.

Posted by: Joe Bob | July 22, 2008 6:10 PM

@113

Now, if you're comfortable with the government having guns, but the people having none, that's your call. I, for one, am not. The first move of any tyrannical despot is to disarm the people.

Now if you're comfortable with the government having nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, high-energy beam weapons, surface-to-air missiles, cruise missiles, inter-continental ballistic missiles, satellite weapons, & etc... and the people having none, that's your call. I, for one, am not. The first move of any tyrannical despot is to disarm the people.

[sarcasm, in case you missed it.]

Posted by: Holbach | July 22, 2008 6:11 PM

Xeno @ 108 It's obvious where your sentiments lie to gun ownership, and I totally agree with Helioprogenus about the ever insinuating and perhaps behavior modification at the mere sight and sound of a gun. Assuming only, that this cretin had the hindsight not to bring a gun himself when he confronted his adversary who has a gun in his hand or on his belt, would he be so foollhardy to risk his life and attack that person, knowing that he may die on the spot? Many a gun has just the presence to deter a crime without being fired. I certainly would think twice about my welfare in the blatant scenario of instant death. As for choosing the right self defence in precarious situations, I have only to quote Sean Connery in the movie "The Untouchables": "If he brings a knife to a fight, you bring a gun." That one elevation of deadly force against a lesser instrument will determine the outcome, and not your objection to necessary forceful means.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 22, 2008 6:14 PM

Do any of the anti-gun, anti-religious-extremism, folks really think they will be protected by the "authorities", when the Theocrats come for them?

Self defense is a time honored tradition.

I keep the jawbone of an ass in my night table for the very reasons you describe, Tina.

Posted by: Joe Bob | July 22, 2008 6:21 PM

@117

[Correction]

Few of us will actually have the need for armed self-defense; but there's no sound reason for the law-abiding citizen to be denied that opportunity. The ultimate argument for guns is that their presence throughout the populace is an immense deterrent to tyranny.

Few of us will actually have the need to shoot down a hijacked aircraft; but there's no sound reason for the law-abiding citizen to be denied that opportunity. The ultimate argument for surface-to-air missiles is that their presence throughout the populace is an immense deterrent to terrorism.

Posted by: Soybomb | July 22, 2008 6:25 PM

Forgive me holy captain's wafer in the sky for I am tired of talking of your crackery goodness. The guns thing is a fun diversion though. I'm somewhat surprised at some of the anti-gun comments. I didn't grow up in a family with any hunters, my parents didn't have guns and really said nothing about them. I went to college, still consider myself a science loving geek and all that.

One day the political issue of guns came up. I didn't really know anything about it so I did what any good thinking person does and started doing some research. My initial guess that guns were unsafe and allowing people to carry concealed weapons in public was out right dangerous. I couldn't find any evidence to support my guess though. There's lots of statistics from both sides of the table that are biased to their side but when looking at raw numbers from government agencies not pushing their agenda, I didn't find anything.

I found that the often cited "you're X times more likely to be harmed by your own gun" is based on a paper by Kellermann. I tracked down the Kellermann study and its complete rubbish. I tracked down the numbers from state departments that issue carry permits. I found that in Florida they've issued over 1.3 million concealed carry licenses since the program began and have revoked the whopping total of 165 due to firearms crimes. http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Along with this came the realization that I was largely responsible for protecting myself. The police probably aren't going to be with me on the streets when I need them. If I need them now at home, they're only minutes away. I don't even know what I was thinking really. I keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen because I know the guys with them might take too long to get there, but why did I think the man with a gun wouldn't take too long to get there? It turns out that people are just animals and some do terrible things to others, no matter what tools are available.

Not only did it seem that my guess was wrong but I had decided that perhaps I should be something other than helpless. I'd encourage anyone else to go digging for real unbiased numbers and see if they hold up. When you hear people talking about assault weapons don't take the Brady Group or NRA word for it, go to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report and see how many people are killed with rifles at all, let alone assault rifles. its a startling low number.

Anyway the short of it is, do your research. There is a lot of work out there in peer reviewed journals and directly from state and federal agencies. You might find your emotional convictions aren't rooted in sound data, I sure did.

Posted by: Joe Bob | July 22, 2008 6:30 PM

@129

I have only to quote Sean Connery in the movie "The Untouchables": "If he brings a knife to a fight, you bring a gun." That one elevation of deadly force against a lesser instrument will determine the outcome, and not your objection to necessary forceful means.

I have only to quote Chuck Norris in the movie I am currently writing with him in mind for the main role: "If he brings a gun, you bring a bazooka." That one elevation of deadly force against a lesser instrument will determine the outcome, and not your objection to necessary forceful means.

Posted by: DingoDave | July 22, 2008 6:37 PM

Who needs a gun when you can use a witty repost or dextrous word play to deter virtually an attacker. Alexie Sayle can teach you how to do it. Link to instructional video below.

ALEXIE SAYLE - NOBLE ART OF VERBAL ABUSE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnPfgX82GmM

Posted by: Carlie | July 22, 2008 6:41 PM

Based on a simple probability calculation, there are approximately 494 Greg Moores in the country according to How Many of Me

Posted by: Anne Nonymous | July 22, 2008 6:51 PM

Just to weigh in on the gun issue...

Let's take a look at the risks involved here with personal gun ownership... On the one hand, if you don't own firearms, you're running the risk that a Bad Person will show up at your home or accost you on the street and you won't have your (loaded, conveniently located) firearm (that you're more willing to use to deal death and more skilled at using and quicker on the draw with than the Bad Person is) available to defend yourself. On the other hand, if you do own firearms for the purpose of self-defense (and are therefore keeping them loaded and conveniently located), then you're running the risk that your small child/pet/drunken guest/suicidal or otherwise deranged loved one/own carelessness or identification error will cause a firearm-related tragedy.

In a society where gun ownership is legal, everyone's got to evaluate these risks for themselves and choose which they prefer. I can see that there might be circumstances where one might reasonably prefer the second set of risks to the first. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of Americans do not live in such circumstances, although some undoubtedly do. I tend to be very suspicious of the attitude that firearms are an absolute necessity for self-defense in most parts of this country. To me it smacks of the kind of paranoid over-dramatization of threat levels that got us into the Iraq war, and it makes me wonder uncomfortably about how cautious I can expect the firearm owner in question to be about verifying their target before they pull the trigger.

On the other hand, I don't really begrudge anyone firearm ownership, provided they're well-trained in the use of their weapons and handle them with due regard for the safety of others (including careful control of who gets their hands on them). As I've said before, I think it's not unreasonable to believe that in some circumstances a gun might enhance one's personal safety, and they're also simply interesting implements in their own right, with a lot of cool engineering design, and a fair bit of skill involved in (and satisfaction to be gained from) using them well.

I admit that on a social level I do have certain concerns in regard to legal firearm ownership. Other than the fact that it tends to make it easier for criminals to acquire guns, which is dangerous both to civilians and to law enforcement, there's also just the fact that a lot of people are careless and stupid. The notion that the drunk, moronic fratboys I see tearing up campustown after a big game could potentially legally possess guns (although presumably not on campus) gives me chills.

On the other hand, we do let even moronic fratboys own and operate motor vehicles (although they're not supposed to do it while they're drunk), which are potentially equally dangerous. One difference between guns, and firearms, of course, is that cars are a pretty crucial means of transport for many people, and not being able to drive could make someone's life pretty miserable. Guns aren't (for most people) anywhere near so basic to the ability to successfully navigate day to day life.

The other difference between cars and guns is that *nobody* is allowed to drive unless they've demonstrated that they know how to operate a car according to some basic standards of safety. Gun licensing processes don't (in my admittedly limited experience) require any kind of demonstration of competency whatsoever, simply confirmation that one is who one says one is and is not a known dangerous criminal. It seems to me that if we want to keep guns legal in this country (which many, although not all, interpretations of the Second Amendment suggest we must), then we ought to institute some kind of competency testing into the licensing procedure, similar in concept to the driver's test but much more rigorous.

--------

I personally don't own any guns, although I have family members who do. And as long as people are responsible about it, I really don't much care. But the "zOMG EVIL CRIMINALS!111!!ONE!!1!" defense of gun ownership really seems kind of lame to me. I'm much more sympathetic to arguments along the lines of, "Hey, you know what? I just plain like having guns." (Of course, I'm also sympathetic to people who are in dangerous circumstances where a gun really might be helpful.) I just wish our national conversation on the subject could get beyond this kind of, "zOMG GUNS EVIL," "zOMG CRIMINALS EVIL," polarization into opposing paranoias, because it seems like we keep spinning and spinning on this and never really get anywhere.

*shrug* I dunno. Maybe I'm finding a false center and there isn't really one on this. I just find myself sorta seeing both sides' point and feeling like the two positions don't have to be completely mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 22, 2008 6:56 PM

Speaking of armed escalation, we're not talking about criminals with bazookas here. We're talking about armed intruders looking to rob you of your possessions and possibly harm you and your family members in the process. Now if you want to sit there with a baseball bat wondering whether the intruder has a gun, that's up to you. I would feel much more comfortable knowing I can rightfully defend myself.

As for armed escalation on a national level, that's another story all together. WWII pretty much showed what a determined country with a new usable weapon can do. You think the US government decided to drop the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war? It was basically sabre rattling against the soviet union. One person in charge with a destructive weapon is a framework that's set for recklessness. An arms race is a proper analogy here because ultimately, it's also a natural mechanism.

In a truly utopian world, there are no guns to speak of and people just shoot each other with at worst, tranquilizer darts. But unfortunately, we don't live in a utopian world. There are guns, the majority of them happen to be unregistered, and in the hands of criminals (speaking of the US and other countries with such an abundance of arms in the general populace). We don't have to look at the socio-economic hardships they had to endure to turn them into a life of crime. I feel bad for a society that allows people to fall through the cracks like that, but at the same time, they don't reciprocate any mercy. If they're attempting to harm my family or my property, well, it's best to have an effective method of thwarting that; rather then laying helpless on the ground, allowing your destiny to be controlled by someone who doesn't care for your life.

Posted by: Kel | July 22, 2008 6:57 PM

At least he's deciding to start his own fatwa culture. A pathetic little shit who thinks violence is the answer. Terrorist scum!

Posted by: Stephen Couchman | July 22, 2008 7:00 PM

@138

It sounds like you're saying you'd allow a mugger, home invader, or rogue societal element to kill or cripple you and/or members of your family in order to prove some point about pacifism. I doubt strongly, if you were actually put in that position, that you would have the same high ideals. I invite you to reevaluate your stance, and to reconsider your use of the word "murder" to describe an act of self-defense.

Posted by: Joe Bob | July 22, 2008 7:06 PM

@145

If they're attempting to harm my family or my property, well, it's best to have an effective method of thwarting that; rather then laying helpless on the ground, allowing your destiny to be controlled by someone who doesn't care for your life.

Well, in the rest of the civilized world, the general populace is unarmed and the violent crime rate is LOWER. You're insane to think that the answer is for everyone to get more guns.

Posted by: Xeno | July 22, 2008 7:09 PM

Kel @ #147

"At least he's deciding to start his own fatwa culture. A pathetic little shit who thinks violence is the answer. Terrorist scum!"

Yes! Terrorist scum! Let's invade his country as retaliation! Oh, wait.. ;)

Posted by: Joe Bob | July 22, 2008 7:10 PM

@152

You were responding to me responding to #133. Go read 113.

Posted by: Joe Bob | July 22, 2008 7:11 PM

[Correction]

@152

You were responding to me responding to #113. Go read 113.

Posted by: Rystefn | July 22, 2008 7:15 PM

"And more importantly, why are you drawing that line?"

I don't draw that line. That line has been drawn for me, and without my consent. The second amendment is NOT about home defense or stopping a mugger, it's about fighting your own government. We live in a world where doing so requires tanks, jets, missiles, and more. No, I am not advocating armed rebellion when an election doesn't go your way, but I am very much advocating that people should maintain the ability to defend themselves against the unjust actions of their own government. Option of last resort, but an option that should - MUST - remain open. I am very much against assault weapon bans, machine gun restrictions, and the like.

No, I'm not saying any random person with a few million to spare should be able to acquire an Abrahms tank - but right now, any random person with a driver's license and a pair of bolt-cutters could get one, so how much worse would that be, anyway, really?

I honestly believe their should be a battery of competency tests before anyone gets their hands on a gun, but I also think there should be a battery of comeptency tests before anyone can get their hands on a motor vehicle, a drastically more dangerous implement by any sane assessment. Few private citizens have an honest need for a motor vehicle, people just think they do, and think they have a right to the things. That frightens me quite a lot more than people wanting guns.

Posted by: Joe Bob | July 22, 2008 7:18 PM

@154

As I said, it's an arms race.

And in an arms race, everyone loses. So why are you encouraging the escalation of an arms race?

Posted by: windy | July 22, 2008 7:19 PM

Now I'm not trying to be judgmental here, but as a Canadian, who has never even touched a gun, I find it so strange and kinda appalling that some of you actually have guns in your home and will teach your children how to use them. Wow, in some ways we neighbours live in very different worlds!

I think you Canadians have pretty high rates of gun ownership too. I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching children how to use guns, as long as it's for sport or hunting, and the children aren't too young.

Posted by: lolife | July 22, 2008 7:21 PM

BluesBassist, there is certainly evidence that accidental deaths with firearms generally occur in homes with firearms and do not occur in homes without firearms. There is also a correlation of shooting deaths related to domestic violence and suicide when firearms are present in the home.

I own guns, I'm glad you own guns (if you want to own guns). I don't believe in separating law-abiding citizens from guns. But it is demonstrably true that the most likely person to die from the firearms you own is you or a person you love. This is simply because accidents, suicide and domestic violence are much, much, much common than home intrusions like you describe.

Posted by: Paul Hands | July 22, 2008 7:24 PM

"Few private citizens have an honest need for a motor vehicle,"

You're a loony. Have you used public transport in, say, Silicon Valley, if you're even close enough to get there? America is built on the premise that walking is redundant, and that cars are like breathing.

In Holland, bicycles are normal and pervasive, and there these amazing things, like walkways and cycle paths everywhere, which cars have to give way to. In the valley, even walking 500 yards from my hotel to the office is lethally dangerous because there isn't anywhere to walk.

Guns and violence are the last refuge of the incompetent.

Posted by: Joe Bob | July 22, 2008 7:31 PM

@159

Few private citizens have an honest need for a motor vehicle, people just think they do, and think they have a right to the things. That frightens me quite a lot more than people wanting guns.

Try driving your gun to the grocery store. Try stopping a burglar or overthrowing the government with your car.

Posted by: Rystefn | July 22, 2008 7:32 PM

I live in the Houston area. More precisely, in the SE, where it is against the law for the buses to run. If it is lethally dangerous to walk instead of drive, that is less reason for people to have cars, not more... or are you saying millions of dangerous, unqualified idiots with motor vehicles are the reason you must have one? In order to defend your life from the car-driving maniacs, you must also have a car? Is that what you're saying? The answer to the car problem is more cars, not less?

You're wrong, by the way. Guns and violence are the FIRST resort of the incompetent. If you think every problem can be resolved without violence, you're the lunatic, not me.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 22, 2008 7:33 PM

PZ, while I often applaud your brazenness in your fight against irrationality, at this point your bravado could potentially threaten the lives of yourself and your loved ones. You know how crazy these people are; you know that you're playing with fire. It's time for you to stop giving these lunatics free air time and start protecting yourself.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 22, 2008 7:36 PM

You don't have to be a religious nut-job to own a gun. Think of it in terms of an evolutionary arms race.

Uh, evolution is a mindless process. Those with minds and goals are advised to go about it differently.

Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 22, 2008 7:36 PM

The fact that there's been a de-emphasis on gun owndership in the UK and Japan is great. Unfortunately, at this time, it's impossible to do in the US without first, disarming the populace before worrying about the illicit guns.

As for an arms race, everybody loses? What kind of empty rhetoric is that? An arms race isn't about being beneficial or harmful, but is just a process. Yes, it is possible to de-escalate it in terms of human interactions, and if I lived in the UK, or Japan, or anywhere that isn't as ubiquitous with guns, it wouldn't be an issue. However, I live in a country where any random religious idiot can come to my door and harm me if he chooses? Well fuck that, I'll arm myself. You keep your self-righteous reasoning in places that don't have similar gun related problems. Further, let's not forget that as the economy tanks, which it is, crime goes up. There's no better time then now to buy a weapon, train yourself in proper responsible usage, and feel a little safter. I would hope I'll never have to use it, but the fact that it's there gives me some comfort.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 22, 2008 7:42 PM

The first move of any tyrannical despot is to disarm the people.

Not only is this a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent, it's also false.

Posted by: Xeno | July 22, 2008 7:48 PM

Helioprogenus @ #176

"As for an arms race, everybody loses? What kind of empty rhetoric is that?"
Preceded by:
"The fact that there's been a de-emphasis on gun owndership in the UK and Japan is great."

Something shorted out in this line of thought? Also, you did notice the Cold War? Maybe a Wargames refresher is due; "the only way to win, is not to play".

"However, I live in a country where any random religious idiot can come to my door and harm me if he chooses? Well fuck that, I'll arm myself."

What? You can always have someone come to your door and harm you. Even the most dystopian Big Brother societies cannot truly prevent this.

"I would hope I'll never have to use it, but the fact that it's there gives me some comfort."

And it boils down to this. It has nothing to do with reality, but it's a nice crutch. Did you notice what I wrote originally about carrying on a culture of fear?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 22, 2008 7:52 PM

Who needs a gun when you can use a witty repost or dextrous word play to deter virtually an attacker. Alexie Sayle can teach you how to do it. Link to instructional video below.

ALEXIE SAYLE - NOBLE ART OF VERBAL ABUSE

Damn I had forgotten about him. i used to love him on the Young Ones.

Posted by: CJO | July 22, 2008 7:55 PM

I want an equalizer for the weak, old, or disabled to be able to use against those that would do them harm.

Where do you live, Tombstone, circa 1875? In this society, I believe we employ as "an equalizer" a quaint concept known as rule of law.

All this macho posturing about guns only indicates to me that those who spout such rhetoric would dearly like to be in a situation in which they are called upon to shoot someone, preferably while sporting the curled lip and steely gaze of "Dirty Harry"-era Clint Eastwood.

Might I suggest the US Armed Forces? Be all you can be.

Posted by: Rystefn | July 22, 2008 7:58 PM

"In this society, I believe we employ as "an equalizer" a quaint concept known as rule of law."

And where is your rule of law when some psycho walks into a school or business and starts shooting people? About twenty corpses too late.

Posted by: Holbach | July 22, 2008 7:59 PM

Xeno @ 134 As has happened on several occasions when guns are mentioned, all manner of personal and philosophical emotions come into play. I will not belabor this discussion beyond this as I would rather discourse on the threat of religion and not on psychological pro or cons of gun ownership. Just your first comment to my post at 129 suggest all too obvious your total distaste in gun ownership for any means. You seem to state that I and others of my persuasion take obvious delight in standing around in public brandishing our guns in a defensive or mocking manner to let the general public know that we are armed and ready for all sort of trouble, be it imagined or potential. Let me offer a simple scenario that I am sure you can comprehend. I have a legal pistol permit, an FID card, and carry a loaded 38 caliber on my waist when I leave or return to my home, because of an incident that almost proved disabling or worse to me and my wife. I keep it concealed when out in public and in no manner of speech or behavior reveal that I have a hand gun. I don't play or pose with it, ala a gunslinger, nor do I keep it in sight or mention it to any other persons who have no need or ken to know of my possession. One night I hear a person yelling outside, and see that they are being attacked by one or two males who may or may not have a weapon. Upon running out with my gun drawn, and without even having to utter a word of desist to the freaking criminals, they hightail as if running for their lives, and all this without firing a shot but just the mere visual chance of mortal retribution to their criminals lives. Would that be considered foolhardy by you, or just a random situation that lacks any substance and in no way supports brandishing a gun? Even if that same gun, by chance, should someday prevent you from being murdered or injured if I happened to come upon your scene of imminent danger? Or perhaps I knew you, or you even lived next door, and knowing your aversion to gun ownership, I declined to act on your behalf and let you suffer the inequities of force against prejuidice to the ambivalent gun? I am definitely sure you would want me to save your life despite by just brandishing my gun. Ironic how blatant reality always triumps over petty idiosyncrasies. And to allude that my opinions on gun ownership have any relation to my attacks on faulty creationist unreason is not only disingenuous on your part, but atrociously small minded. Shame on you. This will be my last comment on this subject; you may comment further, but without any respnse from me.

Posted by: Soybomb | July 22, 2008 8:07 PM

#185 "Where do you live, Tombstone, circa 1875? In this society, I believe we employ as "an equalizer" a quaint concept known as rule of law.

All this macho posturing about guns only indicates to me that those who spout such rhetoric would dearly like to be in a situation in which they are called upon to shoot someone, preferably while sporting the curled lip and steely gaze of "Dirty Harry"-era Clint Eastwood.

Might I suggest the US Armed Forces? Be all you can be."

Of course, the chances of me needing to ever use a firearm are incredibly low. The chances of me as a healthy young man having a serious medical problem or my house burning down are also very low. I still buy insurance though. Its not about the odds, it is about whats at stake. Might I ask where it is that you live where innocent people don't get robbed, beaten, raped, killed, or other terrible things done to them?

What have I said that you believe is macho posturing? That I think its possible that someday I might need a man with a gun and the police won't be there to fill the role soon enough? I also said that I might need a fire extinguisher one day. Do you also believe that I have some deeply rooted fantasy to make like I'm Kurt Russel in backdraft?

I don't know what the military has to do with anything either. I clearly stated that I'm not at all eager for violence, but I recognize that it might come looking for me one day even if I would prefer it not.

Posted by: Neural T | July 22, 2008 8:14 PM

Nope, scratch that. I just sent a message to myself with a new gmail account and it doesn't retain originating IP info. Stupid.

Posted by: JeffreyD | July 22, 2008 8:15 PM

I do not currently have a gun in the house, gave it to one of my sons when I was suicidal after my wife's death. It was not the gun per se, I also got rid of any types of sleeping pills, poisons and alcohol for a long time. I am better now. I will probably buy a shotgun in the near future for home defense. Right now I have a actual spiked mace for home defense, it was a gift - long story.

I live in the US, in an area where guns are legal. If you do not want a gun, do not own one. Guns seem magical to some of the posters here, an actual evil item. I do not agree, I see them as tools. I do believe in training prior to purchasing a fire arm and complete registration. I will take the shotgun to the range to learn to use it, if and when I buy one, and that will probably and hopefully be the last time it will be used. I have four granddaughters, if they come to stay with me, the gun will be locked away.

I am fully trained in shooting and the legal aspects of self defense. I have also shot for real in the military and carried guns overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan as a civilian security officer. Guns neither fascinate nor scare me.

If you wish to dislike me for my stance on this issue, feel free.

Posted by: Rev. BigDUmbChimp | July 22, 2008 8:18 PM

Guns neither fascinate nor scare me.

My sentiments as well fellow Charlestonian.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 22, 2008 8:20 PM

takes measures to minimize the risk to themselves and their loved ones.

...but didn't several people, just above, note that the statistics suggest that the way to minimize that risk is NOT to have a gun in the house?

Can you show us the work that indicates that having a gun in the house minimizes risk to self and family?

Keeping a gun in the house alway seemed to me to be one of those "makes sense on the surface" things that when actually analyzed, turns out to be the opposite.

Posted by: Rev. BigDUmbChimp | July 22, 2008 8:25 PM

Ted's is awesome. Any strange cut or cured meat i want, they find. He supplies me with the pork belly for the bacon I make.

Good stuff.

Posted by: Neural T | July 22, 2008 8:27 PM

If the probability of accidentally shooting yourself or someone else is larger than the probability of being harmed by an intruder, than it is not logical to own a gun. This will depend entirely on the expertise of the gun owner and where you live.

Posted by: Xeno | July 22, 2008 8:29 PM

Rystefn @ #194

"..and yet, I'm fairly certain you have a lightning rod on your home and place of business."

We have lightning rods on our houses.. to protect people from getting hit by lightning..? I thought it had something to do with conductive electrical wiring?

"A reasonable person takes measures to minimize the risk to themselves and their loved ones."

Indeed. I had a grandma who used to go sit in the car when a lightning storm passed, since she'd learned that the car was the safest place to be. She'd do this at all times, no matter what the hour, or the weather and ride out the entire storm.
Needless to say (?) she was severely overreacting due to fear.
The minimizing of the risk was not rational.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Just because something can happen, doesn't mean that it is likely, or that any means of protection is a rational way to deal with the possibility. Surely you do not wear a tinfoil hat and live in a bunker all day from fear of aliens and meteors?
Why not? It could happen!

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 22, 2008 8:34 PM

the fact that it's there gives me some comfort

Like http://www.comfortinheaven.com/

Posted by: Gebryan | July 22, 2008 8:36 PM

Cover the floor by the windows and doors with crackers. He'll have to step on Jesus to get to you.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 22, 2008 8:37 PM

are you perhaps opposed to guns for fear that someone less physically capable than you can thereby gain the power to resist you? I sincerely hope not.

Yeah what the fuck was that?

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 22, 2008 8:40 PM

So, you DO go about waving around metal rods on the hilltop during the storm, then?

but aren't lightning rods supposed to minimize your risk?

you really should stop with this analogy, it's quite a poor one.

the rest also miss the point:

You fail to note that the only statistics on risk show INCREASED risk when a gun is in the home.

show your work otherwise, or stop trying to pretend this is all about minimizing risk.

Posted by: Soybomb | July 22, 2008 8:44 PM

Ichthyic, may I ask that you show your work as well? I have yet to personally see a study that shows what I call genuine increased risk from owning a gun. As I mentioned earlier Kellermann's work is popular but also complete rubbish. I would like to read what you believe to be solid evidence.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 22, 2008 8:47 PM

As I mentioned earlier Kellermann's work is popular but also complete rubbish.

what part of it?

the data?

the statistics?

show me exactly which parts of it are rubbish, and then we can move to the next one.

then, can you show me the studies supporting your position that aren't rubbish?

Posted by: decrepitoldfool | July 22, 2008 8:50 PM

Cover the floor by the windows and doors with crackers. He'll have to step on Jesus to get to you.

If you'll recall the relevant 1960's Bill Cosby routine, one smears Jello on the floor, so the intruder will slip on it and fall on his back. Well, if the intruder is a giant carnivorous chicken heart.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 22, 2008 8:50 PM

but aren't lightning rods supposed to minimize your risk?

A lightning rod has to be grounded; it's not a good idea if you're part of the path to ground.

you really should stop with this analogy, it's quite a poor one.

Once again an attack against the wrong argument.

Posted by: Rystefn | July 22, 2008 8:55 PM

Threatening to dial 911? Really? You honestly think "leave me alone or the cops will be here in ten or fifteen minutes" is going to accomplish anything?

No, I am not advocating an eternal power escalation. Robberies with rocket launchers don't work, as you blow up all the loot. If it ever goes to lasers, I might say citizens should go to lasers, but I'm really sure how a beam weapon is a more immediate threat than a bullet in a mugging/home invasion scenario, so it does seem to stop there on the personal protection front. Level field. None of this "might makes right" crap.

If you walked away from a fight shaking your head and wondering at your own stupidity, good for you, but if you think that's how most fistfights end, you're badly mistaken.

As to the bit about you fearing the field being leveled, that was nothing other than me pointing out how ridiculous assuming another's intentions and motivations is. So stop assuming the gun owner is trying to escalate anything. The criminals escalated it to guns a long time ago, I'd just like to be able to keep up, thank you.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 22, 2008 8:58 PM

But it's not irrational to take out some form of auto insurance.

It's certainly irrational to take out flight insurance. The whole point is rational risk assessment.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 22, 2008 9:06 PM

no shit.

That's certainly what your suggestion was that waving a metal rod around minimizes your risk.

I was particularly amused by your recent tu quoque bullshit about my "poisoning the well", after you had argued that someone was committing a fallacy not because he actually had committed a fallacy, but because he was the sort of person who could be expected to commit that fallacy -- a case of poisoning the well if ever there was one. What an asshole you are. And I predict that your response will just confirm it.

Posted by: Rystefn | July 22, 2008 9:11 PM

"Good point. Speaking of condemning others by playing with our lives, how about putting other peoples lives at risk, because I am afraid and need a handgun?"

There is no life at risk from my weapon beyond the person foolish enough to attempt to force his way into my home. I am properly trained in the care and use of firearms, as is every person here. I am fully aware of the dangers of overpenetration, and have taken the necessary steps to prevent this from causing harm to my neighbors.

So, kindly explain to me how the risk to innocents from a responsible and qualified gun owner outweighs the risk to innocents from an armed criminal. I'd love to hear it.

Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 22, 2008 9:17 PM

Yes, rational risk assessment is exactly correct. To you, the risks may not outweigh the benefits of gun ownership but it depends on where you live. Do you live in a relatively safe, quiet, and comfortable environment? Then by all means, don't purchase a gun. If however, you live in an environment that may see such crimes, the benefits are well worth the risk. If I was a university professor who happened to be outspoken, and perhaps may cause some irrational loons to go off the deep end, I may just think about arming myself, even if I lived in a relatively quiet area.

I know the deterrant value of gun usage first hand, because I saw my father drive off an intruder with just the sound of his shot-gun loading. Now, perhaps, without that incident in my life, I may view things differently, and relating this is like talking about that distant cousin you know who won the lottery. In fact, I don't even have a gun at the moment because I live in a secured apartment in a relatively crime-free area of Honolulu (which also happens to have low gun ownership and low crimes committed by guns). However, if I perceived the risks to outweigh the cost of purchasing a gun for self protection, I would do so without hesitation. Technically I do have a registered shotgun, but it's at my parents' house because they'll probably need it more then I do. Go back to my original post where I tell PZ to get a gun. That may have started the vigor of this whole debate.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 22, 2008 9:19 PM

I'll just point out the problem with the seatbelt analogy: if your kids break into your car and play with the seatbelt it's unlikely anyone's going to die because of it.

Someone mentioned Bill Hicks; I'll remind you of the figure he quoted - 23 000 gun deaths. Not sure which year that's from, but I imagine Bill would have done his research. That's a lot of dead people - people with families and friends.

Logically, it can be argued that a gun is good for protection, but can anyone argue that there'd have been more deaths if guns were less prevalent?

Unfortunately, unless there's a way to get the existing guns off US streets it's a moot point, and since I don't live there I won't attempt to speculate on what I'd do if I did. I do hope that those of you who own guns never need to use them.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 22, 2008 9:23 PM

the criminals escalated it to guns a long time ago

wait, are we still talking about keeping guns in the home?
Are home burglaries mostly done at gunpoint these days?
-or does your home get regularly invaded by armed thugs?

have you ever actually been attacked by someone with a gun?

if so, where? what were the circumstances? Do you have some personal experience to suggest that having a gun in your home has made you safer? Isn't it far more likely that someone would NOT want to alert you to their presence if they wish to burglarize your home?

If someone was sneaking around my house at night while I was asleep, I figure the intruder would have at least some chance of finding any gun I had ready to protect myself.

whatever the probability might be of home intrusion by a stranger (and that would vary depending on where you live, I suppose), I can also recall many, many stories of domestic dispute cases gone "bad".

Ever get in a serious fight with your wife or roommate?

would you want them to have access to a loaded gun if they were temporarily extremely angry at you, or perhaps just having a really bad day?

I'm sure you say, "Oh, that's unlikely - who shoots someone just because they're upset or angry?"

I wonder if Phil Hartman would have given you some commentary relevant to that, if he were still alive.

bottom line, for me at least, I've seen orders of magnitude more cases reported of domestic disputes involving guns, than I have of home invasions involving strangers and guns.

frankly, with some of the roommates I've had over the years, I would think lowering my risk of bodily harm would be best accomplished by NOT having any guns in the house that could be readily accessed.

but hey, that's just personal experience. We were talking about statistics, right?

we could look together and see whether or not there really are more cases involving domestic disputes and guns than there are home invasion and guns, yes?

Or would that not really answer the question for you personally as to what strategy would really minimize your personal risk?

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 22, 2008 9:29 PM

but because he was the sort of person who could be expected to commit that fallacy -- a case of poisoning the well if ever there was one. What an asshole you are. And I predict that your response will just confirm it.

are you sure you want to waste your energy on this?

really?

you're too dishonest to take it back to the thread where it was raised, simply because you said you wouldn't, and choose to bring it here instead?

get the fuck over yourself.

seriously.

Posted by: Xeno | July 22, 2008 9:31 PM

"So, kindly explain to me how the risk to innocents from a responsible and qualified gun owner outweighs the risk to innocents from an armed criminal. I'd love to hear it."
So now we're back from discussing gun ownership on a philosophical level, to arguing from an American point of view, to arguing from an individuals point of view, to arguing from a qualified gun owners point of view.
I can buy discussing this from an American point of view. But surely you realize that you just excluded a large group of people with your little rhetorical phrasing there?

Perhaps that group might be relevant in discussing the role of guns on society?

"I am properly trained in the care and use of firearms, as is every person here. I am fully aware of the dangers of overpenetration, and have taken the necessary steps to prevent this from causing harm to my neighbors."

I am thoroughly amused. What are these "necessary steps", pray tell? And is now the time to enlighten you that trained professionals, like policemen and military personnel, who have - dare I say - probably the best training in these things still make mistakes.
Why? Because the actual stress of a dangerous situation makes everyone prone to making them. Assuming that "the regular gun owner" would be more disciplined, trained and educated in a potentially lethal situation (lethal in that the person "defending" himself is armed, if nothing else), is laughable.

"There is no life at risk from my weapon beyond the person foolish enough to attempt to force his way into my home."

I don't know if this will hold up to your very high standards, but still:
Wikipedia, where we find "In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified. Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a gun."
It has an actual paper book reference and everything!

Posted by: Rystefn | July 22, 2008 9:37 PM

Yes, I have had a gun pointed at me, and yes, my own weapon takes the credit for me walking away from it. Yes, I have had a great number of arguments in my home, but no one in my home fails the "would I trust this person with a gun, even angry?" test. I have never yet pulled a weapon in anger. People who fail at basic gun safety are not allowed in my home. People who fail at basic anger management are also not allowed in my home.

Yes, a competent burglar would love to get in and out without ever being noticed. Many burglars are not competent, and the competent ones must be aware of the risk of an armed person in the building (otherwise, they aren't competent, are they?). What percentage of those respond to the risk by arming themselves? We don't know. We can't know. Burglaries, robberies, and other crimes go wrong, and when they do, sometimes people die. Given the option, I'd prefer it's the criminal in the body bag.

No one ever dying might be a nice dream, but the world just doesn't work that way. Honestly, I liken it to a nation having no armed forces because the chance of foreign invasion is pretty low. Yes, the odds are low, but the cost of failure is spectacularly high.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 22, 2008 9:43 PM

BWAHAHAHAHA! You're made of dishonest, asshole.

Oh?

as much as you are made of shit and piss you feel you must offload at every opportunity?
this is where you want to focus your energies?

so be it.

feel free to berate me with your endless repertoire of textbook logic you learned as a student.

wheee!

just know you aren't contributing anything to the topic at hand.

I wonder if that's what you do when you really DON'T have anything substantive to contribute to a discussion, but want to exercise all the effort you made to study logic and rhetoric?

for example, when you point out that rystefn apparently contradicted himself in #238, did you do that because you wanted to rub his nose in it, or because there was something to really learn from it relevant to the issue at hand?

what was the message supposed to be there?

I'm genuinely curious to hash out where people get their ideas that owning a gun is a good/bad thing, so if I don't immediately respond to your frothings, be aware it's because I wish to think about what other people are saying.

Posted by: Rystefn | July 22, 2008 9:50 PM

Xeno, attempting to disable an attacker with a gun is a good way to get yourself killed. Thank you, but no. If you think it is an atrocity that I feel my life is worth more than the person from whom I am defending myself, that's your prerogative, but I feel very much that you are wrong, and that the vast majority of humanity would be atrocious by that definition.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 22, 2008 9:51 PM

Pepper spray.

Bulletproof vest. Remember, the other guy just might draw faster, just perhaps...

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 22, 2008 9:54 PM

Yes, I have had a gun pointed at me, and yes, my own weapon takes the credit for me walking away from it.

where did that happen? Is this what you attribute most to your position on guns, or was your position the same before this event?

People who fail at basic anger management are also not allowed in my home.

really? How can you tell before it happens?

Say you do know for a specific individual...

Would you kick out your teenage son because of irrational anger issues?

your life must be very ordered and neat.

No one ever dying might be a nice dream, but the world just doesn't work that way.

neither does the idea of perfect anger management.

you don't consider yourself omniscient, right?

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 22, 2008 10:01 PM

I have never yet said that I think everyone, or even a large number of people should own guns.

but...

If I lived in a world where few people had guns, maybe I'd be more comfortable without one... I can't say. I don't live in that world, though.

Unless you meant you literally live in a different world than the rest of us, doesn't this mean you basically think that guns are the way to minimize our risk?

Now I'm sure by "not everyone" you really meant a larger grouping than just "criminals", right?

so, are you narrowing your argument down to personal experience, and suggesting that you personally feel more comfortable having a gun around, or are you trying to say it's a good thing in general?

if the latter, why shouldn't "everyone" (except the "criminals" of course) own a gun?

Posted by: Rystefn | July 22, 2008 10:11 PM

Ichthyc #251:

"so, are you narrowing your argument down to personal experience, and suggesting that you personally feel more comfortable having a gun around, or are you trying to say it's a good thing in general?"

I am trying to say that the world is full of violent people. My particular section of this world contains a Hell of a lot of guns, many of which are in the hands of criminals. I personally feel that, as a responsible and competent person, I am better served by having access to a firearm should I need one. I also think that others would be better served in the same way IF they take the time to educate and train themselves. Random Joe Schmuck #3 with a gun is a danger to himself, and everyone around him. Yes, probably moreso than a criminal intent on violence, if for no other reason than that there are a lot more random idiots in the world than sadistic, violent criminals.

Yes, I am an advocate for gun ownership, but ONLY when it is accompanied by intelligence, training, education, personal responsibility, and a healthy respect for the weapon.

Posted by: Keith B | July 22, 2008 10:11 PM

I think this is going to be one of those agree to disagree moments. I know I advocated gun protection earlier, but I'm kind of torn both ways, honestly.

Posted by: allonym | July 22, 2008 10:16 PM

The benefits of car ownership and operation outweigh the risks involved in a way that is concretely measurable on a daily basis. I can see that, when I have successfully driven my car from point A to point B, I have received a benefit from its use. Despite traffic accidents being a very real risk, most drivers make (probably) thousands of A to B trips without incident. This indicates that the benefit will most likely outweigh the risk (which is mitigated by being a skilled, competent driver).

Guns, on the other hand, provide a much more abstract benefit (those used for protection, at least) in that they only might be used in a very rare circumstance. Each day that passes with that gun at the ready cannot be described as a day that the gun provided concrete, measurable benefit in the same way that the car provided. Unless, that is, one is prepared to assume that their life and/or property is materially in danger of gun-preventable violence every single day, which I hope we can all agree is unreasonable and probably indicative of paranoia. Meanwhile, the gun's presence has provided the full inherent level of daily risk! So the simple calculus seems to be that the risk outweighs the benefit. It's admittedly blurry, though, and gun risks are also mitigated by owners being skilled and competent.

I also feel like pointing out that attempts to compare firearms' potential harmfulness to that of automobiles, or their risk-minimizing efficacy to that of seat belts (or insurance policies, or lighting rods) are missing or ignoring the fact that, among these things, guns are uniquely purposeless without their ability to cause harm. Anyone who suggests that the mere presence of a gun is a sufficient deterrent to crime is only making the case for carrying things that look like guns (Holbach?)!

Posted by: Soybomb | July 22, 2008 10:21 PM

Ichthyic you still aren't showing your work so thats obviously going to make it hard for me to tell you specifically what I disagree with. I'll just throw some Kellermann stuff and we'll see what sticks I suppose. I would like it if you could cite something in particular though.

There are pages and pages of critiques of kellermann's general body of work out there. If you truly have an intellectual interest in this I'd urge you to find them and read them and not rely on the tiny bit of info I'm willing to try to spoon feed here.

That said, yes methodology is a big factor. Kellermann's data set is only partially available and missing some important bits of vital information like if the gun used to kill the homicide victim was stored in the victims home. It factors in suicide as a reason to not have a gun as though the gun is what makes a suicidal person take action. The study fails to take into account the type of people with guns in their home. The famous 34% number drops to 12.6% when home with prior arrests are excluded. It drops to 7% if we exclude homes with prior arrests, drug use, and violent histories. Shouldn't I be more interested in what happens to people like me than the junkie out of jail?

In a later study by Kellermann he even discredits himself (Kellermann, et. al. 1998. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." Journal of Trauma 45:263-267 ) by stating that origin of the gun in the home shooting is from the home 14.2% of the time.

Anyway I could go on for pages, but look for yourself, I'm sure you'll find it all from other far more credible sources than some guy on the internet. I'd suggest you start with:
The New England Journal of Medicine -- February 3, 1994 -- Volume 330, Number 5 - letters to the editor

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home": Kates, Schafer, et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?. TN Law Review 1994

Kleck, Gary, What Are the Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home?, JAMA, August 5, 1998.

Rafferty, Ann P. et. al. "Validity of a household gun question in a telephone survey." Public Health Reports. May-June 1995 v110 n3 p282(7).

Kleck, Gary. "Can Owning a Gun Really Triple the Owner's Chances of Being Murdered?" Homicide Studies 5 2001.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30225.html is easily available and has some decent references

Anyway you get the idea. I'll leave it up to you to determine if Kellermann's work is good or not. I just hope you're interested in finding the truth more than finding a way to show your position to be right.

Now onto what you're asking for. We can quantify the number of people killed in firearms accidents in the home and find its a very low number. How do we compare that to the number of crimes stopped by someone with a gun in the home? Studies show us that defensive gun uses seldom result in shots being fired. The attacker seems to usually stop when a gun is produced. These instances are either not reported at all or if reported are not flagged in any meaningful way to let us know that a gun was involved assuming that person reporting the incident mentions the gun. The police report will be reported as attempted robbery, not attempted robbery stopped with a gun.

Some researchers have taken into account those challenges and come up with their own methodology to produce some numbers.

Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1. says that there are about 2 million defensive gun uses a year.

US Dept. of Justice, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, 1994 puts it at 1.5 million a year.

Southwick Jr., Lawrence. "GUNS AND JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: DETERRENCE AND DEFENSE." St. Louis University Public Law Review. vol 18, no. 1, 1999: 217 said its at least 400k.

Whats the truth? I have no idea. I do know that I haven't seen any quality evidence that having a gun in the home is a danger for myself. I know that the number of gun accidents a year no where approaches any of the numbers for defensive gun uses that I belive to be credible studies. Arrive at your own conclusion, just be sure you're putting a little work and not trusting your gut.

So you asked us to show our work so to speak. I believe I showed you a great deal of work that supports my position. Are you now willing to do what you asked of us and show what work you believe supports yours?

Posted by: Rystefn | July 22, 2008 10:25 PM

Icthyic #254:
"I'm going to hazard a guess that when Rystefn looks at that same information, his mind instead focuses on the words I emphasized, and concludes, if I take his reasoning correctly, that it is suggesting that handguns are common, and lethal, so we should be buying handguns to protect ourselves."

Actually, my mind didn't really focus specifically anywhere until people started putting things in bold. Regardless, handguns are common in some places, and less so elsewhere. That's not so much the part that worries me. The part that concerns me is that any firearm is very lethal and that here, pretty much anyone can get one.

If someone is in my home without my permission, there is a very real chance that person would never purposely harm another human being physically. There is also a very real chance that person is perfectly willing to kill me and anyone else they come across in pursuit of whatever purpose brought him here. If you are willing to gamble the lives of yourself and your family on giving a criminal the benefit of the doubt, that's your call. In the moment, I may very well choose the same... but I'd rather have the option of defense if it proves necessary.

As I said before, I wouldn't go hunting through the house or any of that idiot Rambo crap. I don't want any more blood spilled than must be, but if someone must die in such a situation, I'd rather it not be me, and more than that, I'd rather it not be one of my loved ones.

Posted by: Xeno | July 22, 2008 10:31 PM

Well, talk about getting the cold shoulder. :(

Since no-one seems to be engaging me, I'll take this respite to go watch a movie with lots of guns and explosions.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 22, 2008 10:40 PM

Since no-one seems to be engaging me

what, what?

I'm using the info. you posted from wiki.

jump on in.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 22, 2008 10:46 PM

The part that concerns me is that any firearm is very lethal and that here, pretty much anyone can get one.

wait, so the part that concerns you is the availability of guns?

If you are willing to gamble the lives of yourself and your family on giving a criminal the benefit of the doubt, that's your call.

but that's just it, do you really KNOW what your actual risk is?

or are you just assuming it based on fear of "criminals" vs. people you "trust"?

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 22, 2008 10:53 PM

The scotus decision was right if the 2nd amendment says what the court decided it says. If you disagree with the 2nd amendment that you need to push for legislation to change it, not rely on creative judicial interpretation to get there.

wow. uh the point is that it took creative interpretation to get where SCOTUS just "got", hence why it took them so bloody long to get "there".

I suppose you ignored the dissenting opinions in the case?

Posted by: gwangung | July 22, 2008 11:00 PM

Typical Fascist Liberal generalization. A few idiot Catholics must mean ALL of them wish to visit Mr. Paul Myers of Morris, Minnesota.

Typical IDIOT comment.

It just takes one.

Posted by: Rayven Alandria | July 22, 2008 11:04 PM

STOP ARGUING ABOUT GUNS AND START INVESTIGATING GREG MOORE!!!

Do something productive.

google keywords like PZ Meyers, Greg Moore, crackers, Eucharist, etc...and try to find a link between the two. Nut Jobs have a tendency to spout nonsense in many places, so this guy has probably bitched about PZ on a newsgroup someplace. Find info about him and link it to the email address hr sent the threats from and charges can be pressed.

Posted by: Rystefn | July 22, 2008 11:05 PM

Xeno #250: "What kind of superhumans are you battling?" The kind who can still use their hands after being shot in the leg. In short - most people. When I was in the military, they taught us to shoot at center mass, minimizing the risk of of missing completely when the lives of my fellow soldiers were on the line. Let's not even start on drugged-up wackos, admittedly relatively low in numbers, but not remotely like nonexistent.

"I think it's actually disgusting that you would think yourself an educated and responsible gun owner, when your basic attitude is that of the very thing you fear." My basic attitude is that it's ok to kill people in the pursuit of stealing from them? Sorry, but I can't fathom how you came to that conclusion.

Icthyic #256: "how would you describe the encounter you related earlier, where you drove off a gunman by using your gun." Honestly, I'd rather not describe it at all. The experience was quite traumatic, and I would vastly prefer that it had been a case of driving someone off.

Icthyic #258: "so then you ARE saying that everyone should own a gun, so long as there is some training involved, and the person is above average intelligence?" No, I am saying that everyone who desires to won a gun should be allowed to so long as there is a real amount of training involved, and a verification of said training to weed out incompetents and stupid people. Like we should have for vehicle operation, only not a joke.

"don't the mentally handicapped get to protect themselves with a gun, too?" How do you define handicapped? If the person is mentally capable of understanding the maintenance, operation, and consequences, then absolutely.

"what if someone successfully defends themselves from attack with a gun they own, but have never received any training on using the weapon?

would you criticize the person for using a gun to defend themselves?" I would criticize the person for not training themselves with the weapon they owned, it's irresponsible and dangerous. It may have worked out in this case, but it was good luck, not good policy.

"am I wrong?" I think so, yes... unless you can give me some sort of valid reason why a person with no history of violence and a demonstrated competency with a tool AND a thorough understanding of proper safety precautions should NOT be allowed to own it.

#264: "are we prepared to conclude Rystefn is paranoid? Hell, I dunno, maybe he lives in the middle of gang central, and every person under the age of 80 is involved in regular drive-by shootings." Hyperbole much? Or am I to conclude that you live in happy-cloud land where no one ever hurts anyone for any reason and violence is a myth that only exists in fairy tales?

"that said, who is to say that Rystefn isn't caught in a kind of catch-22? The more people that are perceived to have guns, the more people start to think they need guns to protect themselves from the people who already have them." Isn't that an ugly truth? A society-wide overhaul would be nice, but in the meantime, I'll take what I feel are quite reasonable steps to protect myself and the people I care about.

"Rystefn, you imply you would be happy to dump the guns if it were "a different world".

Were you being honest?

if someone could show that you were the only one in your entire town that owned a gun, would you then give it up?" Would I give it up completely? Unlikely. Would I lock it away, store it outside of my home, and only take it out for target shooting? Absolutely. So long as the facility where it is stored is not a government facility, and I had a few other assurances on the whole Second Amendment front.

Please, don't misunderstand me - I abhor violence. I simply abhor the idea of myself or my loved ones being killed/raped/etc by a criminal more. I abhor the government no longer feeling accountable to the people most of all.

Posted by: Mrs Bastardley | July 22, 2008 11:08 PM

I've never why people who are very scared for their own safety opt for the gun route, rather than a non-lethal weapon such as mace, tasers, etc. If I ever lived in a country where guns were popular (which I never have, thankfully), and I was in real, clear danger of getting attacked, I would opt for something that would mean I didn't have to kill people.

Is there a reason people choose guns?

Posted by: Rystefn | July 22, 2008 11:12 PM

Cary #276 I could not disagree with you more. The constitution has built into it methods for changing what it says. this is because is was written with the knowledge that the world changes, and the Constitution could only serve us by being able to change as well. If there's a part of it you dislike, you damned well had better stand up and say so. That, my friend, is a big part of what the first amendment is about: the ability of the people to freely criticize the parts of the law and the government we disagree with.

If you truly believe in the constitution and what it stands for, you HAVE to pick and choose the parts of it you like.

Posted by: stogoe | July 22, 2008 11:16 PM

Rystefn, on what continent are you where you live in constant fear of paramilitary thieves breaking into your home and pumping you full of lead? Because it certainly doesn't seem like it's anywhere that actually exists.

I shall call it Jack Bauer-land, because your irrational fears and violence-gasms from living there so long remind me of Fox's torture-porn serial.

Posted by: Soybomb | July 22, 2008 11:18 PM

Ichthyic @ #268 "umm, with things other than guns, perhaps? or running?"
So I'm under obligation to make the fight fair if someone attacks me? Instead of keeping a safe distance away from a guy with a bat or knife I need to get my own bat or knife? That reads like you're more concerned about how the attacker makes out than the victim.

Running will certainly get most people out of most situations, but it doesn't work all the time. How does the woman run away from a battering ex kicking in her apartment door? How does the older or disabled person run away? How do I run away from people who are faster than me or have me cornered with multiple people? The list goes on. You won't always be able to run away and you should be free to use the most effective tool for self defense against your attacker.

And of course please don't miss my earlier post to you at #259

Posted by: Cary | July 22, 2008 11:28 PM

#277:

First off, I am disheartened that you are thankful that you have never lived in America. For all of the shortfalls that the current power structure has brought our country, I really do believe in the concept of my country, and what the forefathers who created it believed in.

I am sure, in fact positive, that there are many problems in the country that you currently reside and those you have lived in. No country is perfect.

Now, in response to your question:

There are in fact many people here in the US who opt for mace or tasers for personal protection. However, these options are NOT foolproof methods of repelling an attacker. For example, if an attacker, mugger, what have you may be ever so slightly be on the edge of becoming homicidal, a spray of mace to their face may only serve to enrage them further. In fact, many people in certain lines of work (security, military, police, etc) actually go through training to learn to overcome the effects of mace/pepper spray.

Tasers are a one shot deal. If you don't hit your attacker, that's it. They are practical for police who can quickly draw their gun-shaped taser out of a holster. I don't really consider them entirely practical for personal protection.

Now, as for why I would choose a gun? Because if I feel my life is being threatened, I'm not going to take any chances. I want the attacker stopped and I want them stopped now. The ONLY way to ensure that is by seriously wounding or disabling them. A taser, stun gun, mace, do not ensure that.

Now, of course if you could not handle the idea of killing someone for your own protection emotionally, then a firearm is obviously not for you. However, not everyone shares these feelings.

Answer your question?

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 22, 2008 11:32 PM

Hyperbole much?

Just to be clear, I was extrapolating the point in AGREEMENT with you. consider it a case of "You're not paranoid if they really are after you". I don't know what the actual circumstances of your particular community is, only what you tell us.

Would you prefer I not accept your account that "your world" is a dangerous one? We are discussing ways of rationally assessing risk, after all. If you want to say you base your assessment of risk on how dangerous your particular environment is, that's fair I think. Or were you the one who was originally extrapolating on just how dangerous it really is?

I'll think about the rest of what you said and come back later.

Posted by: Cary | July 22, 2008 11:37 PM

#279:

Rystefn, let me clarify.

I should have elaborated and been more clear. Because I agree with you.

What I meant was, you can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution apply to you at any given time. Of course through the amendment process we change the constitution, and that's a vital part of it. Of course our country is based on the idea of free speech, criticizing our laws and constitution, etc... However, our government CANNOT take away freedoms explicitly granted to us without changing the constitution.

I guess my point is, to be clearer, if you don't like people owning guns, stand up and advocate for the repeal of the second amendment.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 22, 2008 11:38 PM

What in the universe have I ever said to make you think these things?

he's challenging your description of the dangerous world you live in.

You've mentioned it several times.

seems pretty clear to me.

maybe you should be clearer about the actual dangers you and yours face in your community?

that way people wouldn't even be considering paranoia.

fair enough?

Posted by: Cary | July 22, 2008 11:46 PM

#290:

If you pull a gun in self defense, you SHOULD be basically ready to pull the trigger. Maybe I'm off, but in all the CCW training I've ever heard of they teach you that if you are drawing your weapon it is because you are imminently ready to kill the person who you are aiming it at.

Guns are NOT deterrent devices. You don't pull a gun to scare an attacker away. If you have ever had training from someone who has said to pull a gun to scare someone away, they are a moron.

Of course pulling the gun escalates the situation. That's why you don't draw your firearm until you are sure that your attacker will definitely harm you and your only option to prevent this is to shoot your attacker.

Posted by: Rystefn | July 22, 2008 11:50 PM

"he says he was attacked and a gun saved him, or something to that effect..."

I also said I was in the military.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 23, 2008 12:00 AM

The blame is on the careless and incompetent.

oh, that is so much bullshit, and completely irrelevant to the discussion of relative risks we've been debating for the last several hours.

the conclusion appears clear to me:

you really AREN'T using any rational measure to assess your actual risks.

I'm done with you.

thanks.

Posted by: NonWonderDog | July 23, 2008 12:06 AM

#288:

It's not, and while I think that carrying one for self-defense without a very specific reason is evidence of either extreme paranoia or sheer bloody-mindedness I'm not necessarily anti-gun. But I kind of think it's a valid reason to require strict firearm registration and to disarm the proto-fascist wackos. Apparently that makes me one, in their eyes.

Additionally, the threat of civil war between the militias and "sane, rational people" doesn't seem like the proper deterrent at all, and it really doesn't seem like something I want to be involved in (or have to cower from). I think you should find another line of argumentation here.

Posted by: Rystefn | July 23, 2008 12:18 AM

NWD - I don't remotely think that there's a civil war brewing any time soon in this country, and I'd certainly rather see a revolution fought with ballots than bullets. I'm not against regulations and registrations and such. Hell, we do all that for cars, don't we? Dangerous as a car is, it's not exactly a weapon, is it? We're not so very far apart on that front, I think. Where we differ is, I suppose, what counts as a specific enough personal threat to warrant a firearm as defense. Ever hear a gunshot? If you weren't at a shooting range or out hunting, I'll call that a specific enough threat.

Posted by: reuben | July 23, 2008 12:27 AM

You want to live without risk? Good luck. It can't be done. Most of the risk in having a gun in the home is from carelessness and incompetency. The blame is not on the gun. The blame is on the careless and incompetent.

You want to live in a world without careless people? Good luck. It can't be done.

So you honestly believe that evil resides in the gun, and it maliciously fired itself at people?

No, but access to a gun makes it far easier for careless people to accidentally (or maliciously) kill others. With a gun a careless person can kill someone with a twitch of a finger.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 23, 2008 12:39 AM

The threat of criminal violence is a reason to arm yourself. The love of sport shooting is a reason to arm yourself. Hunting is a reason to arm yourself. The thin, thin chance that one day you might seriously feel the need to defend yourself from an oppressive government is a reason to arm yourself. The occasional dangerous wild animal is a reason to arm yourself. General principle in defense of the Second Amendment is a reason to arm yourself.

reasonable.

I think you should spend some time exploring the meaning of that word.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 23, 2008 12:54 AM

Reuben, I'm in Australia - and I wouldn't exactly say it's a 'non-issue' here, since there are still gun-related crimes happening. But yeah, it's certainly nothing like the US.

But it was at great cost that it became as regulated as it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

Posted by: reuben | July 23, 2008 1:03 AM

Sorry Wowbagger maybe I over exaggerated, but I think compared to the US it really is a non-issue.

I remember the Port Arthur massacre well. It is interesting that in Australia the massacre led to public support for tighter gun control as opposed to calling for further gun ownership rights for self-defence.

But then, we Australians don't have a second amendment to call on. I understand that the situation in the US is very different and comparing it to other countries in not necessarily justified.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 23, 2008 1:17 AM

Reuben,

Oh, I agree it's nothing like the US, and the constitutional aspects make their situation far more complicated. As well-meaning as their 'founding fathers' were I'm fairly sure they've have put it differently if they'd know what it meant for their 'offspring'.

Plus I think it's more of an issue in different parts of Australia - i.e. it's more significant in the country rather than the city, and I know there are politicians in those areas who do make references to it come election time. I remember the question of 'how will people on properties defend themselves if they don't have guns?' still being asked not all that long ago.

While I agree there are parts of Queensland that have fallen behind in terms of social and technological advancements, comparing it to the Wild West is a bit disingenuous...

Posted by: Soybomb | July 23, 2008 1:38 AM

Ichthyic you asked the pro-gun side to show you their work and for me to show you my problems with Kellermann's work. I did you the courtesy of giving you a rather length reply at #259 including citing supporting work in JAMA, TN Law Review, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, a DoJ study, and St. Louis University Public Law Review among others.

You're replied to many other comments since then but I haven't seen you respond to this. Can you show your work as you asked others to do? It seems discourteous to lay down the challenge and then walk away if someone takes you up on it, not to mention somewhat intellectually barren.

Posted by: NanuNanu | July 23, 2008 2:44 AM

Death penalty? For being caught with a gun? Please tell me they were joking because that is one of the most retarded things ever said in one of these debates no matter which side you're on

Posted by: Joe Bob | July 23, 2008 3:08 AM

@313

OK, I just looked around for a critique Kleck's critique of Kellermann, and I found this at www.gunlawsuits.org/reform/ftcfiling.php

In contrast, in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports only about 85,000 annual civilian defensive uses of guns. A study analyzing the NCVS data from 1987 through 1990, concluded that an average of less than 65,000 crime victims, or fewer than 2 victims in 1000, defended themselves with a gun in each of those years. And, another study reported that the use of a firearm in self-defense during the commission of a violent crime is associated with a seven fold increase in the likelihood that the defender will be attacked with a gun.

The data most often cited to support the theory that the protective benefits of guns outweigh the harm they cause is put forth by Professor Gary Kleck. Kleck claims that firearms are used as many as 2.5 million times annually by law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminal attack. But Kleck's conclusion has been roundly criticized by the scientific community. Kleck's data are based upon a privately commissioned telephone survey of about 5,000 respondents. From the relatively small number of annual defensive uses reported by these respondents (63), Kleck extrapolated a national rate. But because each person reporting a defensive gun use in Kleck's survey represents a large portion of Kleck's national estimate of 2.5 million defensive uses annually, even a small number of people who misunderstood or inaccurately answered the survey question could cause a relatively large discrepancy between Kleck's estimate and the true frequency of defensive gun use. In contrast, the NCVS employs an in-person interview of a sample of about 60,000 households, conducted every six months, making it relatively immune to large changes in estimates under different assumptions.

As one researcher put it, "Kleck's conclusions rest on limited data. Small changes in the procedures would produce large differences in the findings. The estimates are questionable and it appears unwise to place much weight on them." On balance then, the great weight of scientific data support the view that a firearm in the home confers more risk than benefit upon those who reside there.

Posted by: Rudd-O | July 23, 2008 3:44 AM

Here, I've read many rants and data points from the antigunners in the U.S., so I think it's best to say two things and give it a rest:

1) Fact: You simply are not going to take guns from Americans away. You've been trying for more than a century, and you have failed epically. The only way this is gonna happen is through a Constitutional amendment... and I don't see gun owners quietly going along with it, so just shut up, get with the program, and forget about it already. Don't want a gun? Fine, don't get one yourself. But respect the 200-year established right of people to get guns for them.

2) Fact: a victim, in the heat of the moment, with a gun, stands a monumentally better chance of escaping unhurt than another victim without a gun, whether by disuassion or by pulling the trigger. You can rave all you want about the strawmen exceptions, but the rule is overwhelmingly this: if you are going to be shot, you better have some way to respond. And statistically, at some point in your life, you will face this situation.

So why not be prepared? The only answer is: fear and cowardice.

Posted by: shane | July 23, 2008 4:08 AM

Rudd-O had 2 points. Fair enough on point 1, there is no way yanks will give up their god given right to plug each other, or more correctly, the right for their children to plug each with daddy's guns.

But then Rudd-O said something about being shot at And statistically, at some point in your life, you will face this situation.
So why not be prepared? The only answer is: fear and cowardice.

Bullshit. Cite stats please.
Fear and cowardice for not wanting guns? Please. The only cowards here showing any fear are you guys arming yourselves to the teeth afraid of some straw man boogey man.

Posted by: ben | July 23, 2008 5:09 AM

if you are going to be shot, you better have some way to respond. And statistically, at some point in your life, you will face this situation

The idea that this assertion could be backed up with anything but the most flimsy and dishonest "statistics" is completely idiotic.

Posted by: chrisD | July 23, 2008 5:31 AM

Do you think his gut reaction is to surrender to someone who could for all intents and purposes finish him off even if he did surrender? Hell, I doubt that would even go through his mind. It would all be gut reaction anyway.

Would read better as "Do you think his calculated response would be to surrender to an angry stranger with a gun? Hell, I doubt that anything would even go through his mind. It would be gut reaction all the way."

Sorry, I'm a perfectionist and it's late.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 23, 2008 6:05 AM

I think the idead that the UK is a gun free place needs correcting. You may not be in possession of a Handgun. If you are it is 5 years inside. That was after the Dunblane school shooting: loner old male shoots infants class and their teacher.

You may still legally own non automatic rifles, shotguns etc. The banker in Chelsea who commited suicide by cop recently was shooting at people with legally held weapons. In a couple of weeks my perambulations in the Highlands are likely to be curtailed as the grouse shooting season starts. I have been high above Glen Doll and seen someone high on the other side of the glen culling deer (we killed our bears and wolves so we have to control deer numbers ourselves). However it is far higher to get a firearms license here than in the US, for a start you need a license before you go buy your gun and the slightest hint of a violation and it will be removed.

BTW after Dunblane all handguns had to be handed in to the police. You got iirc GBP15 or so compensation, regardless of the value of the weapon. People were weeping as they handed in pearl handled, gold inlaid antiques. No from my cold dead hands crap either. Some rich people exported their guns to gun clubs in France, but the average Joe can't afford that. We are unlikely to field an Olympics pistol shooting team in Beijing but hey?

Currently we are obsessing about knife crime, while violent crime and knife crime stats fall steadily. Though sadly it seems that knife injuries/deaths among the young is rising in some inner city areas.

Posted by: negentropyeater | July 23, 2008 6:15 AM

Will Greg Moore attempt to burn PZ at the stake ?

Nowadays, the Church doesn't burn people who deny the doctrine of transubstantation at the stake anymore.

No, they don't use the same methods as during the reign of queen Mary of England for instance :

Meet John Rogers. "On January 28 and January 29 1555, he came before the commission appointed by Cardinal Pole, and was sentenced to death by Gardiner for heretically denying the Christian character of the Church of Rome and the real presence in the sacrament. He awaited and met death cheerfully, though he was even denied a meeting with his wife. He was burned at the stake on February 4, 1555 at Smithfield." (source wikipedia)

Meet John Frith. "He was sentenced to death by fire and offered a pardon if he answered positively to two questions: Do you believe in purgatory, and do you believe in transubstantiation? He replied that neither purgatory nor transubstantiation could be proven by Holy Scriptures, and thus was condemned as a heretic and was transferred to the secular arm for his execution on June 23, 1533. He was burned at the stake on July 4, 1533 at Smithfield, London for, he was told, his soul's salvation." (source wikipedia)

No, they don't burn people at the stake, and they don't anathematize them either. They haven't issued yet a press release that says :

Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive Paul Zachary Myers, himself and all his accomplices the Pharyngulites and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

No, they don't do that anymore, we're in the 21st century, they have adapted to today's laws and technologies. So instead, they get other people to do it for them, they have the Catholic League and their press releases, and they wait, comfortably, and cowardly, in complete approbation, until all these Catholic fanatics have sent their anathematizing emails and maybe, maybe, one of them like this Greg Moore tries to burn PZ at the stake.

Nothing has really changed since the reign of queen Mary of England. The instruments have changed, but the effects are still the same, when they continue to endoctrinate people and make them love worthless symbols more than humans, and they continue to approve and stimulate their most lunatic and fanatical reactions.

Posted by: GunOfSod | July 23, 2008 6:24 AM

#53 Craigp - "The stats on gun ownership and gun control are also very iffy... so before you start condemning people you consider to be insane, perhaps you should read up on it. Maybe even meet a few?

Now VERY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE... they're insane. I've met quite a few. I can say that I would rather live with a gun nut than a religious nut."

OK but now you have to live with religious gun nuts as well.

Posted by: John C. Randolph | July 23, 2008 6:47 AM

A very wise man once said, that a gun is like a tourniquet: you rarely need it, but if you need it, you need it very badly, and you need it right away.

The moral issue in whether to tolerate a government infringing my right to self defense, is not dependent on the odds of my encountering a mugger, murderer, religious whacko, or maniac cop within my life expectancy. The long and short of it is, when the people are armed, the options available to governments are different than those available to a government whose citizens are unarmed.

A number of incidents in the history of our republic convince me that our own government is no more inherently benign than any other government in the world, it's just that we have a slightly better system of checks and balances. Setting the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislature at each others throats was a good start, but the ultimate check on the excesses of government is a population willing and able to put its foot down when they get out of line. Setting aside the question of whether any politicians need killing this week, I am not willing to extend enough trust in all future governments of the USA that I would go along with a demand to disarm the people.

I live in a state where people have (within living memory, even!) been rounded up and incarcerated for the crime of having Japanese ancestors. I live only a few hundred miles from a city where the acquittal of a pack of JBT's in LAPD uniforms sparked a riot, whose participants targeted people of white and Korean ancestry for violence.

I have been told by many well-meaning people that the danger intrinsic in being a member of several readily-targeted minorities is minimal in the USA, but I would point out that many people living in the Weimar republic were just as convinced that their laws and constitution would protect them.

Now, I sincerely hope that the people who choose not to arm themselves never have reason to regret that decision, but as far as I'm concerned, the motto of the JPFO is quite convincing: Never Again.

-jcr

Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 23, 2008 6:56 AM

People claiming that widespread public possession of handguns in the USA is a bulwark against tyranny appear not to have noticed that the US government has abbrogated significant portions of your constitutional rights- for example, they can now spy on your communications without cause or warrant, and they can arrest you and hold you indefinitely without charge or trial, all in the name of the Global War on/of Terror - and your handguns didn't do jack to stop it.

Posted by: Dancaban | July 23, 2008 7:07 AM

I'm Greg Moore! And so's my wife!
(Apologies to Monty Python)

Posted by: Beowulff | July 23, 2008 7:45 AM

jcr said:

I live in a state where people have (within living memory, even!) been rounded up and incarcerated for the crime of having Japanese ancestors. I live only a few hundred miles from a city where the acquittal of a pack of JBT's in LAPD uniforms sparked a riot, whose participants targeted people of white and Korean ancestry for violence.

Not sure why I'm getting myself involved in this whole "right to bear arms" discussion anyway, except maybe for this: When people claim that people need their handguns to protect themselves against their government, I've always wondered: What do they expect a few amateurs with handguns will do against trained professionals with chain guns and sniper rifles, not to mention against tanks and airplanes? Hasn't this whole idea been outdated since at least WW I?

Posted by: LisaJ | July 23, 2008 8:18 AM

I agree with #165 and others who have presented this issue - I feel that having a gun in your home will more likely lead to accidental death of one of your loved ones as opposed to saving your family from an unlikely armed intruder.

#163, whatever Canada's gun license numbers are, I have never known anyone who keeps a gun in their home for the fear of needing to use it on an intruder. Yes, people may own guns for hunting purposes, but I just never hear of people here keeping a gun accessible in their home. Those that need to keep a gun in their home 'just incase' of an intruder are holding a ridiculous irrational fear of some 'what if' scenario that will probably never be realized for them, but they're putting their family at risk every day.

I guess using guns for hunting purposes is a bit of a different story, but even that makes me uneasy, especially when the kids get into it. Obviously as long as they're well supervised things should be OK, but I just don't get the need.

Again, the likelihood of a loved one, say a child, finding the gun in your home and having a tragic accident with it is much higher than an armed, violent intruder entering your home. Is feeling protected (the validity of this effect should be debated as well) in the event of an intruder really worth the risk?

I just don't get the importance of guns to some people's lives, and I think that in alot of cases it's driven by irrational fear and is just ridiculous and irresponsible.

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | July 23, 2008 8:21 AM

Stephen Wells @#340:

Except "the militia" is defined as all male citizens (and those becoming citizens) between the ages of 18 and 44 inclusive, and female members of the National Guard. Quoth the US Code, Title X, Section 311(a):

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Posted by: Dunc | July 23, 2008 8:47 AM

What do they expect a few amateurs with handguns will do against trained professionals with chain guns and sniper rifles, not to mention against tanks and airplanes?

Indeed (not to mention cruise missiles and tactical and strategic nuclear weapons). It didn't work out so well for those folks in Waco, did it?

I always wonder just how many federal law enforcement officers you have to kill before they realise you're just a true patriot defending the liberties of the Republic and not some crazy-ass terrorist cultist... And does that happen before or after they escalate to tactical nukes?

Posted by: ajani57 | July 23, 2008 8:48 AM

In the tradition of the great Nordic storytellers, there is already a video of the whole saga.

The story begins with PZ's idea simply being an idea. It is sometimes a little different or perhaps off balance, but it is just an idea. That idea is soon affronted by the villain, mean burly and out of control. There is violence and the idea could be hurt, oh my...

Enter our hero, PZ! He sternly admonishes the villain, and then with a point, and after that a Mighty Point, he sends the villain away in shame.

Behold, everyone who cares to see it knows PZ has a really good point-- pause, screen capture, set as desktop background good. Next, the pharyngulites offer comfort, they take care of his every need, and once his needs are met he dances, my spaghetti monster, he dances. Dance PZ, dance! Work it, baby. Celebrate The Point so that others will want to join and all will be rational with the world