"I guess nobody could object to people putting the newspaper staff’s addresses on the Web now, right?, says Instapundit, and as I click to get the URL for a link to the post, I see an update has gone up, adding what I was planning to say, which is that the newspaper has unwittingly hurt everyone who isn't listed, because burglars and home invaders can see which houses don't have guns... permitted guns anyway.
People who don't keep guns are free-riding on the gun owners, benefiting from the uncertainty that plagues burglars who know there's some risk that the person inside has a gun. Are gun owners happy to provide that aura of protection to the whole community, or would they prefer publicity that identifies the unprotected? Ironic that the anti-gun owners — seemingly scrambling for safety — are tossing aside the free protection.
Why don't they understand the value of the guns their neighbors own? Somehow it's easier to ideate about a gun owner going crazy. For some reason, they like thinking about gun owners as potential crazies. There are the dangers you love to obsess about, and the dangers you willfully ignore. But why? What rivets your attention to one problem and not to another?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८० टिप्पण्या:
Are gun owners happy to provide that aura of protection to the whole community
Yes.
We are, anyway.
We're magnanimous that way.
i wonder if the first B&E thug who comes across the owner of a 12 gauge has the standing to sue ;)
And I just thought to add that we own guns and believe in an armed society not just for our own personal self-interest, but because of our beliefs on the topic of power relationships. A gun is an instrument of power. If the law-abiding and the free lose that instrument of power, only the government and the criminals will have it. And we think that's wrong and dangerous. It's best for everyone involved if there's an excellent chance that others--including and especially the well-behaved citizen--are armed, but there's no way to easily know for sure.
Not really! Someone's desire for personal protection has the unintended consequence of providing security for you neighbor. Just like the more people buy an expensive product drives down its price. Eventually lower income will benefit from a lower price and are able to afford the products utility - like a cell phone.
It's wrong to think only gun owners are armed.
Statistically, it may make sense to issue women concealed weapon permits and let them anywhere they want (so long as the get the Lanza lecture on keeping them secure) while continuing to deny men the right to carry in gun-free zones.
Not really! Someone's desire for personal protection has the unintended consequence of providing security for you neighbor. Just like the more people buy an expensive product drives down its price. Eventually lower income will benefit from a lower price and are able to afford the products utility - like a cell phone.
reminds me of the photshopped picture I saw shomewhere on the web yesterday.
it was of teh Won strolling down penn ave after the inauguration on 2--8, next to moochelle and surrpunded by ss agents, being followed by the limo and 3 surburbans.
the bubble comming from his mouth was something like; 'We need to talk about how guns don't make you safer'.
The photoshopper had marked 15 guns on the agents and 3-5 in each of the cars.
our elites have no problem with guns in the hands of 'their' people.
I think Glenn pointed out that when david Gregory was abusing the NRA guy about having anarmed guard in every school; Gregory's kids g to Sidwell Friends. Beyond the SS agents there, Sidwell has security staff of 11. Wonder if they are all Quakers or maybe a few have permits or are off duty cops?
The why answer is the ease with which tribes and pop cultures accept the scapegoats du jour.
The dullard Muslims accept any rumor of attacks upon Black Al's prophet Mohammed's book of lies. That shows their fear that Mohammed's lies will be discovered and lose their power.
Likewise the gun takers call gun owners a threat because their existence threatens the gun takers lies that the government will love and protect them.
The Catholic Church spent 1500 years scapegoating the Jews until they quit last week.
What rivets your attention to one problem and not to another?
Well, if burglaries are hyped up on and on on TV like shootings, it might make you appreciate those gun owners in your neighborhood better.
Better yet, publish a map of the addresses of the mentally unbalanced.
I was startled by the shear number of permits in Manhattan. I never knew it was that violent.
If you've checked the updates at Instapundit, you'll see that a blogger has published the name and address of the newspaper's publisher. Personally, I'm fine with that, and I hope the bitch is sweating bullets. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, and all that.
The thing is, though, that just having a permit doesn't mean you actually own a pistol. (I have a driver's license, but I don't own a car.) And as Left Bank has pointed out, there are probably gun owners who don't have permits.
People who don't keep guns are free-riding on the gun owners, benefiting from the uncertainty that plagues burglars who know there's some risk that the person inside has a gun.
New York State does not require permits for buying rifles or shotguns. There isn't even a waiting period as there is in many other states. A would-be burglar might be able to use this list to become reasonably confident that no one in the house he's about to burglarize has a handgun, but he'll have no way whatsoever of knowing whether they have a rifle or shotgun (which are much more effective "manstoppers" than handguns).
Peter
This kind of intimidation tactic has to stop.
It is just straightforward mindless "us against them" and cranking up "the base."
This is yet another impetus for decent people to flee New York state for greener pastures.
As populations shift into very red vs very blue states how can a civil war II be avoided?
I think Kennesaw, Georgia, may be onto something. It has the aura of universal protection. Gun ownership is mandatory!
Why don't they understand the value of the guns their neighbors own?
Because there is no relationship between gun ownership and burglary. Compare the burglary rates in Houston, Dallas and Chicago. In 2010 the rates were 1330, 1636, and 972 respectively. In fact the overall property crime rate was lower in Chicago than pistol packing Houston and Dallas
I guess the animals will make note of which addresses not to hit.
And the rate of property crime in New York in 2010 was less than a third of that of Houston or Dallas (1707 per 100,000 compared to an average for 5400 for Houston and Dallas.)
Why don't they understand the value of the guns their neighbors own?
Who?
millionaresandbillionares?
Those are the bad people!
That's an awful lot of people owning guns. And of those, how many people are involved in crimes using said guns?
Crickets.....
So, this is basically a great bit of info showing the lack of correlation between gun ownership and crimes involving guns.
Thanks guys.
Now, turnaround is fair play. Lets have someone post the info of where their kids go to school.
Freder as usual is full of shit.
I say we out every single gun-banning leftist.
In fact the overall property crime rate was lower in Chicago than pistol packing Houston and Dallas.
On the other hand the murder rate was lower in pistol packing Houston and Dallas than it was in "gun-free" Chicago.
So maybe gun control ain't all it's cracked up to be, eh?
Try it for yourself, pick your most hated gun grabbing municipality and compare it to one where men are men and armed to the teeth. You will soon find out that for comparable states and municipalities, the states that have the most guns also have the most crime.
Lets have another graphic showing all the homes that aren't registered with guns in specific neighborhoods. That way the burglars can know which houses to target without facing a shot gun blast to their chest.
According to The Great Nate Silver:
Gun ownership rates are highest in rural areas, where guns are more likely to be used for hunting as well as personal protection. A slight majority of Democratic voters in rural areas said they had a gun in their home, according to the survey, although the rate was somewhat higher, 65 percent, among rural Republicans.
In urban areas, 40 percent of Republican voters said they had a gun in their home, while 20 percent of Democrats did.
I suggest we simply publish the names and addresses of Democratic voters. Gun violence should decline as criminals won't meet any armed resistance, thus not needing to actually use their weapons. Criminals take note, the odds of endangering your own life and limb if you burglarize a house, hijack a car, or rob a person displaying Obama signs, bumper stickers and buttons.
On the other hand the murder rate was lower in pistol packing Houston and Dallas than it was in "gun-free" Chicago.
But the rate in NYC is about half that of Houston and Dallas. Besides, the subject of this thread is Ann's claim that increased gun ownership leads to decreased burglary rates. There is simply no correlation between the two.
It's despicable, plain and simple.
Thuggery.
I'm glad such things are illegal in Florida.
We recently passed 1 million permits.
Funny Freder, guns are illegal in D.C. and it has a violent crime rate more than double that of any state.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/ucrdata/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeOneYearofData.cfm
To answer the question posed by the professor...The freeloaders are liberal progressives, and are therefore incapable of logical thought, It's what they "feel" that is important.
Freder, Chicago is a good test case of your theory. How is it working out ?
Not so well.
440 school age kids shot this year. Only 60 died, though.
But the rate in NYC is about half that of Houston and Dallas. Besides, the subject of this thread is Ann's claim that increased gun ownership leads to decreased burglary rates. There is simply no correlation between the two.
Speaking of correlation, there's no correlation between the number (or percentage) of legal gun owners in a city and that city's murder rate. But for some reason, whenever people are worked up about murder - whether of the spectacular mass shooting variety or the plain old criminal kind - the politicians' response is always to crack down on legal gun ownership.
Anyway, the fact that some cities with less gun ownership have fewer burglaries than other cities with more gun ownership doesn't necessarily disprove the hypothesis that the possibility of armed homeowners deters some potential burglars/home invaders. If I were planning a home invasion, whether the target had guns would certainly be a consideration! How could it not be?
The thing is, these type of effects always show up at the margins and are often overwhelmed by other factors - demographics, city planning, differences in police procedures, etc. That's why (good) social science is so hard.
I think most burglars are too stupid to take advantage of any such lists. They're most likely "youths." My house was burglarized once -- they took a 12-pack of beer but left behind a $3000 computer of similar size and weight.
Nevertheless, I'm in favor of publishing the addresses of gun-free weenie journalists. Let them think about the possibilities.
If people can be made to ignore how economics works, why should we expect any less regarding the purposes of a gun?... Which after all, in their eyes, seem less meaningful to their everyday lives.
1 Corinthians 13:12
Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.
New Living Translation
In fairness, many places where guns are illegal have a very high rate of gun "ownership". In some places most of the guns are illegal ones, so they clearly just need some super duper gun control there.
Gun control doesn't restrict gun possession, it just assures that determined violent criminals are the ones who have them.
If you encounter such a person and you are against guns, I suggest you make a citizens arrest, and throw some of that self-righteousness around when you do it. Give em some attitude, and tell em how it's for the children.
How about a map of gun-free zones?
I heard some NFL football players gave up their guns soon after the Chiefs linebacker killed his girlfriend and himself.
Now, you would think, these are guys with something to protect and they foolishly did that?... The fact that many of them windup bankrupt soon after their playing days are over is not coincidental.
Let's publicize a list of gun-free zones and see the reaction of the liberals.
Let's publicize a list of gun-free zones and see the reaction of the liberals
Let's publicize a list of gun-free zones and see the reaction of the liberals
Let's publicize a list of gun-free zones and see the reaction of the liberals
Funny Freder, guns are illegal in D.C. and it has a violent crime rate more than double that of any state.
There are no other states where the entire state is an urban area. The apt comparison to D.C. is cities, not states. By that measure, D.C.'s crime rate is not stellar, but not as bad as some.
I heard some NFL football players gave up their guns soon after the Chiefs linebacker killed his girlfriend and himself.
Now, you would think, these are guys with something to protect and they foolishly did that?... The fact that many of them windup bankrupt soon after their playing days are over is not coincidental.
Well, could be some of them remembered a time or two when they were *this* close picking up a gun and doing something regrettable. Giving up their guns might be a good call, depending on what each person's temperament is like.
On the other hand, I'm sure they all remember their late colleague Sean Taylor, who died attempting to confront gun-wielding home invaders with a machete. Whichever way they choose, there is some risk involved.
guns are illegal...
"I think that any (laws) there are in Constitution or in life, are already made."
Isn't it odd that the tool with which laws are enforced can be said to be itself outside the law?
Instead of 'rounding them up' and 'taking them off the street', illegal guns need to baptised, extended amnesty or something.
BTW.. Lets stop calling them "illegal guns"... they are "undocumented".
If you're home, I suppose the risk of a "hot" burglary is less. If you're not home the risk of a burglary might be more since a gun is a high value item.
What's the purpose of printing that information though? To tell the world that your newspaper is run by a bunch of jerk faces? Do none of those people buy the newspaper?
"BTW.. Lets stop calling them "illegal guns"... they are "undocumented"."
The fact that I didn't just spew coke all over my keyboard reminds me that I forgot to get a coke when I was upstairs.
See if this works...
The only way to protect your Obama phone... maybe with an Obama gun.
Redistributed wealth will need to be protected.
Use a familiar narrative?
The tactic ginning up a cause and then publishing the names and addresses of people you have an issue with is the lowest of the low.
It's an invitation for people who are easily incited and/or who have poor impulse control to go and perform some vile act for you vicariously. It's not that different from hiring a hit man.
If there is any criminal activity against any of those homeowners I hope they'll take the newspaper to court. If anyone gets shot in the process I hope the newspaper is criminally cited.
"And I just thought to add that we own guns and believe in an armed society not just for our own personal self-interest, but because of our beliefs on the topic of power relationships."
Historically, over vastly diverse cultures, the right to bear arms, the right to carry a weapon, was a symbol of citizenship. It identified citizens from slaves and subjugated people, from serfs, from peasants. I think that the Sikhs symbolic blade is a current example denoting status. The Saxons are named for their symbolic citizenship weapon. And on, and on.
What seems to be true, if it's in early Europe, ancient Japan, or modern USA, is that the right to carry a weapon is a symbol of full citizenship.
You can leave your saxe at home and still be a Saxon... but if you're not allowed to carry it, you're a conquered people.
There are no other states where the entire state is an urban area. The apt comparison to D.C. is cities, not states. By that measure, D.C.'s crime rate is not stellar, but not as bad as some.
True enough. But, if you take the 2010 murder rate by state and correlate it with the gun ownership rate by state, you'll find a slight negative correlation (-0.0708545792). As the gun ownership rate goes up, murders go down. D.C. was excluded as the ownership rate wasn't listed, but considering D.C.'s laws, you bet the official ownership rate is low.
Of course, I'm sure these stats don't have the warm and fuzzy feelings that liberals want.
Glenn Reynolds is an idiot.
Do none of those people buy the newspaper?
There's a lot of dots in that map.
I was just mentioning the other day how liberals seem to be quite taken with map making all of a sudden.
Not realising how they could be used to show things they rather not show.
"Glenn Reynolds is an idiot."
Clearly, he's not. He simply disagrees with you.
But calling someone an idiot doesn't require engaging in the disagreement as though the other person is a worthy human being.
It means never having to defend your point of view against someone with a different point of view.
Guns, prescription painkillers, cash, jewelry, and anything they can sell to identity thieves. That's what they want.
Australia, I understand, banned firearms and wound up with far fewer homicides. Well, good for them, but I don't think that's what would happen here if firearms were banned. I think it would be more like Mexico and Jamaica. I think that there are lots of controls on gun ownership in those countries, but rather less controls and restrictions on gun wielding criminals. We've got lots of guns here, and they're not going away any time soon. The best bet is to encourage more responsible people to own guns.....Also as Synova has pointed out, there are plenty of professional burglars who case the joint and make sure no one is home before entry. This gives them a list of homes worth burglarizing and, if they heist the gun, puts another illegal weapon in circulation. Lose lose for everybody.
Obama waged class warfare, "you didn't build that", in the front end and now will try to disarm those with something they themselves built in the back end.
A lot of people with gun permits are small business owners.
Now, another issue...
The newspaper involved filed a freedom of information request to get this "public" information.
Clearly, the fact that personal information is "public" doesn't mean it's right to dig into it or publish a nice big map with people's names on it. So... bad manners. (And the newspaper owner is now on the receiving end of a lesson in manners. We'll see if she learns anything.)
But it's not just a matter of manners. We're seeing that the "reasonable" requirement that guns be licensed and permitted isn't reasonable at all. It opens up citizens to this sort of blatant misuse, abuse, and possibly harm. And if it can be misused in this manner by a newspaper, how can it be misused by the government?
Handy list for confiscation, isn't it?
and now this is Freeperland...
Two points:
1) people might think that guns are more likely to cause injury by accident or by intent of the permit holder than a home invasion be thwarted. They might think that because they are far more common. Quantitative reasoning, something Ann continually fails at (see her poll analysis during the election)
2) as others have noted, you don't need a permit for a shotgun. Most people that know anything about guns know that. Of course that didn't stop Ann from writing a long post about it.
"people might think that guns are more likely to cause injury by accident or by intent of the permit holder than a home invasion be thwarted."
And this justifies a blatant invasion of privacy and publication of people's names and private information in what way?
What else can I use the excuse that I have a different point of view so it's okay to do this?
"...and now this is Freeperland..."
This is a clear case of someone misusing government compiled lists of citizens.
Anything to say about that other than name calling?
And if someone on the list is targeted by some anti-gun crazy, would the NYT be liable under civil law? This is a serious question.
Maybe they will put all the names of women having abortions to.
Or rich married men with prostitutes.
Or how about posting the names of all the democrat welfare cheats?
Nah, much easier to go after someone who obeyed the laws and went through all the rega-ma-roll to get a CCW.
Logically, the list of gun-free homes is available now. The total set of addresses in any county contains two mutually exclusive subsets. In this case, subtract the gun permit holders from the total and publish the difference. Then we will see how the other side likes it.
Sauce for the gander.
Alex wrote:
This is yet another impetus for decent people to flee New York state for greener pastures.
that and the 1200 dollars for the 400 square foot apartments.
No wonder NY's are so anti guns, you probably couldn't fit a rifle in one of the apartments.
I can say that, I live here.
Goju askss And if someone on the list is targeted by some anti-gun crazy, would the NYT be liable under civil law? This is a serious question.
No, because the New York Times (NYT for short) is not the paper that published this piece.
Jake Diamond is an idiot.
I just realized that by outing the gun owners these left-wing fools outed the non-gun owners and alerted all the criminals where the easy pickings are. What a bunch of evil, stupid dumbshits.
Obama decreased gun law prosecutions by over 45% and now wants more laws. Looks like he was creating an environment where just such a disaster would happen, so he could attack our second amendment rights.
I think that the fear of guns and gun-related crime without a commensurate fear of the crimes otherwise prevented by the presence of guns may stem from lack of familiarity and the perception of a loss of control.
If I don't own a gun and you do, well, I'm now relatively powerless. Even if you're perfectly sane, you have potential power over me that I don't have have over you. And if I've never operated a gun, my fear is magnified because guns are unfamiliar.
I think it's akin to the fear many have of dying in an aircraft crash when the same folks may have no fear of dying in a car crash. If I drive, I'm in control and in a familiar setting, so I feel less fear. If I fly, I'm in an unusual situation and have no control over the outcome, so I feel fear even if I am objectively safer.
So, lack of familiarity coupled with a perceived loss of control causes skewed risk evaluation.
this is so crazy.
one of the heaviest armed countries in the world is switzerland. you get drafted into the army (everybody, by law), and then it is your duty to keep your attack gun at home (obligatory, by law).
and they have any amount of hunters, and what not, too. and a gun-related homicide rate somewhere down in the deep, deep grass.
what now? will they publish the names of the entire population of switzerland? oh, i forgot - the swiss have lawyers, too.
In a show of support for our Constitutional rights, CNN airhead Carol Costello posted the database link of Facebook.
Freder; followed your link and was not surprised to find the focus on the Phoenix area of Arizona. The rest of the story is the abject failure of Federal immigration enforcement hobbling our efforts to control crime from drug cartels and harassment of State and Local officials trying to protect it's citizens from the effects of drug running and human trafficking. Our safety in this beautiful state is second to democratic vote buying and preservation of a permanent underclass of entitlement immigrants fleeing a failed Mexico. All this in the name of wealth redistribution designed to beggar us all.
I see an update has gone up, adding what I was planning to say, which is that the newspaper has unwittingly hurt everyone who isn't listed, because burglars and home invaders can see which houses don't have guns... permitted guns anyway.
No they can't. Shotguns are the most effective guns to use against home intruders and burglars can't use that list to see which houses don't have them. Althouse's post is therefore silly. And, beyond that, tons of people have guns they aren't permitted to have. Most burglars try and wait till no one is home.
Sorun said...
I think most burglars are too stupid to take advantage of any such lists. They're most likely "youths." My house was burglarized once -- they took a 12-pack of beer but left behind a $3000 computer of similar size and weight.
Nevertheless, I'm in favor of publishing the addresses of gun-free weenie journalists. Let them think about the possibilities.
The United States has a very low incidence of "hot" burglaries. Burglaries where someone is in the house. Something like 5 or 10 %.Especially in gun owning areas. whereas in great Britain most burglaries are hot burglaries.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा