Slashdot Mirror

Clayton Cramer's Civilian Defense Blog.

It's not written for internet wimps such as yourself.

Blog linking to local articles about home defense shootings. Obviously not comprehensive but a good place to start.

The FBI has compiled data about these things. One such source is the yearly Uniform Crime Report. In 2007 there were 254 justified homicides (the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony) 198 of them performed with firearms. They have another one about firearms specifically with data on incidents of brandishing a weapon, firing but not killing, etc etc. but I couldn't find it in 5 minutes of googling.

Of course, back in the real world, there's plenty of examples of the elderly using firearms to successfully defend themselves:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:www.claytoncramer.com+self-defense+elderly

The "Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog" is updated several times each week with news stories about people successfully defending themselves and their loved ones:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Hah. Here is how you solve that problem.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/labels/ME.html

12 gauge slugs to the tires and engine block of the truck will not only stop their thefts, but send a clear message to the criminals in the area to fuck off.

Here's a whole boatload of examples of people defending themselves from criminals.

Also, most employers have clammed up on references; many supervisors are prohibited from saying anything at all, good or bad. Even back in the 1970s, there was a reluctance to say anything bad, for fear of lawsuit. References are just not that useful anymore; hence tests.

As I point out here, my first experience with this was a bit disconcerting. As I point out here, I believe that the reason that it was so difficult was that I hadn't been on a job interview with strangers in a long time, and I wasn't expecting this.

Nearly all my jobs to that point were with people that I had worked with before, and who knew my skills. They had no reason to test my capabilities. The problem I have now is that almost everyone that I have worked with in the past retired in their 30s and 40s, obscenely rich, so it isn't so easy to find a job anymore, and my current employer just laid off hundreds of software engineers--while advertising for what seems to be H-1B visa software engineers. I'll take the test; the alternative is not being employable.

Also, most employers have clammed up on references; many supervisors are prohibited from saying anything at all, good or bad. Even back in the 1970s, there was a reluctance to say anything bad, for fear of lawsuit. References are just not that useful anymore; hence tests.

As I point out here, my first experience with this was a bit disconcerting. As I point out here, I believe that the reason that it was so difficult was that I hadn't been on a job interview with strangers in a long time, and I wasn't expecting this.

Nearly all my jobs to that point were with people that I had worked with before, and who knew my skills. They had no reason to test my capabilities. The problem I have now is that almost everyone that I have worked with in the past retired in their 30s and 40s, obscenely rich, so it isn't so easy to find a job anymore, and my current employer just laid off hundreds of software engineers--while advertising for what seems to be H-1B visa software engineers. I'll take the test; the alternative is not being employable.

As early as 1821, there were restrictions on how much gunpowder you could have around in a city house. 5 lbs was a common limit, and still is. In New York State, above 5 pounds of black powder, the licensing, reporting, and safety rules apply; for example, storage within 75 feet of an inhabited building is not permitted.

Modern smokeless powder isn't a major explosion hazard, but black powder is.

Cato daily podcast

Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog

TED Talks

NPR: Science Friday Podcast

lol,,, Nope. The ACLU went to bat for some crazy woman that committed suicide about 9 months after release from an asylum. They took her case to the US supreme court and it was ordered that if they don't pose a threat to themselves or others, then they cannot be detained. This happened in the 60s and the mid 70s. This caused an evaluation of if everyone nutcase locked up and it ended up dumping a shitload of people on the street. The problem had something to do with detaining people that were perfectly fine when under medication but the ACLU's love affair got started earlier with Thorazine and some other drug.

The cut in budgeting was because the residents of the mental institutions went from full to capacity to 30% or so. When reagan was the governor of CA, he took this set of rulings along with the state mental health boards wishes and cut the budget. But this was done as governor not president. The same mental patients were being dumped all around the country when this first started happening. here is a link to a site that touches on it and Here is another that deals withCalifornia

What your referring to is actually when the homeless problem was apparent and advocacy groups started lobbying for them. It was like they wanted to redeem their earlier actions. The supposed cuts were actually cuts in increases spending that Reagan rejected. Although the increased asked for was cut, the budget was actually increased but Reagan still took flak over it.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_04_15_arc hive.html#7549578930590179871

I knew the "blame guns" crown would be out en masse today. Those things don't fire themselves, you know. And our entire legal system is built upon the foundation of holding people accountable for their actions. VA Tech already had a policy in place banning handguns on campus. It sure was effective, wasn't it asshole? Lawbreakers will be lawbreakers. Take your micromanaging worldview and shove it up your ass.

It happens more often than you may think: Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog

Homeless living with friends or family against their will are not legally considered homeless in the US, but they are homeless by my standards because my OP was about people who are poor. This is all tangential to my point, I only mentioned the homeless as an example of someone who lacks adequate health care in the US.

Also for the majority of homeless people it is a temporary situation lasting less than a few months. You assertions about the homeless only apply to a small minority of them.

You say that the ACLU is at fault (why doesn't that surprise me) because they sued to have the mentally ill released. Could you provide the name of the case you are talking about? I'd like to read more about that but can't find anything about it. Anyway, if you are correct about that then that would mean that all the homeless people on the street are there because of mental illness and they should rightfully be institutionalized. If this is the case how can you also claim that the homeless are homeless by choice? Either they are mentally ill or they are homeless because they want to be, which is it? You can't have both, they are mutually exclusive causes.

Bet the politicians don't have the b*lls to do that. In every case where they've tried to mandate a "smart" electronic gun (NJ, NY, MA), they let the cops and military do what they want. Guess their families aren't worth anything if these things really work that well. Or...maybe they don't because it adds too much complexity! What a stupid idea :-P

When you need to use one, you want it to go bang when you pull the trigger...not "hmm...I wonder if the batteries are still good" or "hmm..I wonder if my cell phone will jam the signal" or "hmm...I wonder if it'll recognize my fingerprint", as the bad guy or rabid dog gets the first chew on you...

As for folks who think self-defense never happens:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogge r.html
The cops can't magically be everywhere. I'd rather make sure good guys can fight the battles that happen and there are more armed good guys than armed bad guys...

Most people killed by gunfire (in the U.S.) are done so in domestic disputes. It is a fact: You are more likely to get shot by someone you know than by a burglar/thief/other criminal.

Spend some time reading through the stories behind the statistics. Many of the times a civilian uses a firearm in self defense it is against a stranger. When it is against someone who they know it tends to be the type of "domestic dispute" that involves restraining orders and kicking in doors. If your daughter had a wack-job ex kick down her locked door would you want your daughter armed or raped and beaten to death?

The two greatest equalizers of men ever created are education and firearms. If you have an education, you can move against a social differential. You can be born into a poor family, yet still be able to die wealthy. If a group is denied the access to education, they are denied access to upward mobility. People denied an education are slaves. With a handgun you can move against a physical differential. If a group of evil men come to lynch you because you are a fag/chink/nigger/spic/liberal/camel jocky/reader/whatever you are dead if you are unarmed. If you and your spouse have a matching pair of AKs and a few 30 round mags, you have a fighting chance. Hell, just acting like you will defend yourselves will most likely send them packing: bullies are cowards. Just like education, those denied firearms are slaves of those who have them.

Those are widespread numbers. Violent crimes (I'm sorry 12,000 murders is not a lot in a population of 280 million) are not. You just hear about the violence a lot whenever you listen to Fox News or whenever the police or government are trying to take your rights away.

A jab at Fox News. How original, inspired, and insightful; especially among the independent free-thinkers here at Slashdot.

Because no other media outlet sensationalizes violence.

I've spent the last 6 years of my life trying to figure out why my friends brutally murdered other friends of mine and kids at school.

From the 1up Jane Pinckard article

If anyone knows first-hand what violent video games might drive people to do, that would be Brooks Brown, a friend to the Columbine shooters.

From the 1up John Davison article

Today I got a note from Brooks Brown, who if you can cast your mind back all the way to 1999 was the Columbine student who warned police deputies that Eric Harris was building pipe bombs and had threatened to kill him.

........

I can't speak for anyone else, but my FRIENDS don't threaten to kill me. A little revison after the fact, maybe? (shrug)

Anyway, Columbine happened the way it did because it could. It had nothing to do with video games, or puppies, or a lack of group hugs. The place was a "Gun Free Zone", which is just another way of saying "A Barrel With Fish In It"

Think about this: How many people would Beavis and Butthead have killed if every teacher had been trained and armed? Three? Now how many if every student had been trained and armed? None? A Half?

Beavis and Butthead are to blame for the killings, no one else. School authorities are to blame for making it so DAMN easy to do.

Other outcomes do occur when the "victim" is not defenseless: Armed law student who put a stop to the shootings at the Appalachian Law School. You didn't see this on the evening "news", because the "news" people realized that it did not fit their political agenda, and so you did not need to know about it.

See here for a picture of the sign declaring that the University of Arizona does not allow guns on its premises. And here's an opinion piece in the University of Arizona student paper by Rachel Alexander arguing that this is a bad policy. Unfortunately, mass murderers don't pay attention to those signs. Only their victims do.

But to think that Google will automagically give you the right information is just rediculous.

Well, sure, but to think that conventional print methods will automagically give you the right information is just ridiculous. Just because something shows up in a book or an article doesn't mean it's correct.

To which people will say "What about peer review?" Well, sure, that's lovely and helpful, but to think that peer review will automagically provide you with the right information is just ridiculous. Look at Bellesiles, who received the Bancroft Prize for his book, Arming America, only to be eventually revealed as a fraud. The plagiarism of historians like Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin went unnoticed for years. Alan Sokal took the piss completely out of the peer-reviewed Social Text in a greatly entertaining fashion, and so on.

Regardless of the method by which you obtain sources, there's no automagic wand you can wave and be assured that those sources are accurate. That's why the more important it is that the information is accurate, the more diligence *you* need to undertake in order to ensure that. If it's a 5th-grade book report, going to the Brittanica or Wikipedia is probably just fine, but if you're looking on how to build a building that won't fall down, you use more reliable methods of scholarship.

I'm not sure how the existence of Google or Wikipedia changes this simple fact of epistemology.

There are plenty of extremely intelligent people I know who are voting for Bush (or against Kerry, as the case may be). There are plenty of extremely intelligent people I know who are voting for Kerry (or against Bush, as the case may be).

Only very insecure people and fanatics convince themselves that people who disagree with them else must be stupid.

http://www.instapundit.com/ - the king of all blogs
http://andrewsullivan.com/ - gone way down hill but still readable
http://www.allahpundit.com/- good mix of political fun
http://claytoncramer.com/weblog/blogger.html - guns and fun
http://www.powerlineblog.com/ - more right slant fun.

http://www.iraqthemodel.com/ - differnt view inside Iraq
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ - more good insight in iraq
http://www.iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/ - and again

http://cbftw.blogspot.com/ - used to be one of the best blogs in Iraq until the man cracked down on him. But MUST READ THE ARCHIVES!

The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation and is demanding records regarding Internet postings by critics of the Bush administration that list the names of Republican delegates and urge protesters to give them an unwelcome reception in New York City.

...

The Indy Media site is run by the NYC Independent Media Center, which describes itself as a grass-roots group committed to using media tools "for promoting social and economic justice in the New York City area." The site includes several lists containing the names of many delegates to the Republican convention, along with e-mail addresses, phone numbers and the hotels where some were expected to stay, as well as links to a site called rncdelegates.com. Most of the lists were posted anonymously or by demonstrators calling themselves the RNC Delegates Working Group. One list includes more than 2,200 delegates, or nearly half the expected total. In publicizing the information, organizers said in a posting that they were trying to supply groups opposed to the Republican National Committee "with data on the delegates to use in whatever way they see fit."

The story goes on to point out that the ACLU is upset about the investigation, and that the federal courts have taken a very narrow view of what is not protected speech in similar cases:

Officials at the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Calyx, the Internet service provider, said they were aware of no postings that encouraged violence or intimidation of Republican delegates, and they said the site contained political dialogue and information that was protected by the First Amendment.

"We can't see any legitimate purpose behind this investigation, and it looks to us like another attempt to repress legitimate political dissent," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U.

The obvious although not perfect analogy is the anti-abortion activist web site controversy of a few years ago, that the article also mentions:

Federal courts have traditionally set a high bar in deciding what constitutes threatening speech that goes beyond First Amendment protections, saying the threat of lawlessness must be specific and imminent.

In one significant case, a jury in Oregon ordered a group of anti-abortion activists to pay $109 million in damages after posting an Old West-style wanted poster, portraying named abortion doctors as "baby butchers." But an appellate court reversed the award. Parts of the case are pending.

The ACLU in that case took the position that this was not constitutionally protected free speech:

We view the jury's verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion. Many Americans disagree about the wisdom and morality of abortion. But violence and the threat of violence against providers of abortion services should not be allowed to determine the outcome of that debate.

To their credit, the ACLU also argued that "that the defendants' intent to threaten the abortion providers must also be proven...."

The "Nuremberg Files" site

The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation and is demanding records regarding Internet postings by critics of the Bush administration that list the names of Republican delegates and urge protesters to give them an unwelcome reception in New York City.

...

The Indy Media site is run by the NYC Independent Media Center, which describes itself as a grass-roots group committed to using media tools "for promoting social and economic justice in the New York City area." The site includes several lists containing the names of many delegates to the Republican convention, along with e-mail addresses, phone numbers and the hotels where some were expected to stay, as well as links to a site called rncdelegates.com. Most of the lists were posted anonymously or by demonstrators calling themselves the RNC Delegates Working Group. One list includes more than 2,200 delegates, or nearly half the expected total. In publicizing the information, organizers said in a posting that they were trying to supply groups opposed to the Republican National Committee "with data on the delegates to use in whatever way they see fit."

The story goes on to point out that the ACLU is upset about the investigation, and that the federal courts have taken a very narrow view of what is not protected speech in similar cases:

Officials at the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Calyx, the Internet service provider, said they were aware of no postings that encouraged violence or intimidation of Republican delegates, and they said the site contained political dialogue and information that was protected by the First Amendment.

"We can't see any legitimate purpose behind this investigation, and it looks to us like another attempt to repress legitimate political dissent," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U.

The obvious although not perfect analogy is the anti-abortion activist web site controversy of a few years ago, that the article also mentions:

Federal courts have traditionally set a high bar in deciding what constitutes threatening speech that goes beyond First Amendment protections, saying the threat of lawlessness must be specific and imminent.

In one significant case, a jury in Oregon ordered a group of anti-abortion activists to pay $109 million in damages after posting an Old West-style wanted poster, portraying named abortion doctors as "baby butchers." But an appellate court reversed the award. Parts of the case are pending.

The ACLU in that case took the position that this was not constitutionally protected free speech:

We view the jury's verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion. Many Americans disagree about the wisdom and morality of abortion. But violence and the threat of violence against providers of abortion services should not be allowed to determine the outcome of that debate.

To their credit, the ACLU also argued that "that the defendants' intent to threaten the abortion providers must also be proven...."

The "Nuremberg Files" site

The law may give you right to kill the guy when he threatens you or your family's safety but it doesn't absolve you from any moral or emotional issues that most certainly would arise.

That's why I said I was glad I didn't have to kill the guy. For crying out loud, I'm not a cold-blooded assassin.

Look, you sound like a decent guy, and I'm not some nutcase who's going to heap abuse on you. But you suggested that firearms have no societal benefit. Here's a link I really should have posted to begin with. It's part of a weblog maintained by Clayton Cramer, an amateur historian who was one of those who helped expose the Michael Bellesiles fraud. It's a long, long list of articles culled from newspapers about civilians using guns in self-defense. It's not comprehensive, of course: It's just what his readers send him. But it's pretty extensive, and might help change your might about the "no societal benefit" thing.

- Alaska Jack

"After all, a car is a lethal weapon just like a gun and guns have serial numbers."

Actually a car is a TOOL which is used for TRANSPORTATION and occasionally has SIDE-EFFECTS which may be harmful, but usually just have the intended effect.

Guns, by contrast, are TOOLS which are used for KILLING and commonly have the intended effect.

By your logic, a whole damn lot of things are lethal weapons just because they cause death. Your mistake is in calling a car a weapon. Weapons are DESIGNED to cause harm. Cars are designed to MOVE.

There are roughly twice as many deaths per car as there are per gun.


In the first half of the 1990s, there were about 43,000 deaths per year for 142 million vehicles, or 30 vehicle fatalities for every 100,000 autos.

In the same time period, there were about 35,000 gun deaths per year for 223 million guns, or about 16 gun related deaths for every 100,000 guns.

See Table 1 and Table 2 of "Treating Guns Like Consumer Products" (David Kopel. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. April 2000).

As the author noted

Moreover, the design argument underscores how dangerous automobiles really are. Almost all firearm deaths come from intentional shootings - homicides or suicides. Only four percent of firearm deaths are accidental. Cars are thus twice as likely to kill as guns are, even though the killer behind the wheel does not intend to take a life. Significantly, about half of the people who die from guns are suicide victims who chose to die, whereas few people who die in automobile accidents chose to die.

It seems odd that something that is only "designed to MOVE" causes twice as many per-unit deaths (mostly unintentional) as something that is supposedly "DESIGNED to cause harm." (mostly intentional, either to self or others).

FYI: Guns are also used for target and recreational shooting, which is not killing, nor even harmful. Shooting happens to be an Olympic sport.

Despite their design, guns are not more dangerous than cars in the real world. Perhaps people's beliefs are influenced by the dispraportionate amount of coverage that murders with guns receive in the mass media.

How many people remember the pre-school playground killings that took place two weeks after the Columbine High School shooting in 1999?

On May 3, Steven Abrams drove past the Southcoast Early Childhood Learning Center in Costa Mesa, Calif., where 40 small children were frolicking noisily in the playground. Deciding, as he later told police, ''to execute those children,'' he pulled a U-turn, headed back toward the playground, and floored the accelerator. The car - a 1967 Cadillac sedan - tore through the chain-link fence, sent the jungle-gym flying, and plowed into the crowd of children. It stopped only when it ran into a tree.

Abrams was unhurt. But Sierra Soto, a 4-year-old who loved to dance ballet and play with her pet bunny Butterscotch, was dead, her body so mangled that the paramedics wouldn't let her mother see her. Brandon Wiener, a 3-year-old whose first word had been ''vacuum'' and who was never without his favorite teddy bear, was still alive when they got the car off him, but died that night in the hospital. Five-year-old Victoria Sherman suffered a fractured skull and a shattered pelvis. Nicholas McHardy, 2, was also badly injured. Two other children were hurt, and a teacher's aide was treated for multip

Only after the Civil War? Sorry, wrong. That's part of what Michael Bellisles tried to claim in his book "Arming America". See the archives of Clayton Cramer's blog for research showing that American gun ownership was quite common well before the Revolutionary War (Cramer has dug through numerous archives of town records, all of which prove his point). In particular, see here, here, and here
Mark Erikson

Only after the Civil War? Sorry, wrong. That's part of what Michael Bellisles tried to claim in his book "Arming America". See the archives of Clayton Cramer's blog for research showing that American gun ownership was quite common well before the Revolutionary War (Cramer has dug through numerous archives of town records, all of which prove his point). In particular, see here, here, and here
Mark Erikson

Only after the Civil War? Sorry, wrong. That's part of what Michael Bellisles tried to claim in his book "Arming America". See the archives of Clayton Cramer's blog for research showing that American gun ownership was quite common well before the Revolutionary War (Cramer has dug through numerous archives of town records, all of which prove his point). In particular, see here, here, and here
Mark Erikson

Only after the Civil War? Sorry, wrong. That's part of what Michael Bellisles tried to claim in his book "Arming America". See the archives of Clayton Cramer's blog for research showing that American gun ownership was quite common well before the Revolutionary War (Cramer has dug through numerous archives of town records, all of which prove his point). In particular, see here, here, and here
Mark Erikson