Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A Firearm For Home Defense

Rate this topic


Inspector

Recommended Posts

I agree that taking responsibility for your life means being armed when there is an actual threat, but not if the threat is imaginary.

As to annoyance, I think that's a rather personal judgement. For some, the same inconveniences would be viewed as different levels of annoyances.

However, in determining threat level, in your opinion, where does the level of threat change from actual to imagined? Or in other words, if you could prescribe a percentage figure to a person's level of threat, what percentage would be imagined, and what percentage would be actual?

Would it be your assertion that some folks go around with a 0% chance of being a victim of violent crime, but they choose to carry anyway thinking there is a chance that something might happen? Would that be an imaginary threat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am a little surprised that more Objectivists don't own guns. I think an essential part of the philosophy is taking responsibility for your own life, and that means being able to protect it.

It would be an interesting statistic but I would guesstimate that in well over 50% of modern America, carrying a loaded concealed gun outside of your house isn't legal, and a permit can't be reasonably gotten either. And if you're talking about the places in America that most Objectivists work because of opportunity, it's probably closer to 100%. And that's just the overall law, not even counting a company's own internal rules which would forbid carrying in a loaded gun. Unless you work in law enforcement, I would say that pushes it very close to 100%. That leaves people who work outside of big cities, in non-liberal states/cities, for small companies or self-employed.

So why the surprise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, in determining threat level, in your opinion, where does the level of threat change from actual to imagined?
I don't know, especially, I don't know how to quantify it as a percentage. What I do know is that it should be related to some facts of reality, for example "there were three armed robberies in the neighborhood last year", or "an armed rapist has been terrorizing single women on this block". It would be ridiculous for me to say that I feel threatened because there are armed gangs in West LA, since I live thousands of miles from LA and I've never been to West LA. I don't at all say that it's wrong to carry a weapon or have one in your closet, simply that if you hold that your reason for carrying a weapon is to defend yourself against attackers, there should be a fact of existence that the motivation relates to. The simple ability to imagine something doesn't count.

Analogously, there is some danger in riding a bike. I firmly believe in wearing a helmet if you're going to ride a bike. But you can also fall and hit your head if you're just walking. I don't think it's failing to take responsibility for your life if you walk without wearing a big puffy Michelin man suit -- the risk of falling and splitting your head open is too small. You should have a gun if you're walking the streets of Baghdad, just as you should wear a helmet on a bike. If the chances of you being attacked on the street are comparable to your chances of falling while walking and splitting open your skull (assuming that it is in fact negligible, i.e. you don't live in a place where sidewalks frequently collapse and you're not suffering from an acute balance problem), then I don't see how carrying a piece counts as taking responsibility for your life.

Actually, I believe it would be illegal for you to do it there. I know Illinois doesn't allow concealed carry, and at least a few cities outlawed handguns. (Evanston for example)
That just figures: another reason not to move to Hyde Park. I guess I'd get a couple of six-shooters on the hip and a bandolier, and a "Make My Day, Punk" T-shirt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That just figures: another reason not to move to Hyde Park. I guess I'd get a couple of six-shooters on the hip and a bandolier, and a "Make My Day, Punk" T-shirt.

It's worse than that even! :D

They don't have "open carry" there either. You have to either leave your gun at home or carry it around unloaded in a funky carrying case. You see why I didn't get a gun until I moved out of that state? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I do know is that it should be related to some facts of reality,

I understand now that you are arguing the position of whether one SHOULD carry a weapon for self-defense, not whether or not one could if one wanted to despite their odds of being a violent crime victim being minimal.

I'm not trying to convince you that you SHOULD carry a gun. You are an intelligent man and I would suspect you make risk / gain evaluations all the time. I'm just offering a perspective that maybe you have or haven't already considered.

Evaluating the possibility of being a victim of violent crime is clearly a risk / gain situation in determining whether or not to carry. I guess I just take the 'boy scout" approach on this issue. Be prepared. Is it truly better to have and not need than to need and not have? Now, I operate from the distinct advantage that I can carry concealed virtually any time, any place (and thanks to HR 218, that means anywhere in the country).

With your example of "three armed robberies in one neighborhood during a years time" in mind, I'm going to look at a few things. I would posit that depending on one's neighborhood, and one's awareness of it, one may or may not be aware of the level of crime in their neighborhood unless they take very proactive steps to learn that information. I would hazard a guess that many on this forum probably have, being generally more intelligent people with a good sense of life.

But for those that perhaps haven't been so proactive, depending on the newpaper and TV coverage is iffy, they usually don't report everything. Word of mouth throughout the neighborhood can be good or bad depending on the neighborhood. Taking a very proactive approach is perhaps be a responsibility to one's life as a prelude to arming oneself; say requesting crime stats from the local PD if that's an option. That will at least tell you about the "reported" crime. Attending civic leagues is another option.

Would you arm yourself for "home defense", not necessarily concealed carry all the time, if you found out your neighborhood had three burglaries during a years time? (Statistically, very few neighborhoods DON'T have at least 3 bruglaries during a year's time) Burglaries aren't typically known for resulting in violent crime (except home invasions), but it does happen. Just the other day (on the 10th) we had a homicide of a man who came home during the time his house was being burglarized. Without particular details, he was essentially executed. Some things suggest that there may be more to the story other than a "random" burglary interrupted, but that's not sure at this point. This neighborhood really hasn't had a burglary "problem" before, but there's a rash of them over the past couple weeks. It's fairly likely that these suspects will be caught sooner or later now that they have "crossed the line" and the rash will stop. Should these local residents arm themselves for now? For the rest of their duration in that neighborhood even after these guys are caught? (These questions can be rhetorical if you wish)

I think the thing I don't like about the walking analogy as it compares to being a victim of crime is that walking is almost entirely within my domain of ability and control. I've never fallen down and busted my head open. In fairness, I have yet to be a victim of a violent crime where I needed to use lethal force either. I have heard compartively FEW stories throughout my life of people falling down and busting their heads open save for the really old or really intoxicated. (So old drunk people SHOULD wear helmets while walking :) )

By contrast, perhaps I'm tainted by the fact that I respond NIGHTLY to victims of violent crime in all sorts of neighborhoods, admittedly more in some neighborhoods than others. Being a crime victim really isn't as much in control of the victim. I don't consider it "imagined" that I realize, based on those facts of reality, that I could be a crime victim at almost any place, and any time, though most of the time those probabilities are going to be exceedingly low. Certainly I do "imagine" scenarios in my head at different times, but more as a matter of situational awareness and mental preparedness rather than actually thinking something will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have some excellent points raised. The critical question of, to carry or not to carry, is worth carefully thinking through. How many cops have been killed by unarmed criminals who stole the cops gun and hot him? More than a few. And if you decide to carry you should do so knowing that there is some risk that you (or someone you love) could be at risk of dying from the very weapon you chose to carry for self-protection. Keeping a loaded gun in the house has a similar risk.

I agree with the poster who made the point that there is little to be gained by carrying in a very low crime area. You may actually be increasing your odds that you will get shot.

A excellent book to read is: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, by John R. Lott, Jr. See also: An interview with John Lott, Jr, @

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Analogously, there is some danger in riding a bike. I firmly believe in wearing a helmet if you're going to ride a bike.

As a side note, here as some statics relative to bike fatalities/injuries versus crime fatalities/injuries:

2003 - 622 bike related fatalities (auto/bike crashes) / 46,000 injuries.

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/perspective.htm

By contrast, here are the 2003 Crime stats for "violent crime";

Murders - 16,503

Robberies - 413,402

Aggravated Assaults - 857,921

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Edit: BTW, I didn't include 93,433 forcible rapes.

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalCop - I think that many more people would be inclined to carry self-protection handguns *if the laws were not heavily stacked against them.* It is simply unrealistic to overlook that fact. You are in an unjustifiably privileged position as far as that goes. By that, I do not mean in the "Libertarian" sense that cops should not exist (of course they must), or that cops must sometimes use weapons that wouldn't make much, or any, sense for the usual individual to own. By that I mean the ability to carry a concealed self-protection firearm that almost anybody ought to be able to legally, but cannot.

The injustice involved is that those who cannot legally carry are at a greater risk as a result, solely due to bad law. The fact is that most of the cities where one would benefit the most from such protection, effectively outlaw private handgun use - and somebody illegally carrying has a *much* greater reason to fear the police, than the bad guys, and in the eyes of the law, is a criminal himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalCop - I think that many more people would be inclined to carry self-protection handguns *if the laws were not heavily stacked against them.* It is simply unrealistic to overlook that fact.

I'm not overlooking that fact, it's not germaine to the discussion I was having with David, specifically, and others in general. David was stating why he didn't think he needed to carry, and was questioning why others would need to carry.

You are in an unjustifiably privileged position as far as that goes.

Except for the fact that I have, in certain circumstances, a legally binding duty to act in enforcing the law, even off duty, whereas the normal citizen DOES NOT. I think that offers some justification for why I can carry all the time, based on the facts of reality as they are currently. However, I recognized above that I had an advantage others didn't. Why is this an issue?

In fact, I haven't argued that there wasn't injustice in most, if not all gun laws. Where did you get the impression that I favored them in any way?

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, I haven't argued that there wasn't injustice in most, if not all gun laws. Where did you get the impression that I favored them in any way?

I didn't have that impression, nor was I trying to criticize that you *do* carry a weapon or enforce the laws. I am pointing out that anti-gun laws are a very important, non-trivial reason for many - in fact, most - people to *not* carry a weapon, regardless of rational justifications to do so, which make this-or-that argument about crime stats etc. completely moot because of that overriding consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't have that impression, nor was I trying to criticize that you *do* carry a weapon or enforce the laws. I am pointing out that anti-gun laws are a very important, non-trivial reason for many - in fact, most - people to *not* carry a weapon, regardless of rational justifications to do so, which make this-or-that argument about crime stats etc. completely moot because of that overriding consideration.

The purpose of my quoting crime stats was to show David the relative danger between being a crime victim, and riding a bike, an analogy he used above. For that purpose, the crimes stats were ENTIRELY relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point taken about the low number of us carrying having to do with the law forbidding it. I used to live in Illinois, where it was essentially forbidden to carry.

Now that I don't, I intend to start by getting a weapon for home defense, then become proficient, and finally take the courses necessary to get a concealed-carry permit. At that point I will buy a different gun that is more suited for that.

Obviously, the topic of concealed/open carry is more than enough to start its own thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a little surprised that more Objectivists don't own guns. I think an essential part of the philosophy is taking responsibility for your own life, and that means being able to protect it. A gun is a relatively small investment for almost everyone, and when you need one, nothing else will do half as good a job.

I quite agree with Scott. Our local Objectivist discussion group has a number of gun enthusiasts, including folks who are interested in sport shooting, hunting, and self-defense. When we're hanging out making small talk, firearms ends up being discussed as much as movies or current events. But this may be due to the fact that we live in Colorado, and that people in general are more familiar with firearms than in, say, New York or California.

It would be an interesting statistic but I would guesstimate that in well over 50% of modern America, carrying a loaded concealed gun outside of your house isn't legal, and a permit can't be reasonably gotten either. And if you're talking about the places in America that most Objectivists work because of opportunity, it's probably closer to 100%.

Actually, according to the NRA website, there are 38 states with reasonable concealed carry laws (where any honest citizen can apply and obtain a license as long as they meet some objective safety and proficiency criteria), and 64% of Americans live in those states. When I talk to friends who live in states with strict gun laws like New York or California, they're very suprised because they assume that most of the rest of the USA is like them.

Here's the link to the NRA site: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18

The associated map is especially eye-opening!

Edited by psh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of my quoting crime stats was to show David the relative danger between being a crime victim, and riding a bike, an analogy he used above. For that purpose, the crimes stats were ENTIRELY relevant.

The very crime stats that you quote, do not exist in a vacuum. There is already a known causal relationship between laws forbidding guns, and crime rates - the more of the former, the higher the crime rates, as more criminals know they can get away with it. So in short, as I continue to point out, anti-gun laws - and beyond that, anti-gun sentiment and related business policies - are not merely one factor to consider, they are the *primary* causal factor to consider in this entire discussion, in today's society, in my view.

Practically speaking, that means the real discussion should focus on: what does a normal human being do to best defend himself in the normal conduct of his life, depending on the specific location (home vs. not-home), and where he lives in this country - which means, rationally taking into account the many irrational laws and irrational biases that exist today.

Actually, according to the NRA website, there are 38 states with reasonable concealed carry laws (where any honest citizen can apply and obtain a license as long as they meet some objective safety and proficiency criteria), and 64% of Americans live in those states. When I talk to friends who live in states with strict gun laws like New York or California, they're very suprised because they assume that most of the rest of the USA is like them.

Here's the link to the NRA site: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18

The associated map is especially eye-opening!

That is interesting to know, but it's also just one part of the picture (and it also doesn't take into account whether somebody actually does live, or wants to live, in those places) - another very important part is, what else restricts you from carrying the gun? Does somebody plan to take it into the workplace? Not if they don't want to be fired. So much for protection walking to/from the car. Do you really want to leave a loaded gun in the car either? Plan on taking it in to the mall? Better be highly concealed or plan on being told to leave (or worse) by mall security. etc.

I am hardly anti-gun, but I am also realistic about weighing the real, omnipresent anti-gun attitudes against the very infrequent threat of physical attack (a lot of which can be avoided by being careful about your location in the first place.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh - and the other thing is, the state maps aren't showing *local* city ordinances, which, as I understand it (correction appreciated), can independently legislate their own gun restrictions.

You understand correctly. I am pretty sure that Evanston, IL has a total ban on handguns. (I'm not 100% on that, though) That was a real hive of pinko commies! Glad I only drove through it a couple of times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very crime stats that you quote, do not exist in a vacuum.

I will say this one more time. I do not disagree that there exists irrational laws wrongly restricting firearms. I do not dispute that. Is that clear enough? I'm not even arguing against you (yet) about the root cause of all the crime. As Inspector noted, what exactly is our disagreement, or moreso, your disagreement with me?

This thread did not start out as a thread about whether or not people should be ALLOWED to carry firearms unfettered by law, and frankly, as far as I can tell so far, it's never been an issue. Why you want to continually convince me or anyone else that in this thread that the laws are irrational is beyond me. There's no dispute there.

Rather, the thread started because Inspector wanted some advice on what kind of firearm would be best for home defense. Then, shortly after, David asked the question of "why does one NEED to carry a firearm" came up. So as you said, "crime stats don't exist in a vacuum". But they do exist in the REALITY of the way things are today, which is what helps determines the NEED to carry one, not the legality of carrying one. I addressed David's concern about why one needs to carry a firearm based on the FACTS OF REALITY as they exist NOW, not based on how things SHOULD BE.

Now, if you want to tell David that he needs to carry a firearm because of the existence of irrational gun laws, that's fine with me. David, as I have noted before, is intelligent, and he might probably see where you are headed early on, whereas most folks would probably just give you a puzzled look and perhaps inquire further. Me, I prefer the more direct approach, and then work backwards. If someone asks me why they should carry, I'm going to continue to point out that crime dictates that need. And if they want to go further in the conversation and discuss the root of crime, then I'll go down that road. You discuss the issue your way, I'll discuss it mine. I would just prefer that you try to not impose your method on me.

So, all that aside, based on the statistics I quoted, do you dispute that a person is generally in more danger of being killed or injured by an act of violent crime as opposed to being involved in a bicycle accident? If you dispute that, what is the basis? If you don't dispute that, why do you object to me pointing that out to David? (which I did because of his analogy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, all that aside, based on the statistics I quoted, do you dispute that a person is generally in more danger of being killed or injured by an act of violent crime as opposed to being involved in a bicycle accident? If you dispute that, what is the basis? If you don't dispute that, why do you object to me pointing that out to David? (which I did because of his analogy)

Look - I'm not objecting to you pointing out crime stats or any other data or information or advice that you may have. On the contrary, I, and likely others, would appreciate getting additional information.

Anti-gun laws and anti-gun sentiments are just as real as violent criminals (and even related) - is my point. Nobody can safely ignore them.

In other words, an otherwise moral, rational person carrying a handgun for self defense in a state/city that bans them, objectively has more to fear from his own government - i.e., in direct terms, the police who work for that government enforcing the anti-gun laws - than any burglar or mugger or gangster - despite the fact that he has every objective right to carry it.

You can if you wish, take that personally, since you are a cop, but that is not my intention. It is a description of a factual situation that I did not create, with attendant logical consequences (namely: a cop in a partly irrational society has a legal obligation to enforce non-objective law. That in itself is a big subject.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can if you wish, take that personally, since you are a cop, but that is not my intention.

I give up. I honestly don't know how I can make it any clearer to you that I agree with what your saying about gun laws being irrational. I'm perplexed that you sense any disagreement on my part regarding that, since I have made it abundantly clear, several times now, that I don't disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David asked the question of "why does one NEED to carry a firearm"
Lemme also point out, in case there is an iota of doubt, that I am emphasizing the importance of context. I do not need to carry a firearm; other people do. That's because the facts are very different for other people: I live in a safe neighborhood, and nobody would dare mess with me. In other words, I'm saying "You should ask yourself the question 'why do I need a gun?'". Being very specific about the 'why' could be useful for example in deciding how many weapons you need, what type, and where you will keep them. The answer would include such facts as "There were 8 drive-by shootings and two dozen home invasions on this street within the past year" or "There have been no assaults or armed robberies in this 30 square block neighborhood in 20 years".

When I brought up the bike point, I wasn't thinking just of death but rather any significant injury. A decade ago my son had an unreported bike-against-curb incident that resulted in brain surgery (he's fine now), which didn't involve a car and isn't part of the book of statistics. I don't know what the big picture looks like if you count those types of incidents. I'm less interested in the raw numbers for the whole city, and more interested in the part that has to do with my life. I don't sell drugs and I don't hang out with people who do, and I don't live in a drug sellling neighborhood, so it's pretty much irrelevant to me how many drug-dealer gang bangers blow each other heads off in their part of town. (It could become relevant if I decided to go hang out in that part of town late at night, but a gun under my pillow wouldn't help in that case). If I lived in Agler Green, I would have multiple guns on the premise -- so geography matters. There are causal reasons for this. And while it's probably more risky to ride your bike unhelmetted in some areas than others (because of traffic), I don't think there's such a thing as a "safe neighborhood" where you couldn't accidentally hit a curb or a cat and fall right on your head.

I guess the main point is that random violent crime is more predictable and therefore the assessment "I have a negligible risk of getting shot" stands a better chance of being correct than the corresponding chances of falling off your bike. I'm certainly not going to tell you your business, but do you have a problem of gangs of armed hoodlums carrying out home invasions in fancy neighborhoods? Do you have any non-fancy neighborhoods? I don't know if you can be specific, but how often do anonymous, armed hoodlums break into occupied houses in upper-middle class neighborhoods?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lemme also point out, in case there is an iota of doubt, that I am emphasizing the importance of context.

I understood that, but I condensed your position to one line for brevity's sake while relating it to the other line of discussion. Without a doubt, context is important.

When I brought up the bike point, I wasn't thinking just of death but rather any significant injury.
I suspected so, which is why I listed the number of injuries as well for that year on the bike side, along with the less than lethal violent crimes on the other side. I didn't even include anything about misdemeanor oriented assaults, which would have sky-rocketed the violent crimes side of the comparison.

I'm certainly not going to tell you your business, but do you have a problem of gangs of armed hoodlums carrying out home invasions in fancy neighborhoods? Do you have any non-fancy neighborhoods? I don't know if you can be specific, but how often do anonymous, armed hoodlums break into occupied houses in upper-middle class neighborhoods?

We have several upper-middle class neighborhoods, and two high class neighborhoods (that come immediately to mind). Yes, the violent crime there is minimal. And keeping in context, we have really rich neighborhoods that are located not very far for poorer neighborhoods. But we do have a rare incidents of violent crime and/or burglaries in these neighorhoods. When something like that happens in the more well-to-do neighborhoods, it causes what we call, an A.P.E. (Acute Political Emergency) Significant resources are re-directed to the affected area until the concern is addressed. I would guess that in counting all of the better neighborhoods, these incidents are probably in the single digits for the period of a year, not including burglaries. I'd really have to check on the burglary stats to give a better picture there.

At any rate, as you recognize, where you live, and where you travel and interact with people is far more important to you in terms of assessing your need for lethal protection. I've already suggested methods for you to procure that information, if you haven't already. That risk/gain analysis is yours to make.

For my purposes, I pay more for insurance every year than the cost of a single firearm. The vast majority of those years, I don't use ANY of the protection those policies afford me. It's been over 15 years since I was in an auto accident off duty. I've never had to make a homeowner's insurance claim. I spend FAR more money in that respect than I would ever need to for a firearm. Thus, even with a minimal need (off duty) for a firearm, the cost is negilible compared to the relative need, for me anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh - and the other thing is, the state maps aren't showing *local* city ordinances, which, as I understand it (correction appreciated), can independently legislate their own gun restrictions.

That depends on the state.

Some states have "preemption laws", which prohibit local governments from passing their own gun bans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...