On 9/24/00, at 2:17 PM, hal@finney.org wrote:
>I checked US crime statistics at http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm,
>and I find that in the most recent year shown, 1998:
>
>Violent Crimes: 1,531,044
>Murder: 16,914
This is interesting, and useful.
>Only 1% of all violent crimes lead to murder. Also, I believe I've read
>elsewhere that a substantial fraction of murders do not occur in the
>context of a robbery, but rather are crimes of passion committed by people
>who know the victim. This would further lower the chances that a mugging
>or similar violent encounter with a criminal could lead to your death.
And also logical.
>If you're prepared to kill in response to robberies and other violent
>crimes against yourself (as I believe Mike and others advocate) then you
>must accept that there is a 99% chance that you are NOT defending your
>life, you are rather applying the death penalty to a sub-lethal crime.
Here's where you stray. Being prepared to kill does not equate with killing.
Just as most violent crimes do not lead to murder, most uses of guns in
self-defense also do not lead to homicide. Alternatives:
- The criminal knows that you are armed, so preys on others instead. The
altercation between you is avoided altogether. (See Bastiat, "What Is Seen
And What Is Not Seen".) If enough people are armed, the criminal finds
something else to do for a living.
- The criminal attempts to assault/rob/rape you, or those in your vicinity.
You brandish a weapon; he flees. You let him.
- You brandish a weapon. He stops. The police are called. He is arrested
(or perhaps, these days, you are arrested for brandishing the weapon).
- You fire a warning shot to get his attention. He flees or stops.
- He continues his attack. You shoot to wound, despite my advice.
- He continues his attack. You shoot to kill but do not succeed.
- He continues his attack. You shoot to kill, and succeed.
For many reasons, it is hard to obtain accurate statistics on incidents of
self-defense. Nonetheless, from what I have seen, it appears that approx.
98% of the time, the presence of the weapon repels the attack. And, of
course, many times when the weapon is fired, the perp is not killed. My
guess, folding in statistics on self-defense homicides, is that self-defense
results in the killing of the criminal far less than 1% of the time.
This correlates well with the statistics on police use of firearms. Most
police nationwide will never fire their weapons except at a range. Many will
not even have drawn their weapons. And these are people whose central
responsibility is to deal with criminals.
>And would they support expanding the range of crimes which deserve death,
>since they are personally willing to kill in response to sub-lethal crimes?
No one is advocating that if you see someone committing a crime, you pull out
your pistol and blow them away, unless it is the only means of saving a life.
What is being argued is:
- You are entitled to defend yourself against violent attack.
- We applaud people who are willing to defend others against violence.
- Guns can be an effective means of defense, if one is trained.
- There are alternatives to guns, like not being there in the first place, or
talking someone out of it. They may be effective but are not guaranteed.
- A necessary part of carrying a gun or knife is an honest acknowledgement that
this may result in taking a life. Deal with this before you carry.
- If you are adequately prepared, whether use of a gun in self-defense does
take a life depends on the criminal's subsequent actions.
-- David Lubkin.
______________________________________________________________________________
lubkin@unreasonable.com || Unreasonable Software, Inc. || www.unreasonable.com
a trademark of USI:
> > > > > B e u n r e a s o n a b l e .
______________________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:49 MDT