Talk:The Bias Against Guns

This does not belong

Ok, I'm going to put this up for discussion. In my opinion, the following does not belong in the article.

Under this rubric, another problem arises, however: The householder or other putative victim has a strong incentive to shoot the intruder or accoster fatally, so as to foreclose the possibility of future lawsuits or prosecutions. "Dead men tell no tales," not even to the police. A pro-gun person added this parenthetical item to the problem description: "(assuming the incentive of defending one's life and property wasn't enough)". The discussion was not, however, about stopping the intruder with a disabling shot, or, like the Lone Ranger, shooting the gun out of his hand; it was about killing him versus disabling him.

My reasoning is this. Discussion of whether or not it's even feasible to shoot to disable an intruder/attacker does not belong in an article about a book that primarily is about statistics. In my opinion, that entire section should be taken out. If the above paragraph belongs anywhere, it should on the discussion page. In my humble opinion, that is.Al Lowe

I'll also add that the idea of shooting to disable or aiming at the hand like the Lone Ranger is MUCH more dangerous than shooting to kill. I assume that most people take "shooting to disable" as shooting at the arms or legs. Let me tell you, trying to hit someones hand, arm or leg is not just hard, it's down right near impossible to do so on a consistent basis when you're under stress, and possibly being shot at yourself. That is why most firearms instructors worth anything will teach you to aim for the center of mass. Basically, the center of of the torso. Therefore, by default, you should be shooting to kill. For a person attempting anything else, when defending themselves, their family and/or their home, is near suicide.Al Lowe

• I was always taught to shoot Center of Mass. No warning shots, no trying to wing him. Shoot CoM, and let the cop who arrives on scene know that's where you aimed. It helps prevent lawsuits over "excessive force" or causing undue pain. Anyways, yeah, I don't think that part belongs in the article. It's a decent point, but outside the scope. Izuko 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

All the comments in this discussion seem to centre around shooting someone. Has no-one yet considered the scenario where just pointing a gun at the attacker or intruder and telling them to freeze actually works? No bullets required and no physical attempts to incapacitate them are needed. There is then no chance that you fatally injure them. By the way, burglars don't prowl around with guns out like they do in the movies - so it's far from a certainty that they will shoot back. 195.153.45.54 12:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Another opinion

I agree. I'm taking it out. This is just an anti-gun editorial.

I noticed the problem, so decided to add a neutrality disputed tag, rather than try to re-write the whole article, because I am not very good at re-writing.

Well, for starters, the statistics can be used both ways but the original article author did not put in references to books which disputed this one (of which there are many as I'm sure you've guessed). There isn't even a critical analysis of the method used by Lott in the book or on the relevancy or on the authors commentary itself.

A good example of this is that there are places in the book where the author departs from statistics and facts and instead tells stories and anecdotes which prop up his point - however, the book is still presented as undisputed fact. Statistics can be manipulated and stories can be selected to illustrate a point. The book is not NPOV and that is critical information in any review or synopsis. 195.153.45.54 12:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

Reading this article, I can't help feeling that it spends too much time repeating Lott's arguments rather than documenting the notable aspects of the book in an encyclopedic way. His main arguments should be mentioned, but arguing them should be left to him, rather than the enyclopedia.

I'm not sure I'd be happy making those changes myself; I've never read the book, or even heard of the man before... I just drifted here off 'Recent Changes', so I'd hate to step on the toes of those active on this page. However, when I read the page I got the definite feeling that the author(s) strongly agreed with Lott's arguments whereas I wouldn't expect to get any vibes either way from a truly encyclopedic article. TimTim 22:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you could point out more specifically what you think is not NPOV that would be helpful. You are right that there should be more content about the history of the book, the literary responses to it, and its societal/political impact. Kborer 00:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in 'Government against gun ownership' for instance, the article uses sentences like: "The first is that government funded studies of guns in society are heavily biased. One reason is that politicians control the quesions that are investigated.". I think perhaps there's not quite enough distinction between information that is being presented as 'fact' and information that is being presented as an example of Lott's opinions. Perhaps the tone should be closer to paragraph on 'Shall Issue' laws in the article on More Guns, Less Crime, which gives a rough overview of his findings without stating them in the authoritative encyclopedic tone. I'm not here trying to dispute the factual accuracy of his book (I don't really know enough about the subject), but I guess factual statements about gun control probably belong on the Gun Control page anyway. TimTim 20:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is to say nothing of the fact that the authors own argument in the book can be used against him very simply. Other commentators have already pointed out that omitting questions that show gun control negatively is equivalent to omitting examination of the imaginary scenario "guns are not available to anyone at all" 195.153.45.54 12:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the criticism section? Most articles of this type tend to have such a thing. --aciel (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias

U.S. government studies on gun control have titles like "Firearms and Violence" or "Weapons, Crime and Violence in America." Even anti-gun Robert Sherrill pointed out that at the most, crime represented one of 400 guns. The NSPOF survey showed that self-defense was a primary reason to own a gun for less than half of gun owners. The focus of government studies on firearms as weapons involved in crime and violence, when guns are owned mostly for sport, slightly less commonly for self defense and statistically very few are actually used for crime or violence, demonstrates a bias so pervasive it is not perceived. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a conclusion

This is not a conclusion of the book itself, but is unsourced recitation of pro gun control talking points, some of which are out of date; e.g.: by latest figures firearms injuries (suicide, homicide, accident) are the fifteenth (not eighth) leading cause of death in the United States. It might be worked into criticism of the book, if sourced, updated and tied to arguments made in the book.

The damage caused by guns in the United States is unique among developed nations. The rate at which children under 15 years of age are murdered with guns in the US is 16 times higher than in the 25 other wealthiest industrialized countries combined. Almost 350,000 violent crimes were committed with firearms every year. Firearms injuries are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, and a leading cause of injury-related death. The economic impact of this violence is staggering. The medical costs of gun-related fatalities and injuries are estimated to exceed $2.5 billion each year. In addition, work loss costs are estimated at $20 billion or more per year. Every year, 10 times as many people die from guns than were killed on 9/11. Every 15 minutes a person dies by the gun.

--Naaman Brown (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)