Indians For Guns

Remember the Koren store owner from the 1993 Los Angeles riot? Reading about various riot I see cause of most riot in western countries is a dark colored person getting shot or beaten by cops, I guess the racial tension in those countries acts as a encouraging factor in riots. The simple way to stop riot, You loot, we shoot trust me nobody wants to get shot over a new set of trousers or a bottle of malt liquor.

I would agree with your hypothesis.

Priyan makes an excellent point. Those Koreans store owners stood on the roofs of their stores with their rifles and no one bothered their stores.

Remember California has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. The percentage of law abiding citizens who own arms there are significantly lower than other states where gun laws are more lenient.
Riots usually take place in inner-city neighborhoods of the major cities, not in the small towns and smaller cities where gun ownership might be more prevalent.
In the LA riots, after the police were unable to cope and abandoned the streets, the National Guard were called out to patrol and they were told to shoot looters on sight. It took only a few incidents for the riots to fizzle out. Once again the majority of the people affected by the riots were poor people who lived in those neighborhoods. These were the people whose shops and houses were destroyed. It did not impact rich neighborhoods like Beverly Hills.

I'm not sure I can offer a valid opinion on the hypothesis. My own approach to RKBA differs from the idea of promoting RKBA as a social engineering scheme; my primary interests are the ability to protect myself and the pursuit of a hobby/interest that causes no harm to anyone. Here are some observations regarding your hypothesis:

Use of the word "hypothesis" implies a scientific approach, in which one of the chief tools must be statistics: what do the statistics tell us about gun ownership's relation to violence/looting/rioting? The mathematical science of statistics is a very powerful analysis tool, but it is also very tricky, because it is not intuitive, it is conceptual. In other words, what seems obvious "common sense" is often simply not statistically supportable. However, "common sense" will seem to indicate something else.

For example:

Gun ownership -- how many people have guns? Here is an oft-quoted source of data that people use for answering this question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _ownership

This study says that, for instance, in the USA, there are 88.8 guns for every 100 people. According to your hypothesis, a country in which a lot of people have guns ought to have a lower rate of riots/looting/violence, and one might make the case that, based on the high average of gun ownership cited in these data, the hypothesis is not supported.

BUT!

What are the data telling us? I submit, not much. It is telling us that there are 270 million civilian-owned million guns in the USA, and 304 million people. But does this tell me how likely it is that my neighbor has a gun in his house? Does it tell me that in my neighborhood of ~50 houses, 40 of them have guns? No, it doesn't say this at all. I have 22 complete guns (not including 2 of my older son's), which means that only 18 guns remain to be spread over the remaining 49 homes in my neighborhood. What this means is that, rather than some goon having an 80% chance of entering an armed home in my neighborhood, he only has a 38% chance, assuming that the other 18 guns in our neighborhood are each owned by different people. My suspicion is that, assuming that there really are 40 guns in our neighborhood, of which I own 22, the other 18 are located in far fewer households than 18, which lowers the chance that a criminal will encounter an armed household even further.

You see from my example how the statistical concept of the mean, or average, is of very limited value when trying to ascertain how "armed" any group is, whether we are discussing my neighborhood, city, state, or country. I have participated in sites where collectors individually own from 100 to as many as 600 guns -- I have seen pictures of such collections posted many times on boards. Individuals owning large numbers of guns like this is not rare in the USA. Given that few people could shoot more than one or two at a time, such large numbers owned by so few sharply skews the "firepower" in the average neighborhood or city.

The number of households owning a gun is one issue, and which guns are actually available for use in the case of the event would be another. Is the owned gun in a safety deposit box? An antique suited only for hanging on the wall? Does the owner even have ammunition for the gun(s)?

This doesn't even address issues like number of guns per city vs. guns per rural region, guns per section of the population, guns per inner city vs. suburbs, etc.

If you are familiar with studies, then you know that I have outlined what would be a herculean effort to assess the real threat an armed population might be to a civil disturbance.

A second issue would be assessing the nature of the threat of civil disobedience. As an example, let me cite three of hypothetical instances and consider them:

Example #1: You are a gun owner in London. You have a shotgun that you use for grouse hunting or skeet shooting. A riot of 14 and 15 year old looters breaks out, and when one comes to your home/store/place of worship, you stick the shotgun in his face and tell him to be gone, or else you tell him to spread-eagle on the sidewalk and hold him until the police arrive to cart him away in the paddy wagon. Or, maybe 4 or 5 of you and your friends, all armed with some collection of guns, protects your street from drive-by opportunists looking for trouble.

The threat of owned firearms here is going to affect and deter, I believe, opportunistic young people who are bent on hell-raising and who have put little or no thought into the possible consequences of what they are doing or why they are doing it.

Example #2: a large group of motorcyclists out on a lark enter a small town, where some of them get into an altercation with some townspeople. The altercation ends when one of the townsmen produces a gun and shoots the motorcycle of one of the group. The motorcyclists vow return and revenge, and later, heavily armed they return to wreck the town. A state policeman stops the returning gang and offers to take a couple members for a tour through the town. These members ride in a police car into the small town, where each adobe house is like a fort and just about every home owner is standing with a .30-30 at a window or door, waiting for the festivities to begin. (This is actually a real New Mexico story.)

In this case, the threat of owned firearms also has a decided effect. The motorcyclists are not mindless hoodlums and are motivated by a show of power and bravado, and back down when they see their vulnerability to some armed homeowners.

Example #3: In a Mexican town, a homeowner or group of homeowners is outraged by the depredations of a violent drug cartel. With whatever weapons they muster, they pose a threat to members of the drug cartel, warning them to stay out of the town.

In this case, the fact that the homeowners are backing their demands with firearms will almost guarantee their deaths. They may shoot or kill one or a few cartel members, but in such a case, the cartel will make sure that by one means or another, the homeowners are eliminated.

My point here is that different motivations constitute different threats, and not all threats can be lumped into the same bucket, where they are effectively dealt with by an armed citizen. In some areas, the threat may have to do with different ethnic groups. In some, it may be religious differences that motivate rioting. Politics could be the issue, based either on ideology or tribal affiliation. We could go through all of these and note significant factors to the ability of guns and the armed citizen's ability to protect himself and his family from harm. Northern Ireland (Roman Catholic and Protestant) and the former Yugoslavia (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim) are both heavily armed areas, and people have been zestfully rioting and murdering each other for centuries in both areas.

My point here is that the motivation of the rioters needs to be considered -- not just the proximate cause, but the underlying factors, as well.

Regarding the riots in Great Britain, I am in conversation with a Scottish friend about them right now. He notes that the Scottish Nationalist leader has announced that the reason riots haven't broken out in Scotland is because the Scottish have "different values" from England. My Scottish friend expressed the hope that the leader would not have to eat his words. The situation in the UK is of great concern to me, because I strongly believe that we in the USA are sitting on a similar powder keg. I have heard arguments that propose trying to take away everyone's guns to fix the threat. I have no faith that such a plan, if it were even possible to implement, would have any effect of promoting public safety. On the other hand, saying that everyone being armed does not give me any more confidence that my safety would be ensured. If, for instance, a number of citizens had been armed with 9mm handguns in Mumbai, would the massacre have been averted? Or would the citizens have felt the same as the armed officials who threw down their SMLEs and ran? Sure, maybe someone would have shot one or more of the attackers -- if the death toll had been cut 20% or even 50% by such action, would I feel safer? (No, not really!) What about Norway, where one lone person did the deed?

In all these questions that I ask, I admit, trusting an ill-organized or unorganized group to protect public safety and my and my family doesn't really leave me with a much more secure feeling than trusting the government to do it. My own personal view of these issues, as it applies to me, is that life is always going to offer imperfect situations, and I am going to be faced with circumstances beyond my control to prevent. I feel more confident of my safety here in the USA than if I was across the border in Mexico, sure, but I know that bad things happen here in the USA, here in the state where I live (a state which has a "Castle Law" that legally allows me to defend my home with arms), the town where I live, and even my neighborhood. Since these are the cards that are dealt to me, I do feel more confident and safe having firearms to protect myself. While my motivation for firearms ownership is much more oriented toward fun and hobby than it is to protection and self-defence, these latter reasons alone are sufficient for me to demand the right to keep and bear arms, as I feel I am directly responsible for my own safety and protection and believe I am the best expert on how to get that job done.

I cannot say whether I answered your question or not. I suppose not, because I truly don't have the answer myself. Here in the USA, I hear lots of people talking big and puffing out their chest, bragging about what they'd do with their gun(s) under this circumstance or that. I have come too close, myself, to hope and pray (fervently) for anything other than being spared from such a trial. Thankfully, that's been the case so far. However, I have to tell you, when I hear people winding up and talking big about what they'd do, I cannot help but thinking that they are tremendous gas-bags, blowing about intellectually like a balloon that has been loosed. How do they know what they would do in any circumstance? How foolish it is to think that, if something happened, it would be similar enough to their vivid imaginations to protect them? I have lived long enough to understand the difference between "talkers" and "doers," and I also know that both traits seldom exist in the same individual.

For me, having the gun and the ammunition is primary, as is being able to use the gun as effectively as I can. However, having the determination to do what needs to be done is at least as important, since there won't be time to assess the situation when and if it happens -- there may not even be enough time to react effectively!

My bottom line is that I am 100% for the collective effort to implement, protect, and ensure the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. That's a big reason why I'm here. I wasn't around when those old Congressmen stood shoulder to shoulder to fight imperialism. Some people from other countries stood by you, but since I am only here today, what I can do is stand up for your RKBA rights as well as mine today, right now. I can't do or be much for either you or me, but I am here.

But even with all of this, the whole business of protection is, in my opinion, something that primarily applies to me, individual. It is an individual thought process and set of decisions much more than it is a movement, a political effort, or even a topic for argument. I will push for rights, I will encourage thinking and the sharing of information, I am for organization. But I've got to put my faith in myself and hope for the best, because the only person I have control over is myself. It's for this reason that I tend to avoid debates and their cousins, the arguments: They very very seldom change anyone's mind, at least as far as my efforts have been concerned.

Most of the rioters usually look for easy and soft targets. They are usually not interested to do pitched battles with organized defenders. Whenever they get a message that they will be facing stiff resistance, they usually avoid the place. The following story titled "Scotland Yard, learn from Sikhs- The Southall model that kept London looters away" may be one such example: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110815/j ... 380305.jsp

I partially agree with timmy,
You don't shoot a gang member in his own hood even if you're legally carrying a firearms and he/she was trying to harm you. Nobody would testify against the mugger in court (If you survive to get to court) IMHO the best way to stay safe is to avoid trouble when possible but be prepared to fight at any moment. Speaking of gun ownership in USA it differs from place to place, in places like Los Angeles and Detroit not all people owns a firearm (Even if they do it's locked in the box) but in rural areas most people atleast owns a shotgun or a Mosin Nagant (Thanks to the huge milsurp and cosmoline ).

In case of the Mumbai attack, I won't blame the cops completely even though they showed a little hesitation to shoot the terrorists, I know a few cops and when I asked ho often them how often they practice shooting I was kinda shocked by the answer "I never shot after training" I wonder if they'd hit anything with those British era weapons with that type of 'practice'.

Speaking of the Korean store owners,



Would you guys dare to steal a forty-ounce from them?

Timmy, I pretty much agree with most of what you have said.
I do make one exception though; (at the risk of sounding nit-picky) A hypothesis doesn't always have to be backed by scientific date. One meaning of the word "hypothesis" is an assumption or a guess.
A hypothesis can be proven but at the beginning, it is just an assumption.

xl, in the field of science I worked in, and in others like psychology and drug tests, there is no "proving" of a hypothesis. Rather, two hypotheses would be set up, a "null hypothesis" (Hand an "alternative hypothesis".

In the matter aglover brings up, the null hypothesis would be: "when a large no. of people in a neighbourhood have guns for self defense it will not work as a deterrent and prevent riots."

The alternative hypothesis would be: "when a large no. of people in a neighbourhood have guns for self defense it will work as a deterrent and prevent riots."

aglover, in this instance, would collect the data and, say for sake of argument, the data shows that communities with large numbers of gun owners son't have any riots. This would cause the null hypothesis to be discarded as false. Neither hypothesis is "proven to be true" in the way, say that two triangles are proven to be congruent or that a person is proven innocent because his alibi for the time of the crime holds. Rather, in this case, the null hypothesis is discarded and the alternative hypothesis is seen to still hold. However, nothing is said to be proven.

The experiment(s) are set up to control all variables but one and statistical principles are used, such as ensuring that the sample set is truly randomly chosen and is large enough to be representative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

Priyan, it is doubtful that rioters or looters would bother the Koreans shown in your pictures. However, the ones I hear about getting killed on the news are usually old grandfathers and grandmothers, trying to eke out a living in inner city stores. The neighborhoods are tough, unemployment is high, and there are no "supermarkets" or Walmarts in these areas. Stores are small "mom and pop" stores and they have been cased over well before any move is made -- the looters know with whom they deal. My uncle owned an inner city hardware store for many years -- I could tell many many stories about his experiences.

For instance, he tried guard dogs -- they were poisoned.

He had guns hidden in several locations -- he stopped doing this because he was afraid someone would find one and rob him.

My aunt was nearly deaf an on a number of occasions, the robbers would have my uncle and cousin on the floor by the cash register and holding sawed-offs on them, while my aunt would be oblivious to the whole thing and chatting with a customer in another part of the store.

There was no mystery who the robbers would be: on one occasion, the robber was arrested and had posted bail before my uncle had finished filing charges. When he returned to the store, the robber was waiting for him saying, "Hey, Joe, where ya been?"

My uncle lost more money closing the store and going to the police station to report the robbery, and then closing the store again when the robber was arrested, then he would by not bothering with reporting the matter. He simply went to the bank 5 or 6 times a day, when the till was filled to a certain value. That way, if he was robbed, he wouldn't be hurt too much.

Finally, a drug gang took over the neighborhood. They did not like petty criminals attracting attention with little robberies, and put an end to the small time crooks. So the law-keeping was most effective when the gang took over -- a sad commentary.

So guns prevented their shops from being looted.

It is not likely to come as a great surprise to anyone that a storeowner with a gun prevented his store from being looted or robbed.

Are there other example to support the hypothesis ?

You have not supported your hypothesis with this one example. Your hypothesis is:

My hypothesis is that when a large no. of people in a neighbourhood have guns for self defense it will work as a deterrent and prevent riots.

And you first of all do not have a random statistical sample of a neighborhood, you have not established that any particular neighborhood's example is relevant to all neighborhoods, nor have you shown, even with this one example of one store in which looting was thwarted, that any effect was made to "prevent riots."

If this assumption (hypothesis) is right, this could be counter point to the anti's assumption (surely the anti gun lobby are also just assuming that gun promote violence.)

"If the hypothesis is right... Yes, If you could establish this presumption as fact, then it would be a counterpoint. However, you haven't a chance of proving this. I have sufficiently outlined some of the things you would need to do to make such a presumption a viable conclusion. It would be an immense work -- a research project -- that would require a respectable effort of a team of researchers, and that assumes that you could even find enough data to indicate something one way or another.

This is the big problem I see regarding these sorts of ideas/discussions: Most of these sorts of efforts (whether pro-gun or anti-gun) don't start off with an actual scientific hypothesis as I outlined above. Rather that trying to study a subject and learn something, the whole proposition is based on taking the assumption as fact, and then marshaling supporting evidence. The evidence gathered is bound to be skewed, because anything that does not conform to the original proposition is ignored, misconstrued, or otherwise manipulated. Real honest-to-goodness unbiased data is absent, mainly because it is so hard to establish in the first place.

In other words, these efforts tend to be nothing but a mud-slinging argument, rather than a quest for knowledge.

Anti-gun people are not stupid (even if, as I believe, they are wrong). They are using the exact same tactics, and because they are quite familiar with the process, they easily recognize when it is being used on them.

Neutral people or those of an open mind -- the people we want to convince (the anti-gun people will not be convinced by anything -- even facts) will also see through this tactic as more noise, indistinguishable from all the rest.

If you want to use such a proposition in an argument, go ahead. But if you intend to parade it as a fact, I doubt very many reasonable people will accept it as such -- and that's just my opinion of the matter.

A good thread ruined by OP. Why deleting them?

Priyan wrote:A good thread ruined by OP. Why deleting them?

Yes, there was nothing wrong with your question. You made an assumption and wanted some other people's opinion on it. No big deal.
Some will agree with you and some will not. That is how we learn, through informed discussion. There is nothing wrong with someone not agreeing with you, just as I don't see anything wrong with your original question. Please don't take offence if someone disagrees with you.

I still, very respectfully of course , disagree with Timmy on his definition of the word "Hypothesis". Certainly in the field that Timmy worked in, the meaning of the word was as he described but one could use the word to describe an idea based on a WAG (Wild Ass Guess) or maybe a SWAG (Scientific WAG) .



According to Websters Online Dictionary, some of the definitions of the word are:

A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

A supposition; a proposition or principle which is supposed or taken for granted, in order to draw a conclusion or inference for proof of the point in question; something not proved, but assumed for the purpose of argument, or to account for a fact or an occurrence; as, the hypothesis that head winds detain an overdue steamer.

According to Dictionary.com, one of the definitions is:

a mere assumption or guess.

As far as proving a hypothesis; any assumption can be proven or disproven but now this is degenerating into a post about semantics. Which, I'll be the first to admit, is my fault and takes us off topic. So I'll shut up now.