"Good guy" with gun shoots car jacking victim, then flees.

[Brain357]

The 2.5 million crimes prevented figure by fire arms include the police.

And no....2 million if you just use the studies that do not include police or military shootings......I pointed that out in my list....

No, that is wrong. The 2.5 million police use of weapons is correct, always has been.

except you are wrong…..there are 10 studies that do not include military or police use….and if you average them they come out to about 2 million civilian defensive gun uses a year……..

Course some of these studies aren't even national, and at least one you can't prove exists, and 2 million isn't even mathematically possible...

asswipe…it was listed in a peer reviewed paper…..and was created in the 90s so it is very likely not internet accessible…..you know this, and you yourself admitted you never even looked for it…..moron.


And of course since it is from the liberal L.A. Times and shows the defensive gun use at 3 million a year, you hate it…...

So you know nothing about the study yet you still count it. Even though the number is impossible. You are a real scientist.

 

[2aguy]

And no....2 million if you just use the studies that do not include police or military shootings......I pointed that out in my list....

No, that is wrong. The 2.5 million police use of weapons is correct, always has been.

except you are wrong…..there are 10 studies that do not include military or police use….and if you average them they come out to about 2 million civilian defensive gun uses a year……..

Course some of these studies aren't even national, and at least one you can't prove exists, and 2 million isn't even mathematically possible...

asswipe…it was listed in a peer reviewed paper…..and was created in the 90s so it is very likely not internet accessible…..you know this, and you yourself admitted you never even looked for it…..moron.


And of course since it is from the liberal L.A. Times and shows the defensive gun use at 3 million a year, you hate it…...

So you know nothing about the study yet you still count it. Even though the number is impossible. You are a real scientist.

I never said I was a scientist, moron. I site the work of actual researchers on the topic…and you know that. Asshole.

 

[Brain357]

Yes: "Owning a gun is a Right"

False: "...and any fee or education requirement that makes it impossible to exercise the Right is un constitutional.."

False: "Americans with little to no training use guns effectively and accurately to stop crime every single day"

Here…..this book by CATO based on their research has the stories of gun self defense culled from actual news sources…..5,000 stories….so go through those and you will see normal people with little to no training dealing with violent criminals effectively and responsibly….

From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"


And they say because of this.......

"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The Data Set


Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12[
There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.

As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........


In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review

Right wing, pro gun, always went Cato. Why bother posting such garbage?

 

[2aguy]

Yes: "Owning a gun is a Right"

False: "...and any fee or education requirement that makes it impossible to exercise the Right is un constitutional.."

False: "Americans with little to no training use guns effectively and accurately to stop crime every single day"

Here…..this book by CATO based on their research has the stories of gun self defense culled from actual news sources…..5,000 stories….so go through those and you will see normal people with little to no training dealing with violent criminals effectively and responsibly….

From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"


And they say because of this.......

"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The Data Set


Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12[
There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.

As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........


In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review

Right wing, pro gun, always went Cato. Why bother posting such garbage?

You really are a moron……you listed "The Armed Citizen" as one of the studies that you like…and posted it here in defense of your stupid ideas…….you are a moron.

 

[Brain357]

2aguy always admits he loses when he goes personal.

And I'll go personal on you…moron, as I show you are wrong….

See…here are the studies that are easily accessible and located in one spot…..and they are also designated as to wether the police and military were counted…….the L.A. Times study is the one Brain hates because it is a liberal, anti gun paper, and it puts the number at 3,609,680 defensive gun uses by civilians…..

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

Field is your second largest joke. Are you aware it's not even a national survey? How can it possibly be accurate?

Are you accounting for the huge drop in crime since these surveys were done?

 

[Andylusion]

Yes: "Owning a gun is a Right"

False: "...and any fee or education requirement that makes it impossible to exercise the Right is un constitutional.."

False: "Americans with little to no training use guns effectively and accurately to stop crime every single day"

Here…..this book by CATO based on their research has the stories of gun self defense culled from actual news sources…..5,000 stories….so go through those and you will see normal people with little to no training dealing with violent criminals effectively and responsibly….

From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"


And they say because of this.......

"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The Data Set


Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12[
There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.

As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........


In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review

Right wing, pro gun, always went Cato. Why bother posting such garbage?

So you can't argue with the evidence that CATO presents, so instead you just attack CATO.... for what exactly?

 

[Brain357]

Yes: "Owning a gun is a Right"

False: "...and any fee or education requirement that makes it impossible to exercise the Right is un constitutional.."

False: "Americans with little to no training use guns effectively and accurately to stop crime every single day"

Here…..this book by CATO based on their research has the stories of gun self defense culled from actual news sources…..5,000 stories….so go through those and you will see normal people with little to no training dealing with violent criminals effectively and responsibly….

From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"


And they say because of this.......

"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The Data Set


Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12[
There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.

As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........


In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review

Right wing, pro gun, always went Cato. Why bother posting such garbage?

You really are a moron……you listed "The Armed Citizen" as one of the studies that you like…and posted it here in defense of your stupid ideas…….you are a moron.

You are posting made up findings by Cato.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm confused about the entire purpose of the thread.

Are you suggesting that being unarmed would have resulted in the attackers giving up? Or that no one would have been shot, if you just do what criminals say? Crime statistics suggest otherwise.

 

[Brain357]

Yes: "Owning a gun is a Right"

False: "...and any fee or education requirement that makes it impossible to exercise the Right is un constitutional.."

False: "Americans with little to no training use guns effectively and accurately to stop crime every single day"

Here…..this book by CATO based on their research has the stories of gun self defense culled from actual news sources…..5,000 stories….so go through those and you will see normal people with little to no training dealing with violent criminals effectively and responsibly….

From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"


And they say because of this.......

"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The Data Set


Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12[
There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.

As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........


In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review

Right wing, pro gun, always went Cato. Why bother posting such garbage?

So you can't argue with the evidence that CATO presents, so instead you just attack CATO.... for what exactly?

Can and have proven them to be a joke many times.

 

[Brain357]

I'm confused about the entire purpose of the thread.

Are you suggesting that being unarmed would have resulted in the attackers giving up? Or that no one would have been shot, if you just do what criminals say? Crime statistics suggest otherwise.

Did you even read what happened?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I disagree. The fact that he would be unlikely to get a Fair and Impartial Trial needs to be considered as a mitigating factor in his flight.

That's silly. The guy shot someone in the head and fled the scene. He should get the same fair and impartial trial that everyone else gets that commits an offense.
You seem to want to excuse him because "gun nuts" and that's bullshit.

Depending on the local political scene, he might. Or he might not.
"Excuse"? No, I want to cut him some slack for running because of "anti-gun nuts".
Because it is a reasonable fear that he would be the target of a lynch mob.

It's people like you that make "anti-gun nuts" exist.

Hardly.
Anti-gun loons are those that want more gun control but can argue only from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - like. oh, you.
No one makes these people do this; they choose to do so -- and so, anti-gun loons exist because they want to..

You are the one arguing from emotion.

You cannot cite a single instance of me doing so.
You know this.
Never mind the fact that anti-gun loons exist because they choose to, and no other reason.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Before you may legally drive (own) a car you must be trained not only in how to properly use it but in the rules of the road. Requiring some essential training does not prevent one from driving (owning) a car -- or carrying a gun. It just makes our crowded world safer.

You do not need a DL to buy a car.
You do not need a DL to own a car.
You do not need a DL to have a car on your property/in your house
You do not need a DL to operate a car on private property.

Never mind that gun ownership is a right and driving on public roads is a privilege.

 

[Brain357]

Before you may legally drive (own) a car you must be trained not only in how to properly use it but in the rules of the road. Requiring some essential training does not prevent one from driving (owning) a car -- or carrying a gun. It just makes our crowded world safer.

You do not need a DL to buy a car.
You do not need a DL to own a car.
You do not need a DL to have a car on your property/in your house
You do not need a DL to operate a car on private property.

Never mind that gun ownership is a right and driving on public roads is a privilege.

And almost no car accidents happen in your yard...

 

[JakeStarkey]

false equivalency, again

 

[Brain357]

That's silly. The guy shot someone in the head and fled the scene. He should get the same fair and impartial trial that everyone else gets that commits an offense.
You seem to want to excuse him because "gun nuts" and that's bullshit.

Depending on the local political scene, he might. Or he might not.
"Excuse"? No, I want to cut him some slack for running because of "anti-gun nuts".
Because it is a reasonable fear that he would be the target of a lynch mob.

It's people like you that make "anti-gun nuts" exist.

Hardly.
Anti-gun loons are those that want more gun control but can argue only from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - like. oh, you.
No one makes these people do this; they choose to do so -- and so, anti-gun loons exist because they want to..

You are the one arguing from emotion.

You cannot cite a single instance of me doing so.
You know this.
Never mind the fact that anti-gun loons exist because they choose to, and no other reason.

You do it with almost every post.

 

[M14 Shooter]

AND anti-guns nuts will take any "reasonable" training requirements and pump it up every chance they get until they put guns out of the reach of all except the rich and powerful, or the criminal class.

Exactly how will these "anti-gun nuts" pump up a simple training requirement to put guns out of the reach of ordinary citizens? How?

Legally requiring a training/education course before you can exercise your right to arms violates the constitution in exactly the same way as such a requirement for the right to free speech, the freedom of the press, the free exercise of religion, the right to vote and the right to an abortion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What do cars have to do with guns?

Cars and the requirements for legally driving them are analogous to guns and legally carrying them.

To correctly continue the analogy...
These requirements would only apply to carrying a gun on public property.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe what happens to some who simply obtain a handgun, strap it on and go out in public is their thoughts are filled with fanciful notions about their armed status and its responsibilities. So when something stressful takes place they have no substantive reference to manage their response and they do the wrong thing, which probably accounts for this fellow's precipitous action. I'm sure if he had been properly instructed he would have been more restrained.

A number of states allow concealed carry w/o a permit.
A large number of states allow open carry w/o a permit.
How often does the scenario you envision actually materialize?
Further, Texas requires training to obtain a CCW -- why didn't shooter's training prevent this from happening?

 

[The Great Goose]

Looks like amatuers with guns can cause more damage than good. A trained person would know not to shoot in that circumstance.

actually, most defensive gun uses by normal people show remarkable restraint and effectiveness in using the weapon. You just see the bad cases because they make the news more often…and their is an anti gun bias in the press who love to highlight the bad cases…...

 

[Asclepias]

Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away

At least he didn't kill him.

Shooter needs to go to jail. Good example of concealed carry creating crime.

How did the concealed carry by passer cause the carjackers to commit their crime?

The carjackers caused the carry guy to committ a crime. You can't just shoot people.

He didn't just shoot someone, they were violently attacking another person and he tried to stop them....moron.

.....and he killed the victim instead. He was under no obligation legal or otherwise to pull his gun and start randomly shooting people.