Guns rarely used for self defence

[Skylar]

You seem to be advocating toy or inoperative guns. I'm only replying to your asinine comments.

How is advocating that you don't keep a functional gun in your home an attack against any of your rights?

Am I arguing that you MUST under penalty of law disable all functional weapons? Or that you shouldn't be able to buy guns?

Of course not. I'm giving you a factual reasoned argument why the odds of hurting yourself or your family vastly outweight the odds of self defense with a fire arm. And how you can almost all of the benefits of a fire arm with a disabled weapon with none of the accompanying harms.

So what right have I stripped you of? Or advocated being stripped? Name that right.

 

[2aguy]

skylar...chill....take a minute to just relish your victories today.......

you anti gun extremists love gun free zones and pushed for those laws...

The Church was a gun free zone...you won....

You guys don't want civilians to have guns (you at least don't want functional guns) and not one person in that church had a gun....you won.....

you should be popping the cork on a bottle of bubbly....you laws worked...not one peaceful, law abiding citizen had a gun in that church....."Winning".....

 

[Skylar]

When you use the you are 80 times more likely....you are not counting all,defensive gun uses in your number...you know that, so when you keep repeating that number you know is inaccurate you are lying...

So the 'lie' is an argument I'm not even making. That's called a strawman.

I'm comparing the number of justified homicides in self defense with the number of suicide gun deaths. My stat is dead on. In fact, if anything I've understimated how long the odds are. As its actually 84 suicides to every intruder killed in self defense. You neither refute my claims. Nor even disagree with them. Debunking your 'lie' claim.

We both know I'm right.

'Defensive uses of a gun' almost never involve discharging the weapon. Which is why a gun with the firing pin removed and no ammo is just as effective when the gun isn't discharged. Which is almost always. The odds of actually having to pull the trigger and kill an intruder with your gun is than HALF that of being struck by lighting.

Where as a functional gun in the home increases the odds of suicide by DOUBLE. With a gun 80 times more likely to be used to in suicide than in killing an intruder. You're twice as likely to accidentally discharge the weapon and kill someone than you are to kill an intruder. If a gun is the home, women are 3 times more likely to be murdered. This without domestic violence. When domestic violence is factored in, that skyrockets to 5 times higher.

A functioning gun in your house does not make you safer. It does no make your family safer. It endangers your family.

No...because there are 2 million defensive gun uses on average each year....far more than the suicide or justifiable homicide number.....

victims don't have to kill every criminal...they wound them, drive them off or hold them for police......and not using that number and including it in the gun stats you use is a lie....

Again, Defensive Gun use almost never involves pulling the trigger. Which is why I've advocated a disabled weapon for home defense. As in almost every instance its going to offer you the same protection as a loaded weapon. But with none of the horrible costs of a functional gun in the house.

Not only have I addressed 'defensive gun use', I've incorporated it into my argument. And you have no argument to refute me.

Exactly as I predicated, your 'lie' was merely an argument you couldn't refute.

Try again.

 

[Skylar]

skylar...chill....take a minute to just relish your victories today.......

you anti gun extremists love gun free zones and pushed for those laws...

The Church was a gun free zone...you won....

You guys don't want civilians to have guns (you at least don't want functional guns) and not one person in that church had a gun....you won.....

you should be popping the cork on a bottle of bubbly....you laws worked...not one peaceful, law abiding citizen had a gun in that church....."Winning".....

Relax, relax. Take a breath. And tell me....where have I argue that civilians shouldn't have guns?

Quote me.

You're just swinging at the straw men.

 

[Uncensored2008]

2 million violent crimes prevented a year, huh? Can you back that stat up?

Millions each year do not die of heart attack and stroke because they quit smoking.

Do you dispute this?

Can you back it up?

There is a reason that the demand to prove a negative is a logical fallacy.

 

[2aguy]

And if you want to talk about real gun control and how to do it...get rid of gun free zones....

Gun-free zones an easy target for killers Fox News


The horrible tragedy last night that left nine people dead at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., probably could have been avoided. Like so many other attacks, the massacre took place in a gun-free zone, a place where the general public was banned from having guns. The gun-free zone obviously didn’t stop the killer from bringing a gun into the church.

Indeed, the circumstantial evidence is strong that these killers don’t attack randomly; they keep picking the few gun-free zones to do virtually all their attacks.

For some reason, people who would never put up a “gun-free zone” sign in front of their own homes, put up such signs for other sensitive areas that we would like to protect.

Time after time, we see that these killers tell us they pick soft targets. With justtwo exceptions, from at least 1950, all the mass public shootings have occurred in these gun-free zones. From last summer’s mass public killers in Santa Barbara and Canada, to the Aurora movie theater shooter, these killers made it abundantly clear in their diaries or on Facebook how they avoided targets where people with guns could stop them.

 

[Skylar]

2 million violent crimes prevented a year, huh? Can you back that stat up?

Millions each year do not die of heart attack and stroke because they quit smoking.

Do you dispute this?

Can you back it up?

There is a reason that the demand to prove a negative is a logical fallacy.

Its a remarkably specific number. If you can't factually establish it....then where did you get the number? Why not 200 million? Or 2?

 

[Skylar]

And if you want to talk about real gun control and how to do it...get rid of gun free zones....

Gun-free zones an easy target for killers Fox News


The horrible tragedy last night that left nine people dead at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., probably could have been avoided. Like so many other attacks, the massacre took place in a gun-free zone, a place where the general public was banned from having guns. The gun-free zone obviously didn’t stop the killer from bringing a gun into the church.

Indeed, the circumstantial evidence is strong that these killers don’t attack randomly; they keep picking the few gun-free zones to do virtually all their attacks.

For some reason, people who would never put up a “gun-free zone” sign in front of their own homes, put up such signs for other sensitive areas that we would like to protect.

Time after time, we see that these killers tell us they pick soft targets. With justtwo exceptions, from at least 1950, all the mass public shootings have occurred in these gun-free zones. From last summer’s mass public killers in Santa Barbara and Canada, to the Aurora movie theater shooter, these killers made it abundantly clear in their diaries or on Facebook how they avoided targets where people with guns could stop them.

And who, pray tell, is making the 'gun free zone' argument? Let me guess.....someone who isn't here.

 

[Skylar]

Oh and Uncensored....where is that quote of me advocating that you lose rights?

We've got you quoting yourself as me. But oddly, not one quote of me advocating that you lose any right. Let alone gun rights.

 

[2aguy]

And if you want to talk about real gun control and how to do it...get rid of gun free zones....

Gun-free zones an easy target for killers Fox News


The horrible tragedy last night that left nine people dead at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., probably could have been avoided. Like so many other attacks, the massacre took place in a gun-free zone, a place where the general public was banned from having guns. The gun-free zone obviously didn’t stop the killer from bringing a gun into the church.

Indeed, the circumstantial evidence is strong that these killers don’t attack randomly; they keep picking the few gun-free zones to do virtually all their attacks.

For some reason, people who would never put up a “gun-free zone” sign in front of their own homes, put up such signs for other sensitive areas that we would like to protect.

Time after time, we see that these killers tell us they pick soft targets. With justtwo exceptions, from at least 1950, all the mass public shootings have occurred in these gun-free zones. From last summer’s mass public killers in Santa Barbara and Canada, to the Aurora movie theater shooter, these killers made it abundantly clear in their diaries or on Facebook how they avoided targets where people with guns could stop them.

And who, pray tell, is making the 'gun free zone' argument? Let me guess.....someone who isn't here.

I am....it is the Elephant in the room...since none of those people had a gun to stop the killer....of course the killer had a gun....

 

[Skylar]

And if you want to talk about real gun control and how to do it...get rid of gun free zones....

Gun-free zones an easy target for killers Fox News


The horrible tragedy last night that left nine people dead at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., probably could have been avoided. Like so many other attacks, the massacre took place in a gun-free zone, a place where the general public was banned from having guns. The gun-free zone obviously didn’t stop the killer from bringing a gun into the church.

Indeed, the circumstantial evidence is strong that these killers don’t attack randomly; they keep picking the few gun-free zones to do virtually all their attacks.

For some reason, people who would never put up a “gun-free zone” sign in front of their own homes, put up such signs for other sensitive areas that we would like to protect.

Time after time, we see that these killers tell us they pick soft targets. With justtwo exceptions, from at least 1950, all the mass public shootings have occurred in these gun-free zones. From last summer’s mass public killers in Santa Barbara and Canada, to the Aurora movie theater shooter, these killers made it abundantly clear in their diaries or on Facebook how they avoided targets where people with guns could stop them.

And who, pray tell, is making the 'gun free zone' argument? Let me guess.....someone who isn't here.

I am....it is the Elephant in the room...since none of those people had a gun to stop the killer....of course the killer had a gun....

So you're arguing for gun free zones? And then refuting your own argument?

Um......do we even need to be here?

 

[2aguy]

And if you want to talk about real gun control and how to do it...get rid of gun free zones....

Gun-free zones an easy target for killers Fox News


The horrible tragedy last night that left nine people dead at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., probably could have been avoided. Like so many other attacks, the massacre took place in a gun-free zone, a place where the general public was banned from having guns. The gun-free zone obviously didn’t stop the killer from bringing a gun into the church.

Indeed, the circumstantial evidence is strong that these killers don’t attack randomly; they keep picking the few gun-free zones to do virtually all their attacks.

For some reason, people who would never put up a “gun-free zone” sign in front of their own homes, put up such signs for other sensitive areas that we would like to protect.

Time after time, we see that these killers tell us they pick soft targets. With justtwo exceptions, from at least 1950, all the mass public shootings have occurred in these gun-free zones. From last summer’s mass public killers in Santa Barbara and Canada, to the Aurora movie theater shooter, these killers made it abundantly clear in their diaries or on Facebook how they avoided targets where people with guns could stop them.

And who, pray tell, is making the 'gun free zone' argument? Let me guess.....someone who isn't here.

I am....it is the Elephant in the room...since none of those people had a gun to stop the killer....of course the killer had a gun....

So you're arguing for gun free zones? And then refuting your own argument?

Um......do we even need to be here?

No...I am admitting that the anti gun extremists got what they wanted in this shooting...that church is a gun free zone...they won that fight.....

Also...they will tell you that they don't want peaceful, law abiding citizens to own guns.....again, not one peaceful, law abiding citizen had a gun in that church...another win for the anti gun extremists......

Just trying to be nice to the other side.....we can at least be civilized.....

 

[Ernie S.]

Of course a gun makes suicide attempts more successful. Hammers make nail driving more successful.
A gun is a tool.

Its a tool that makes suicide much more likely. All you're doing is rephrasing my point and then agreeing with me.

As survival rates of suicide attempts plunge from 96% for suicide in general.....to far less than 10% for gun attempts. If you have one person taking pills (survival rate 97%) and another putting a gun to their head (survival rate far below 10%), you're more likely to see a 'successful' suicide with the gun. With no gun in the home, people tend toward far less effective methods of suicide. So they succeed far less often. And thus have lower suicides rates.

Do you even disagree?

Without intent, a gun is no more dangerous than a pillow.

Strawman. No one has argued that a gun has intentionality. What is being argued is that a gun makes suicide far more likely. With the presence of a gun in a US home doubling the odds of someone in that home committing suicide. With guns a method of suicide exceeding all other methods put together.

A gun in your home doesn't make you safer. It makes it far more likely that a litany of horrible outcomes will happen to you or your family

"What is being argued is that a gun makes suicide far more likely. "
I agree. What I'm saying is that the gun is not responsible for a suicide. It's merely a more efficient tool.

The suicide attempt is responsible for the suicide. The gun merely makes it orders of magnitude more likely to succeed. Which is why a gun in the house doubles the chances of suicide.

You are trying to blame aberrant behavior on an inanimate object.

No, you're simply making the same 'intentionality' argument. Which is a strawman. I am arguing that having a gun in your home makes suicide more likely. And I've explained why:

As survival rates of suicide attempts plunge from 96% for suicide in general.....to far less than 10% for gun attempts. If you have one person taking pills (survival rate 97%) and another putting a gun to their head (survival rate far below 10%), you're more likely to see a 'successful' suicide with the gun. With no gun in the home, people tend toward far less effective methods of suicide. So they succeed far less often. And thus have lower suicides rates.

And instead of answering my simple question 'do you even disagree', you ignored everything I posted. And offered the same 'inanimate object' argument that has nothing to do with my argument. So I'll try again.

Do you disagree with anything in italics above?

Guns are no more to blame for suicide than wrenches are for automobiles.

By that logic, a gun in your home has no more to do with keeping your family safe than wrenches do automobiles.

Wouldn't you agree?

By that logic, a gun in your home has no more to do with keeping your family safe than wrenches do automobiles.
NO I wouldn't.
Back when I was first married to my first wife, I came home as a man was trying to break down my front door to rape my wife.
I grabbed a shotgun and walked to the door. I shouted that I would unlock the door and he was welcome to enter if he wanted to deal with my 12 gauge.

So.... Guns have a lot to do with keeping MY family safe. Don't you fucking DARE lecture me on guns in the home. I'm 65 years old. There have always been guns in my home. I was shooting at 6 and a better shot than my dad at 9. I own... lets say, more than a dozen guns. Not one of them has been responsible for taking a life though 2 likely made that more efficient.

 

[Ernie S.]

You seem to be advocating toy or inoperative guns. I'm only replying to your asinine comments.

How is advocating that you don't keep a functional gun in your home an attack against any of your rights?

Am I arguing that you MUST under penalty of law disable all functional weapons? Or that you shouldn't be able to buy guns?

Of course not. I'm giving you a factual reasoned argument why the odds of hurting yourself or your family vastly outweight the odds of self defense with a fire arm. And how you can almost all of the benefits of a fire arm with a disabled weapon with none of the accompanying harms.

So what right have I stripped you of? Or advocated being stripped? Name that right.

"How is advocating that you don't keep a functional gun in your home an attack against any of your rights?"

Are you fucking serious???????

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[FA_Q2]

When you use the you are 80 times more likely....you are not counting all,defensive gun uses in your number...you know that, so when you keep repeating that number you know is inaccurate you are lying...

So the 'lie' is an argument I'm not even making. That's called a strawman.

I'm comparing the number of justified homicides in self defense with the number of suicide gun deaths. My stat is dead on. In fact, if anything I've understimated how long the odds are. As its actually 84 suicides to every intruder killed in self defense. You neither refute my claims. Nor even disagree with them. Debunking your 'lie' claim.

We both know I'm right.

'Defensive uses of a gun' almost never involve discharging the weapon. Which is why a gun with the firing pin removed and no ammo is just as effective when the gun isn't discharged. Which is almost always. The odds of actually having to pull the trigger and kill an intruder with your gun is than HALF that of being struck by lighting.

Where as a functional gun in the home increases the odds of suicide by DOUBLE. With a gun 80 times more likely to be used to in suicide than in killing an intruder. You're twice as likely to accidentally discharge the weapon and kill someone than you are to kill an intruder. If a gun is the home, women are 3 times more likely to be murdered. This without domestic violence. When domestic violence is factored in, that skyrockets to 5 times higher.

A functioning gun in your house does not make you safer. It does no make your family safer. It endangers your family.

No...because there are 2 million defensive gun uses on average each year....far more than the suicide or justifiable homicide number.....

victims don't have to kill every criminal...they wound them, drive them off or hold them for police......and not using that number and including it in the gun stats you use is a lie....

Again, Defensive Gun use almost never involves pulling the trigger. Which is why I've advocated a disabled weapon for home defense. As in almost every instance its going to offer you the same protection as a loaded weapon. But with none of the horrible costs of a functional gun in the house.

Not only have I addressed 'defensive gun use', I've incorporated it into my argument. And you have no argument to refute me.

Exactly as I predicated, your 'lie' was merely an argument you couldn't refute.

Try again.

What a silly argument. Defensive gun use only works because the criminal in question believes that you can and will fire upon him should he not flee. Otherwise it is pointless.

If disabled guns were ever made a legal requirement then the ENTIRE ability to defend yourself with them is gone. It would not even take it being a law - just being common and the perceived threat would vanish.

 

[FA_Q2]

2 million violent crimes prevented a year, huh? Can you back that stat up?

Millions each year do not die of heart attack and stroke because they quit smoking.

Do you dispute this?

Can you back it up?

There is a reason that the demand to prove a negative is a logical fallacy.

Its a remarkably specific number. If you can't factually establish it....then where did you get the number? Why not 200 million? Or 2?

The CDC study cites a few research papers on defensive gun use.
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
Page 15 and 16 deal with this specifically citing between 500K and 3M such incidents a year. The latter is likely over exaggerated while the former under. More than likely the actual number of defensive uses lies in between. What is interesting is:
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals"
as well as:
"defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004)."
The presence of a gun LOWERS the likelihood that there will be a resultant injury from the encounter.

 

[Ernie S.]

Democrats are incapable of thinking very far ahead. Just stomp on the rights of the law abiding and make it look like you are concerned or throw 22 trillion at a problem.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've said since the overwhelming majority of the defensive uses of guns doesn't involve pulling the trigger, that a toy gun would work just as well in those instances.

As the odds of actually having to shoot an intruder is less than half the odds of getting by lighting. And you have yet to disagree with me.

As for 'Soros', that's your personal obsession. It has nothing to do with me.

Actually - YOU didn't say that. You posted gun-grabber bullshit about how a gun in the home is more likely to be fired in a suicide - OTHERS called you on your anti-liberty bullshit and pointed out that in most defensive situations one doesn't have to fire the weapon.

As for Soros, he OWNS the democratic party, which you are a mindless sycophant of - ergo, he owns you.

 

[Dragonlady]

Democrats are incapable of thinking very far ahead. Just stomp on the rights of the law abiding and make it look like you are concerned or throw 22 trillion at a problem.

How many trillions have the Republicans thrown at their War on Terrorism? How did that work out for you?

America's biggest terrorist threat is white guys with guns who run amok in churches, schools, shopping malls, and movie theatres. You want to deport all Muslims as a threat to security but there have been more attacks by white guys with guns than by Muslims.

Sadly, no matter how many mass shootings by white guys with guns that occur, Americans never suggest that unrestricted gun ownership might be a problem.


Your solution to school shootings is to arm teachers.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Guns rarely used for self-defense in US - Yahoo News

For every justifiable homicide involving a gun, 32 criminal homicides carried out with a firearm occurred. Also, gun owners are far more likely to hurt themselves or others, than to use them for self defense.

You want to run this by us again?

Browse by State Guns Save Lives