Idaho toddler shoots mother dead in Walmart store.

[2aguy]

this is why you can't trust the Violence Policy Center....

How the Violence Policy Center deceives with numbers The Oregon Catalyst

The anti-gun organization, the Violence Policy Center (VPC), produced an “analysis” with the headline-grabbing title “Gun Deaths Outpace Motor Vehicle Deaths in 10 States in 2009.” Oregon was listed as one of the 10 states, and the VPC report was picked up by news outlets like the Huffington Post back in May 2012. That VPC talking point has been picked up again this month by USA Today and others in the wake of the tragic murders at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut.

The VPC report states that for 2009, Oregon had 417 gun deaths1 and 394 motor vehicle deaths.

That is a horribly deceptive presentation of data.

Here’s what a detailed look at the 2009 deaths in Oregon reveals

• The 413 gun deaths2 in Oregon in 2009 were:
  • 341 gun suicides
  • 55 gun murders
  • 7 gun deaths by the police or military
  • 5 deaths caused by gun accidents
  • 5 undetermined

• In 2009, there were 1,577 accidental deaths in Oregon.
  • 433 were transportation-related
  • 5 were gun-related

• There were twice as many deaths caused by bike accidents as by gun accidents in Oregon in 2009. There were 10 deaths caused by bike accidents, and 5 deaths caused by gun accidents.

The 2009 Oregon transportation-related deaths break out like this:

 

[2aguy]

Two other areas of crime—violent crime and property crime—are analyzed by the Violence Policy Center, and cast serious doubt on the argument that guns are used regularly in self-defense.

The report analyzed...no surprise, the National Crime Victimization Survey....the most flawed of all the studies.....that only counts dead people.....and of course the Violence Policy Center uses it because it wrongly distorts the numbers down...by ignoring all other outcomes of violent criminal attack...namely, threatening the criminal with the weapon and the criminal running away, holding the criminal at gun point till the police arrive ,a and shooting, but only wounding the criminal and again, waiting for the police to take him into custody....

No death...it doesn't get included in the NCVS.......I believe the NCVS also meets the individuals face to face, identifies themselves as government agents, to someone who they want to admit may have used a gun in a violent encounter, and does not specifically ask about wether the respondee was in an attack...they have to volunteer that info. through the questioning process.....

What do you mean it only counts dead people? Doesn't it have suggest there are about 100,000 defenses each year? They didn't arrive at that number by only counting dead people.

Yes...it only counts dead people...that is why you don't see any other outcome in the articles about the Violence Policy Center "analysis".....

Forbes article on Cato institute study on defensive gun uses...they culled through reports to get their number...

Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby - Forbes

A National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) which asked victims if they had used a gun in self-defense found that about 108,000 each year had done so. A big problem with the NCVS line of survey reasoning, however, is that it only includes those uses where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded, is held by the intended victim until police arrive, or when brandishing a gun caused a criminal to flee.

 

[Brain357]

In 2010, according to the most recent data on justifiable homicides from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, there were 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm in self-defense during either an attempted or a completed crime. In the same year, there were 8,275 firearm homicides. This means that, for every one justifiable firearm homicide, there were 36 criminal homicides. Contrary to the gun lobby’s claim that, between 2007 and 2011, guns were used 12.5 million times in self-defense, the most reliable data on this question clearly show that firearms were used only 338,700 times in self-defense, and this includes off-duty police. Clearly, then, despite living in a country with 300 million guns, the use of firearms in self-defense appears to be an exceedingly rare phenomenon.

again....they only count when people are killed....what is it with you guys....is that the only outcome between a victim and a criminal....really?

I know you guys fixate on the 230 homicide number because by pushing that number...you can play around and say that means there aren't that many defensive gun uses....nice trick, and typical dishonesty of a liberal but it is just that...a trick....

Nobody is saying that Bill. But if there are 1.6 million defenses and only 230 criminals shot in defense, then a criminal is shot only one in about 7000 defenses. Having read as many actual defense as we both have you know that is impossible. And I have provided a study on how often a criminal is killed in defense, 34%.

It isn't impossible....you haven't provided a study...you have provided an analysis of The Armed Citizen stories and what that specific collection tells us about guns when they are used to stop violent crime...it isn't scientific, has no controls and that you use that as your proof that 19 actual studies by actual researchers, both in private and government research institutions, conducted over 40 years is just silly.....

So you are saying all the accounts on the NRA site aren't real? They are all fake? Because that is the only way there is something wrong with that study. Otherwise it is a study of real examples and what actually happened. Not some silly survey with not a single verified defense.

It is impossible. Without a criminal in the picture gun owners are accidently shooting over 600 people a year. They show more care when the gun is pointed at a criminal? What percent of defenses you have read do you think ends in a dead criminal?

 

[Brain357]

Two other areas of crime—violent crime and property crime—are analyzed by the Violence Policy Center, and cast serious doubt on the argument that guns are used regularly in self-defense.

The report analyzed...no surprise, the National Crime Victimization Survey....the most flawed of all the studies.....that only counts dead people.....and of course the Violence Policy Center uses it because it wrongly distorts the numbers down...by ignoring all other outcomes of violent criminal attack...namely, threatening the criminal with the weapon and the criminal running away, holding the criminal at gun point till the police arrive ,a and shooting, but only wounding the criminal and again, waiting for the police to take him into custody....

No death...it doesn't get included in the NCVS.......I believe the NCVS also meets the individuals face to face, identifies themselves as government agents, to someone who they want to admit may have used a gun in a violent encounter, and does not specifically ask about wether the respondee was in an attack...they have to volunteer that info. through the questioning process.....

What do you mean it only counts dead people? Doesn't it have suggest there are about 100,000 defenses each year? They didn't arrive at that number by only counting dead people.

Yes...it only counts dead people...that is why you don't see any other outcome in the articles about the Violence Policy Center "analysis".....

Forbes article on Cato institute study on defensive gun uses...they culled through reports to get their number...

Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby - Forbes

A National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) which asked victims if they had used a gun in self-defense found that about 108,000 each year had done so. A big problem with the NCVS line of survey reasoning, however, is that it only includes those uses where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded, is held by the intended victim until police arrive, or when brandishing a gun caused a criminal to flee.

Sorry but that would be more gun deaths than we have in the US each year. They do not just use deaths.

 

[2aguy]

In 2010, according to the most recent data on justifiable homicides from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, there were 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm in self-defense during either an attempted or a completed crime. In the same year, there were 8,275 firearm homicides. This means that, for every one justifiable firearm homicide, there were 36 criminal homicides. Contrary to the gun lobby’s claim that, between 2007 and 2011, guns were used 12.5 million times in self-defense, the most reliable data on this question clearly show that firearms were used only 338,700 times in self-defense, and this includes off-duty police. Clearly, then, despite living in a country with 300 million guns, the use of firearms in self-defense appears to be an exceedingly rare phenomenon.

again....they only count when people are killed....what is it with you guys....is that the only outcome between a victim and a criminal....really?

I know you guys fixate on the 230 homicide number because by pushing that number...you can play around and say that means there aren't that many defensive gun uses....nice trick, and typical dishonesty of a liberal but it is just that...a trick....

Nobody is saying that Bill. But if there are 1.6 million defenses and only 230 criminals shot in defense, then a criminal is shot only one in about 7000 defenses. Having read as many actual defense as we both have you know that is impossible. And I have provided a study on how often a criminal is killed in defense, 34%.

It isn't impossible....you haven't provided a study...you have provided an analysis of The Armed Citizen stories and what that specific collection tells us about guns when they are used to stop violent crime...it isn't scientific, has no controls and that you use that as your proof that 19 actual studies by actual researchers, both in private and government research institutions, conducted over 40 years is just silly.....

So you are saying all the accounts on the NRA site aren't real? They are all fake? Because that is the only way there is something wrong with that study. Otherwise it is a study of real examples and what actually happened. Not some silly survey with not a single verified defense.

It is impossible. Without a criminal in the picture gun owners are accidently shooting over 600 people a year. They show more care when the gun is pointed at a criminal? What percent of defenses you have read do you think ends in a dead criminal?

No....those are actually real encounters....but they are hampered by the fact that they are stories picked from news sources only....news sources that decided to print that one story that happened, out of however many others may have happened.....

Look, I am not a skilled researcher....go ask someone who is and they will better be able to explain why you can't use an NRA blog site to do research.......

It is impossible. Without a criminal in the picture gun owners are accidently shooting over 600 people a year. They show more care when the gun is pointed at a criminal? What percent of defenses you have read do you think ends in a dead criminal?

Because an accident is what happens when you are not in complete control of the gun.....that is why there are dead people with guns....a kid picks it up, an adult fails to check the chamber....when they confront a criminal, they are totally focused on that event....and they have to determine to actively pull that trigger on another human being....and a lot of the time they have the option not to....the guy runs away, or the guy surrenders, or they actually shoot, but the guy is incapacitated in the first shot or two but doesn't die....

And law abiding citizens do not kill on a whim.....they do not kill just because they can, just because the law says they can...

I saw a training video by Jeff Cooper....do you know who he is.....he told a story of one of his students, a small store owner, who was robbed, he pulled his gun and held the guy at gun point till the police arrived...people asked him...why didn't you shoot him...he said....I didn't have to...I was in complete control and there was no pressure to shoot....

 

[2aguy]

Two other areas of crime—violent crime and property crime—are analyzed by the Violence Policy Center, and cast serious doubt on the argument that guns are used regularly in self-defense.

The report analyzed...no surprise, the National Crime Victimization Survey....the most flawed of all the studies.....that only counts dead people.....and of course the Violence Policy Center uses it because it wrongly distorts the numbers down...by ignoring all other outcomes of violent criminal attack...namely, threatening the criminal with the weapon and the criminal running away, holding the criminal at gun point till the police arrive ,a and shooting, but only wounding the criminal and again, waiting for the police to take him into custody....

No death...it doesn't get included in the NCVS.......I believe the NCVS also meets the individuals face to face, identifies themselves as government agents, to someone who they want to admit may have used a gun in a violent encounter, and does not specifically ask about wether the respondee was in an attack...they have to volunteer that info. through the questioning process.....

What do you mean it only counts dead people? Doesn't it have suggest there are about 100,000 defenses each year? They didn't arrive at that number by only counting dead people.

Yes...it only counts dead people...that is why you don't see any other outcome in the articles about the Violence Policy Center "analysis".....

Forbes article on Cato institute study on defensive gun uses...they culled through reports to get their number...

Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby - Forbes

A National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) which asked victims if they had used a gun in self-defense found that about 108,000 each year had done so. A big problem with the NCVS line of survey reasoning, however, is that it only includes those uses where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded, is held by the intended victim until police arrive, or when brandishing a gun caused a criminal to flee.

Sorry but that would be more gun deaths than we have in the US each year. They do not just use deaths.

apparently they do....that is what the CATO researchers said.......Why doesn't the Violence Policy Center ever talk about crimes stopped without a "homicide"....because they use the NVCS because of all the studies...they come out with the lowest numbers....vs....the 19 with much higher numbers.......it doesn't help their cause to acknowledge self defense where no one dies....it raises the numbers....as it does in the other 19 studies.....

 

[2aguy]

I want to see what is in this....

Gun Control Myths and Realities Cato Institute

 

[2aguy]

.....

 

[2aguy]

Looking at different studies...This post shows why the NCVS is flawed and not likely to get good results......

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense

QUOTE:

Dr. Kleck's Answer

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency.

The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge.

Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact.

In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."




"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection.

They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."


"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively.


Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun.

Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done.

Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."

 

[Brain357]

Two other areas of crime—violent crime and property crime—are analyzed by the Violence Policy Center, and cast serious doubt on the argument that guns are used regularly in self-defense.

The report analyzed...no surprise, the National Crime Victimization Survey....the most flawed of all the studies.....that only counts dead people.....and of course the Violence Policy Center uses it because it wrongly distorts the numbers down...by ignoring all other outcomes of violent criminal attack...namely, threatening the criminal with the weapon and the criminal running away, holding the criminal at gun point till the police arrive ,a and shooting, but only wounding the criminal and again, waiting for the police to take him into custody....

No death...it doesn't get included in the NCVS.......I believe the NCVS also meets the individuals face to face, identifies themselves as government agents, to someone who they want to admit may have used a gun in a violent encounter, and does not specifically ask about wether the respondee was in an attack...they have to volunteer that info. through the questioning process.....

What do you mean it only counts dead people? Doesn't it have suggest there are about 100,000 defenses each year? They didn't arrive at that number by only counting dead people.

Yes...it only counts dead people...that is why you don't see any other outcome in the articles about the Violence Policy Center "analysis".....

Forbes article on Cato institute study on defensive gun uses...they culled through reports to get their number...

Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby - Forbes

A National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) which asked victims if they had used a gun in self-defense found that about 108,000 each year had done so. A big problem with the NCVS line of survey reasoning, however, is that it only includes those uses where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded, is held by the intended victim until police arrive, or when brandishing a gun caused a criminal to flee.

Sorry but that would be more gun deaths than we have in the US each year. They do not just use deaths.

apparently they do....that is what the CATO researchers said.......Why doesn't the Violence Policy Center ever talk about crimes stopped without a "homicide"....because they use the NVCS because of all the studies...they come out with the lowest numbers....vs....the 19 with much higher numbers.......it doesn't help their cause to acknowledge self defense where no one dies....it raises the numbers....as it does in the other 19 studies.....

No they do not:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf
Using the NCVS numbers, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a
firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.

The devastation guns inflict on our nation each and every year is clear: nearly 32,000 dead, more than 73,000 wounded, and an untold
number of lives and communities shattered.

They clearly know there are about 32,000 gun deaths each year.

 

[Brain357]

Looking at different studies...This post shows why the NCVS is flawed and not likely to get good results......

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense

QUOTE:

Dr. Kleck's Answer

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency.

The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge.

Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact.

In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."




"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection.

They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."


"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively.


Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun.

Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done.

Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."

This is interesting:
"This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done."

Illegal things? Does he count something that was illegal as a DGU?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Vandal...you are being dihiponest, or you need to re read what you posted....you said that people who carry are doing it in fear and terror, and brought up Starbucks....people who carry daily don't do so in fear and terror, they simply understand that as remote as the possibility is that they may be attacked by a criminal....that reality actually does exist...and on the off chance that it does, they will have a gun to deal with it.....there is no fear or terror involved...it is about the same emotional level as checking your tires,for proper inflation.....before you leave the driveway....

carrying a loaded gun in a crowded store is like CHECKING YOUR TIRE PRESSURE BEFORE DRIVING TO THE STORE? So, a person who routinely checks his tire pressure before driving his car, and routinely packs heat before going to the store would also routinely pack heat before going to church, his daughter's piano recital, and a PTA meeting, right?

Bill, I never figured you to have a sense of humor, until now.....

It is no different from having a cell phone...it sits in the holster until it is needed...hmmmm....seems to me that no one wakes up in the morning knowing they are going to be attacked during that day......I know the Mother and her daughter who were followed home from the store and then had two monsters beat the husband into submission, who then raped the mother and two daughters and ended up burning down their home and killing the mother and two daughters.........they didn't know that was going to happen....and the people at the church....or Sikh temple.....when they went to that temple they had no idea as they woke that morning that someone would enter the temple and start shooting.....and on and on....it happens to unfortunate people every day, in every state....

It is amazing that people like you would think that this never happens to people....that someone who knows it probably won't happen to them....but is not inconvenienced by carrying a gun and decides to do so is seen as a nut....

And what a bout the parents who might have been at Sandy Hook that day....visiting their kids classroom, doing some volunteer work....or working as a cafeteria monitor....do you think they thought that a monster was going to shoot up their school....when they were making breakfast that morning....

Ok. You win. If those kids at Sandy Hook had been armed, it never would have happened.

 

[RKMBrown]

Vandal...you are being dihiponest, or you need to re read what you posted....you said that people who carry are doing it in fear and terror, and brought up Starbucks....people who carry daily don't do so in fear and terror, they simply understand that as remote as the possibility is that they may be attacked by a criminal....that reality actually does exist...and on the off chance that it does, they will have a gun to deal with it.....there is no fear or terror involved...it is about the same emotional level as checking your tires,for proper inflation.....before you leave the driveway....

carrying a loaded gun in a crowded store is like CHECKING YOUR TIRE PRESSURE BEFORE DRIVING TO THE STORE? So, a person who routinely checks his tire pressure before driving his car, and routinely packs heat before going to the store would also routinely pack heat before going to church, his daughter's piano recital, and a PTA meeting, right?

Bill, I never figured you to have a sense of humor, until now.....

It is no different from having a cell phone...it sits in the holster until it is needed...hmmmm....seems to me that no one wakes up in the morning knowing they are going to be attacked during that day......I know the Mother and her daughter who were followed home from the store and then had two monsters beat the husband into submission, who then raped the mother and two daughters and ended up burning down their home and killing the mother and two daughters.........they didn't know that was going to happen....and the people at the church....or Sikh temple.....when they went to that temple they had no idea as they woke that morning that someone would enter the temple and start shooting.....and on and on....it happens to unfortunate people every day, in every state....

It is amazing that people like you would think that this never happens to people....that someone who knows it probably won't happen to them....but is not inconvenienced by carrying a gun and decides to do so is seen as a nut....

And what a bout the parents who might have been at Sandy Hook that day....visiting their kids classroom, doing some volunteer work....or working as a cafeteria monitor....do you think they thought that a monster was going to shoot up their school....when they were making breakfast that morning....

Ok. You win. If those kids at Sandy Hook had been armed, it never would have happened.

The kid was armed dumb ass.

 

[2aguy]

you do realize that the 32,000 is majority suicide deaths, by people who intended to die...like the Japanese who commit suicide at twice our rate and don't use guns....right?

 

[2aguy]

Vandal...you are being dihiponest, or you need to re read what you posted....you said that people who carry are doing it in fear and terror, and brought up Starbucks....people who carry daily don't do so in fear and terror, they simply understand that as remote as the possibility is that they may be attacked by a criminal....that reality actually does exist...and on the off chance that it does, they will have a gun to deal with it.....there is no fear or terror involved...it is about the same emotional level as checking your tires,for proper inflation.....before you leave the driveway....

carrying a loaded gun in a crowded store is like CHECKING YOUR TIRE PRESSURE BEFORE DRIVING TO THE STORE? So, a person who routinely checks his tire pressure before driving his car, and routinely packs heat before going to the store would also routinely pack heat before going to church, his daughter's piano recital, and a PTA meeting, right?

Bill, I never figured you to have a sense of humor, until now.....

It is no different from having a cell phone...it sits in the holster until it is needed...hmmmm....seems to me that no one wakes up in the morning knowing they are going to be attacked during that day......I know the Mother and her daughter who were followed home from the store and then had two monsters beat the husband into submission, who then raped the mother and two daughters and ended up burning down their home and killing the mother and two daughters.........they didn't know that was going to happen....and the people at the church....or Sikh temple.....when they went to that temple they had no idea as they woke that morning that someone would enter the temple and start shooting.....and on and on....it happens to unfortunate people every day, in every state....

It is amazing that people like you would think that this never happens to people....that someone who knows it probably won't happen to them....but is not inconvenienced by carrying a gun and decides to do so is seen as a nut....

And what a bout the parents who might have been at Sandy Hook that day....visiting their kids classroom, doing some volunteer work....or working as a cafeteria monitor....do you think they thought that a monster was going to shoot up their school....when they were making breakfast that morning....

Ok. You win. If those kids at Sandy Hook had been armed, it never would have happened.

If the principal had been armed? If a parent visiting the school had been armed? We know from research that as soon as these guys are confronted, or anticipate confrontation with armed resistance, they either suicide, as the sandy hook killer did, or surrender, like the theater killer did.....and again, the theater killer had a choice of 8 theaters to go to that night...he drove 20 minutes to get to the only theater that had a no guns allowed policy.....

 

[2aguy]

Looking at different studies...This post shows why the NCVS is flawed and not likely to get good results......

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense

QUOTE:

Dr. Kleck's Answer

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency.

The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge.

Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact.

In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."




"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection.

They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."


"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively.


Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun.

Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done.

Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."

This is interesting:
"This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done."

Illegal things? Does he count something that was illegal as a DGU?

No, but if you are in any doubt that what you did was legal then why would you confess to doing it if you didn't have to? Or for example....there have been 3 recent shootings in bars...in two cases the victim who shot back disappeared before the police arrived...why? Because it was illegal to have a gun in the bar...in the other one, it was a cop bar...and the cop shot the criminal, but being a cop he wasn't breaking the law...or he may have been to....

this is a point that Kleck makes about the NCVS....in relation to your question....

The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge.

Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact.

In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively.

Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."

So, if they are outside of their home and used the gun to scare off a criminal.....they could be facing a brandishing charge....and lose their ability to carry the gun in the future....and if no one was shot, and no shots were fired....why would they admit to it to a badge carrying government agent....?

Who wants to take the risk that a viable self defense action becomes a reason to have to get a lawyer to explain that action....especially nothing happened beyond scaring off the criminal....?

 

[2aguy]

Here Brain...someone actually trying to implement common sense gun control...

Durham NC Sheriff Urges Stiffer Penalties For Gun Theft Extrano s Alley a gun blog

The Raleigh News and Observer reports Durham County Sheriff Mike Andrews is urgingmuch tougher penalties for gun theft.

Briefly quoting the News and Observer staff report linked above:

Andrews’ proposal has three parts:

• Raising firearm larceny from a Class H felony to the more serious Class E felony.

• Raising sale or receipt of a stolen firearm from a Class 1 misdemeanor to a Class E felony.

• Raising the minimum prison term for felonies committed with a stolen firearm by 72 months.

Very good. The 300,000 guns that are stolen in recent years represents a sharp drop from the estimated 700,000 guns stolen each year during the late 1980’s. But those guns do just one thing. They arm the underworld. That makes the theft of a gun both a serous matter, and a serious financial loss to the rightful owner.

Far too many venues treat gun theft in much the same manner they would the theft of a pack of bubble gun. It is time to get serious about gun theft.

This is how you stop gun stealing and put a crimp in bad guys getting guns...will it stop all of it...no..but it actually does something that works....this is one way the Japanese cut down on their gun crime......

So...you commit a crime with a stolen gun...which most criminals have to do....you get an additional 6 years.....that is common sense gun control.....they will be robbing people with water pistols......

 

[2aguy]

Along the lines of the last post....here is an article about stolen guns and background checks....the writer is a detective...

Human Nature Background Checks and The Recovery of Stolen Guns - The Truth About Guns

The truth about this issue is that the effects of background checks, particularly beginning the second after they have been done, have virtually no effect on solving crimes or returning stolen firearms to their owners. The Stolen Guns article noted a recovery rate of from 15% to 17% according to federal DOJ statistics, but this is, in my experience, ridiculously high and highly suspect. More in line with reality are the reported results in Springfield, IL, during 2012-2013, of a 4.5% stolen gun recovery rate. In most places, it’s probably lower.

What do I know about this? For years, I was a detective assigned the very particular task of catching people that stole things from motor vehicles. In that endeavor, I also ended up investigating burglaries from homes and businesses as the people that burglarized cars tended to be the same people that burglarized pretty much everything.

Obviously, guns are among burglar’s favorite things.

Stolen guns are usually recovered one of three primary ways:

(1) A police officer stumbles onto a gun in the course of other duties, such as making a traffic stop, runs the serial number through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC–that’s the FBI) computer, and gets a hit.

(2) A gun is pawned at a local pawn shop and its serial number and make and model are entered into a local police database. This requires local laws that mandate pawn shops enter all pawned guns into a police database. They really don’t like to do that. They understand a significant number of pawned guns will be stolen, and if the police seize them, that’s a loss. Most would rather not know. Plausible deniability means profit. Such programs also require police employees be specifically tasked with monitoring and matching burglary reports with pawned guns. Interestingly, many gun owners can’t provide serial numbers of stolen guns for the police, which forces the police to work with descriptions and other less specific factors. The more difficult and time-consuming the task, the less likely the police will do it.

(3) Detectives specifically tasked with solving that kind of crime take the time to catch burglars and work backward to recover everything they stole.

 

[2aguy]

Vandal...you are being dihiponest, or you need to re read what you posted....you said that people who carry are doing it in fear and terror, and brought up Starbucks....people who carry daily don't do so in fear and terror, they simply understand that as remote as the possibility is that they may be attacked by a criminal....that reality actually does exist...and on the off chance that it does, they will have a gun to deal with it.....there is no fear or terror involved...it is about the same emotional level as checking your tires,for proper inflation.....before you leave the driveway....

carrying a loaded gun in a crowded store is like CHECKING YOUR TIRE PRESSURE BEFORE DRIVING TO THE STORE? So, a person who routinely checks his tire pressure before driving his car, and routinely packs heat before going to the store would also routinely pack heat before going to church, his daughter's piano recital, and a PTA meeting, right?

Bill, I never figured you to have a sense of humor, until now.....

Okay Vandal......packing heat before going to church....dumb idea....right....? You posted that, remember....?

So, a person who routinely checks his tire pressure before driving his car, and routinely packs heat before going to the store would also routinely pack heat before going to church,

So, as I said in a post responding to this....you never know when you will find yourself in a bad situation....the victims of these attacks do not wake up in the morning knowing that that day is the day they will need their weapon to defend themselves.....even going to church......right Vandal?

Pastor Shoots Stops Attempted Murderer In Florida Church - Bearing Arms

A maintenance worker at a Florida church pulled a weapon and began shooting at the members of the church committee that was convened to terminate him, forcing the pastor of the church to pull his own weapon and return fire, wounding the attacker in what authorities consider a clear case of self-defense:

Deputies said an Osceola County church employee has been charged after he opened fire on a pastor, who then pulled out his own gun and shot the employee.

The exchange of gunfire happened at the Living Water Fellowship Church on Pleasant Hill Road around 8 a.m.

According to investigators, a meeting was taking place to terminate the employment of maintenance worker Benjamin Parangan, Jr. Deputies said Parangan, 47, pulled out a gun and fired several shots at Pastor Terry Howell.

Howell was not injured, but he returned fire with his own gun, striking Parangan. Parangan was taken to Osceola Regional Medical Center, where he is in stable condition.

Parangan has been charged with aggravated assault with intent to kill and will be taken to jail once he is released from the hospital. It is also worth noting that Living Water has a child care program on site, and that by accurately shooting Parangan and keeping him from firing any more shots, Pastor Howell reduced the threat to children and child care providers on site.

Protestant, Catholic and Jewish faiths all recognize that murder (unlawful killing of the innocent and the just) is to be avoided, but all recognize a right to both individual self-defense, defense of others, and defense of cultures and societies (“jus bellum iustum,” or just war theory).

Historically speaking, churches and other religious institutions have often been the targets of common criminals and mass killers both worldwide and in the United States, as have been their pastoral staff. Different denominations have differing views on firearms, and these policies can vary down to individual parishes or congregations.

So Vandal.....a little preparation, without fear or terror.....saved lives.....right?

 

[Vandalshandle]

One thing is for sure, Bill. If I am ever in church, and they want me to bow my head and close my eyes for prayer, I will know better, now that I have read your post. It is most likely just an ambush.

Do you sleep with your Glock under the pillow? Also, be sure to carry it to the john. I am sure that you saw what happened to john Travolta in "Pulp Fiction".