Murder rate vs. Defensive gun uses in U.S.

[2aguy]

average number of murders each year in U.S.--11,000

Average number of defensive uses of a gun to stop violent crime each year--108,000

(And this is the low end of this average and is the number gun grabbers cite so it isn't from the NRA or other pro-self defense groups)

 

[Indofred]

average number of murders each year in U.S.--11,000

Average number of defensive uses of a gun to stop violent crime each year--108,000

(And this is the low end of this average and is the number gun grabbers cite so it isn't from the NRA or other pro-self defense groups)

How many of those defensive gun uses actually stopped a crime that required gun use, not just a shouted warning or a punch, how many of those crimes were life threatening, and how many of those crimes were committed by a gun owner with a legal gun?

 

[Indofred]

Also - when you make a claim, you're supposed to link to evidence, not just claim crap.

 

[2aguy]

Well, I would link but I need 15 posts to link it...not there yet...if you want to post it for me go to "defensive gun uses" In Wikipedia...

3/4 are against violent attacks while 1/4 are against robbery of property...have,to check that to be,sure,though...

I know...the anti-gun people cling to that 11,000 number with both hands...but when you compare it to 108,000defensive gun uses a year...from the numbers the anti-gun guy Hemmenway agrees with...throws off their argument...

The legal gun part is all of them...the stats come a variety of research...since criminals don't report themselves,to,police very often...

 

[Indofred]

Wikipedia

Yep, thanks for that.

 

[2aguy]

keep in mind...Wikipedia simply links to various numbers from different researchers...I specifically pointed out Hemmenway's because he is a favorite,researcher for the anti-gun side of the debate...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

keep in mind...Wikipedia simply links to various numbers from different researchers...I specifically pointed out Hemmenway's because he is a favorite,researcher for the anti-gun side of the debate...

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is crap.

But let's assume the data are correct.

The problem with this sort of 'reasoning' is that it undermines the fact that the right of the individual to have or own a firearm pursuant to the right to self-defense is undermined, where one cannot be compelled to 'justify' the exercising of a right as a 'prerequisite' to indeed do so. And to present the deaths of 11,000 human beings as somehow 'acceptable' when compared to the defensive use of a firearm to stop violent crime plays only into the hands of those hostile to the Second Amendment right.

In essence, this sort of 'reasoning' does more harm to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any 'gun grabber.'

 

[2aguy]

So you should check What Hemmenway says...and he agrees that 100,000 is a good,estimate, for gun grabbers...and if they are going to say that our right to defend ourselves should be,null and void because guns are used to murder 11,000 people a year and allowing them to show only that number gives them a nice propaganda tool for the average,person who isn't informed,about or interested in understanding the concept of inalienable Rights.

Remember, average,uninformed people vote,too...and we need to make,things very easy for them to,see...

give them two numbers and it is easy to understand that one is bigger than the other and in this case it favors the right to keep and bear arms...

 

[2aguy]

Now,that I can link...

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

This article,from the liberal New York Times, gives a number,of

That comes to an annual average of 67,740

which is obviously not accurate since so many defensive gun uses,go unreported, with no shots,fired and no bodies on the ground...but...it is still greater,than 11,000...by a,wide,number...

 

[2aguy]

the article,multiplies 67,740 out over 5 years...338,700

Multiply 11,000 murders over that same time period...55,000

so when you talk to an average person, who isn't interested in the fine points of Constitutionally guaranteed rights, 55,000 vs. 338,700 are two numbers they can understand when they go into the voting booth thinking about wether to vote,for the gun grabber or the politician who supports the 2nd amendment...

That is something to think about in the fight against the fear mongering of the anti-gun movement...

 

[Indofred]

Now,that I can link...

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

It also says things like "Studies indicate" and goes on to totally debunk your argument.
You really need to read the link before you post something that makes you look very silly.

 

[WinterBorn]

Now,that I can link...

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

It also says things like "Studies indicate" and goes on to totally debunk your argument.
You really need to read the link before you post something that makes you look very silly.

The problem with asking for a specific number of times a firearm is used to stop a crime is that many of them will not be documented.

Oh, and just because a crime was not life threatening does not make the use of a gun less valid, as you seemed to be leaning towards.

 

[2aguy]

It. Doesn't't debunk my argument since one of the main ant-gun researchers, Heemenway, is fine with the 100,000 number for defensive gun uses. Second, even the lower gun rate of 67 thousand is still higher than 11,000 and third, the New York Times is a gun grabbing paper, and even they will accept the 67 thousand number...which is far too low given the other studies on hoe subject and the bias in a lot of those studies,against guns...

and the 67 thousand number comes,from the anti-gun zealot Violence Policy center...so I am using numbers supported by the gun grabbers in each post on this...the real number will be much higher...

..Of course, once the gun grabbers at the Violence Policy Center get their own numbers thrown back at them...they will have to make up even lower numbers...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It. Doesn't't debunk my argument since one of the main ant-gun researchers, Heemenway, is fine with the 100,000 number for defensive gun uses. Second, even the lower gun rate of 67 thousand is still higher than 11,000 and third, the New York Times is a gun grabbing paper, and even they will accept the 67 thousand number...which is far too low given the other studies on hoe subject and the bias in a lot of those studies,against guns...

and the 67 thousand number comes,from the anti-gun zealot Violence Policy center...so I am using numbers supported by the gun grabbers in each post on this...the real number will be much higher...

..Of course, once the gun grabbers at the Violence Policy Center get their own numbers thrown back at them...they will have to make up even lower numbers...

Your argument fails because its premise is ridiculous.

 

[Indofred]

Now,that I can link...

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

It also says things like "Studies indicate" and goes on to totally debunk your argument.
You really need to read the link before you post something that makes you look very silly.

The problem with asking for a specific number of times a firearm is used to stop a crime is that many of them will not be documented.

Oh, and just because a crime was not life threatening does not make the use of a gun less valid, as you seemed to be leaning towards.

Yes it is.
If a non violent, unarmed man is stealing razor blades from a shop, he can probably be stopped with a sharp word, or an order to be escorted to the security office to await the police.
Use of a gun, regardless of the total lack of need in that situation, would be marked down as a gun stopping a crime.
Clear open to abuse by gunslingers as "proof" of their need to carry their metalwork.

 

[Indofred]

It. Doesn't't debunk my argument since one of the main ant-gun researchers, Heemenway, is fine with the 100,000 number for defensive gun uses. Second, even the lower gun rate of 67 thousand is still higher than 11,000 and third, the New York Times is a gun grabbing paper, and even they will accept the 67 thousand number...which is far too low given the other studies on hoe subject and the bias in a lot of those studies,against guns...

and the 67 thousand number comes,from the anti-gun zealot Violence Policy center...so I am using numbers supported by the gun grabbers in each post on this...the real number will be much higher...

..Of course, once the gun grabbers at the Violence Policy Center get their own numbers thrown back at them...they will have to make up even lower numbers...

Your argument fails because its premise is ridiculous.

The argument also fails because the OP's link total debunks his argument.
A very silly start to his entry to both the forum and gun debate.

 

[WinterBorn]

It also says things like "Studies indicate" and goes on to totally debunk your argument.
You really need to read the link before you post something that makes you look very silly.

The problem with asking for a specific number of times a firearm is used to stop a crime is that many of them will not be documented.

Oh, and just because a crime was not life threatening does not make the use of a gun less valid, as you seemed to be leaning towards.

Yes it is.
If a non violent, unarmed man is stealing razor blades from a shop, he can probably be stopped with a sharp word, or an order to be escorted to the security office to await the police.
Use of a gun, regardless of the total lack of need in that situation, would be marked down as a gun stopping a crime.
Clear open to abuse by gunslingers as "proof" of their need to carry their metalwork.

In a clear precise example, such as you gave here, you would be correct.

However, the burden would be on the anti-gun groups to show that he posed no threat at all.

Also, there are plenty of circumstances in which an unarmed criminal would be shot and it would be justified.

If a someone breaks into my home during the night, unless I am absolutely sure he is unarmed and surrendering, I would shoot him.

 

[2aguy]

a look at defensive gun uses...

Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

Each interview began with a few general "throat-clearing" questions about problems facing the R's community and crime. The interviewers then asked the following question: "Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard." Rs who answered "yes" were then asked: "Was this to protect against an animal or a person?" Rs who reported a DGU against a person were asked: "How many incidents involving defensive uses of guns against persons happened to members of your household in the past five years?" and "Did this incident [any of these incidents] happen in the past twelve months?" At this point, Rs were asked "Was it you who used a gun defensively, or did someone else in your household do this?"

Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns. It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did. But surely this is too serious a matter to simply assume that practically everyone who says he believes he saved a life by using a gun was wrong.

 

[Politico]

Now,that I can link...

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

It also says things like "Studies indicate" and goes on to totally debunk your argument.
You really need to read the link before you post something that makes you look very silly.

The problem with asking for a specific number of times a firearm is used to stop a crime is that many of them will not be documented.

Oh, and just because a crime was not life threatening does not make the use of a gun less valid, as you seemed to be leaning towards.

Exacty. None of the times I used mine was ever recorded.