The Right To Bear Arms

[2aguy]

Just putting out another resource...this one discusses the usual stuff......

http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf

They have a more detailed bread down on why the National Crime Victimization Survey is so off compared to the other 19 studies on gun violence....

Also, keep in mind....this was from the 90s when the States were first making their moves to allowing people to carry guns in public.....in states that had banned that activity before.....

On why the National Crime Victimization Survey is the worst of the bunch....

Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-pro- tection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden. It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes, 2 7 thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.

For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are rela- tively easy to get)28 , the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.

In at least ten states, it is punishable by a puni- tively mandatory minimum prison sentence.29 Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were commit- ted away from the victim's home,30 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,31 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.

The NCVS survey is the only one that weeds out all the criminals defending against criminals. I don't see why you'd want to count those.

Actually, it doesn't......

 

[Brain357]

This paper explains how the FBI numbers on homicide get distorted....and why the NCVS numbers are way off....


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

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigate a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaugh- ter, that is reported as a murder or man- slaughter to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorneys will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case en- tirely.

Further, some of those charges are found to be justifiable or excusable homicide by judges and juries during a trial. This is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her chil- dren from an estranged husband.9 A killing initially charged as a murder or nonnegli- gent homicide that is later reclassified as a justifiable or excusable homicide, will not be moved in the Uniform Crime Reports data from the homicide column to the justifiable homicide column.

How do we find out how many such cases exist? In 1989, Time magazine published an article called “Death by Gun.” It included photographs and information about every person killed by a gun in one week in the United States: May 1–7, 1989. There were 464 gun deaths reported in the article. Of these, 216 were suicides, 14 were initially reported as non–law enforcement defensive homicides, 13 were police justifiable homi- cides, and 22 accidents.10 That left 199 mur- ders and manslaughters.

The Time article, like the FBI’s data col- lection, showed the number of defensive gun uses that resulted in a death based on initial reports. A year later, Time followed up on the murder cases, to see how the courts handled them. Instead of 14 self-defense or “justifiable” homicides, there were now 28. This was because 14 of the “crimes” report- ed in “Death by Gun” were now found to be justifiable homicides. At least 43 murder cases had still not gone to trial, and it was possible that some of those would be found “justifiable.”11 Clearly, the FBI’s justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaning- ful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death—and is useless for un- derstanding the vastly larger number of de- fensive gun uses that do not result in death. Just as clearly, a better data set is needed.

You need to do better than the right wing pro gun often wrong Cato institute.

 

[Ernie S.]

Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year. The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals. Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.

That's the most likely to support your position. There are another 14 or 15 that are between 700,000 (unreliable) and 2 million or so.

Cite your 108K number. Please like the study with methodology and questions.

 

[Brain357]

Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year. The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals. Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.

actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......

Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it. The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home. It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home. Try again.

Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....

Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

 

[Brain357]

Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year. The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals. Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.

That's the most likely to support your position. There are another 14 or 15 that are between 700,000 (unreliable) and 2 million or so.

Cite your 108K number. Please like the study with methodology and questions.

The other studies are filled with criminals defending against criminals.

 

[2aguy]

Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year. The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals. Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.

actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......

Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it. The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home. It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home. Try again.

Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....

Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....

And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....You can find the complete list of the studies and what they looked at in Kleck's paper...


http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf


Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....

 

[2aguy]

Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year. The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals. Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.

That's the most likely to support your position. There are another 14 or 15 that are between 700,000 (unreliable) and 2 million or so.

Cite your 108K number. Please like the study with methodology and questions.

The other studies are filled with criminals defending against criminals.

Not even close to true Brain....keep saying it....you'll need to in order to believe it....

 

[Brain357]

Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year. The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals. Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.

actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......

Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it. The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home. It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home. Try again.

Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....

Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....

And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....

Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.

 

[Ernie S.]

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.

Nobody is ignoring those. But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed. And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense. You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Of course you are. That's the whole point of self defense. I don't want to kill anyone, hense, I didn't kill the man who broke down my door to rape my wife. I didn't kill the crack addict that tried to rob me armed with a steak knife nor did I fire a few rounds at the people creeping around Doc's Monday night.

Law abiding people use their weapons as a last resort. Criminals use theirs to eliminate witnesses.

I would for shit sure HOPE that less criminals are shot than defenders given the number of times we use our guns as a deterrent. If we fired every time we were confronted by criminals, Chicago and DCwould be ghost towns.

 

[Brain357]

Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year. The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals. Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.

That's the most likely to support your position. There are another 14 or 15 that are between 700,000 (unreliable) and 2 million or so.

Cite your 108K number. Please like the study with methodology and questions.

The other studies are filled with criminals defending against criminals.

Not even close to true Brain....keep saying it....you'll need to in order to believe it....

I don't need to say it, Kleck did:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

 

[Brain357]

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.

Nobody is ignoring those. But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed. And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense. You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Of course you are. That's the whole point of self defense. I don't want to kill anyone, hense, I didn't kill the man who broke down my door to rape my wife. I didn't kill the crack addict that tried to rob me armed with a steak knife nor did I fire a few rounds at the people creeping around Doc's Monday night.

Law abiding people use their weapons as a last resort. Criminals use theirs to eliminate witnesses.

I would for shit sure HOPE that less criminals are shot than defenders given the number of times we use our guns as a deterrent. If we fired every time we were confronted by criminals, Chicago and DCwould be ghost towns.

It is sort of sad though that more innocent people are accidently shot and killed than are criminals.

 

[2aguy]

actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......

Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it. The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home. It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home. Try again.

Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....

Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....

And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....

Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said

See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......

And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....

 

[Ernie S.]

actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......

Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it. The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home. It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home. Try again.

Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....

Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....

And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....

Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.

Please quote where Kleck said that as I am unable to locate such a claim. Please avoid bloggers commenting on his studies. I require 1st hand evidence.

 

[2aguy]

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.

Nobody is ignoring those. But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed. And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense. You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Of course you are. That's the whole point of self defense. I don't want to kill anyone, hense, I didn't kill the man who broke down my door to rape my wife. I didn't kill the crack addict that tried to rob me armed with a steak knife nor did I fire a few rounds at the people creeping around Doc's Monday night.

Law abiding people use their weapons as a last resort. Criminals use theirs to eliminate witnesses.

I would for shit sure HOPE that less criminals are shot than defenders given the number of times we use our guns as a deterrent. If we fired every time we were confronted by criminals, Chicago and DCwould be ghost towns.

It is sort of sad though that more innocent people are accidently shot and killed than are criminals.

Only 6-700 people a year are killed in gun accidents....out of a country of over 310 million people....and considering that on average 1.6 million violent criminal attacks are stopped and lives are saved....that is far more than are killed by criminals.....and each life saved by a gun is important.....

 

[Ernie S.]

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.

Nobody is ignoring those. But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed. And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense. You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Of course you are. That's the whole point of self defense. I don't want to kill anyone, hense, I didn't kill the man who broke down my door to rape my wife. I didn't kill the crack addict that tried to rob me armed with a steak knife nor did I fire a few rounds at the people creeping around Doc's Monday night.

Law abiding people use their weapons as a last resort. Criminals use theirs to eliminate witnesses.

I would for shit sure HOPE that less criminals are shot than defenders given the number of times we use our guns as a deterrent. If we fired every time we were confronted by criminals, Chicago and DCwould be ghost towns.

It is sort of sad though that more innocent people are accidently shot and killed than are criminals.

It is sad. The blame for that belongs on the criminals, not the legal gun owners who want to avoid taking a life as most do.

 

[Brain357]

Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it. The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home. It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home. Try again.

Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....

Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....

And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....

Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.

Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home? I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said

See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......

And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....

No Bill you miss the point.
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity. Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.

 

[Brain357]

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.

Nobody is ignoring those. But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed. And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense. You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Of course you are. That's the whole point of self defense. I don't want to kill anyone, hense, I didn't kill the man who broke down my door to rape my wife. I didn't kill the crack addict that tried to rob me armed with a steak knife nor did I fire a few rounds at the people creeping around Doc's Monday night.

Law abiding people use their weapons as a last resort. Criminals use theirs to eliminate witnesses.

I would for shit sure HOPE that less criminals are shot than defenders given the number of times we use our guns as a deterrent. If we fired every time we were confronted by criminals, Chicago and DCwould be ghost towns.

It is sort of sad though that more innocent people are accidently shot and killed than are criminals.

Only 6-700 people a year are killed in gun accidents....out of a country of over 310 million people....and considering that on average 1.6 million violent criminal attacks are stopped and lives are saved....that is far more than are killed by criminals.....and each life saved by a gun is important.....

You mean 1.6 million criminals defend against other criminals.

 

[kaz]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

We also need to ban extreme speech, right? And people should be reasonable about having their property searched, nothing extreme like forcing government to get a warrant should be required. And wow, abortions can be banned in extreme cases, right? We need to be reasonable about this. Rights really should only be allowed in moderation. I feel you.

 

[ChrisL]

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

And that has what to do with how many guns they had? That was WWII. And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.

you should move to one of them

it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers

And there you go, right back to being a child. If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.

I thought it was kind of funny actually.

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

And that has what to do with how many guns they had? That was WWII. And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.

you should move to one of them

it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers

And there you go, right back to being a child. If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.

I'm sure you can probably bring your diapers with you wherever you go. Lol!

Name them.

Denmark. Sweden. Netherlands. Australia....

Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps. Might want to check your history there. The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed. Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?

And that has what to do with how many guns they had? That was WWII. And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.

Like Rwanda?

Really? Rwanda? No like most of Europe. Countries that are actually comparable to us. You are comparing us to Rwanda?

Violent crime in the UK is double that of the US. GUNS do not create violence. People do.

 

[ChrisL]

We have big cities with lots of African American gangs. That is where most of the high homicide with guns happens. Most of those guns are obtained illegally.