Woman shot 3 times by 2 home invaders...able to return fire...and lives....

[Brain357]

As to the idea that gun ownership is on the decline....that is a gun control dream...not the reality....they want to change the reality so they can convince weak willed politicians to pass their agenda....

Debunking Mother Jones 10 Pro-Gun Myths Shot Down - The Truth About Guns

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they’re owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Let me illustrate how MJ and other organizations arrive at this “shrinking number” nonsense for gun ownership. The numbers are based on a phone survey conducted by calling the landline in people’s homes and asking if they own any guns.

Do you see the problem there?

(A) Landine phones are going the way of the dodo. Almost no one in my generation pays for one in their home, and a shrinking number of the older generation are doing the same. Cell phones are the new way to communicate, and those aren’t included in the polls.

(B) How would you feel if you received a call from a random stranger claiming to be from a polling agency and asking how much jewelry you have in your home? Or how much cash you carry around? Or if you leave your back door unlocked at night? This is especially frightening if you realize that land-line phone numbers all have an address associated with them. Is it really a polling agency calling or a burglar doing some recon work before stealing all your stuff? How can you tell the difference?

I just don’t trust those numbers. What I do trust are the ever-increasing numbers of people showing up at shooting ranges and the constant growth in the firearms industry. Solid figures that represent actual growth, not just conjecture. And anyway, since the MJ article came out, even Gallup has seen a uptick in those numbers.



So, in fact, that entire statement is now null and void. A lie, if you will. Gun ownership is indeed on the rise.

I don't think you can claim that survey is bad, but then stand strongly by the surveys that clearly overestimate the number of gun defenses.

I have 40 years of studies that show my average number of 1.6 million, done by different researchers, both private and public and by anti gunners as well as neutral parties...this is one study that was easily shown to be wrong.......

Your surveys are quite easily shown to be wrong. And well as Kleck says most those defenses are by criminals. So why do I care how many times a criminal defends themselves?

Pick a point that one of those sources uses that you think is most important. I'll gladly explain why they are wrong. It is a very good survey.

 

[2aguy]

Again, Kleck doesn't say that even in the quote you use he specifically states "illegal gun posession" not career criminals...and again, in the 90s people did not have the legal ability to carry guns for self defense....but did it anyway.....hence the "illegal gun possession" comment by Kleck....but don't worry....since the 90s every state in the Union now has some form of legal carry laws...to the tune of well over 11.1 million people now carrying guns for self defense...so "illegal gun possession" is no longer a problem....

 

[2aguy]

Brain....don't feel like going round and round tonight....have a nice weekend...

 

[2aguy]

See Brain...more and more Americans are getting their Rights back.....

Cities repealing overreaching gun laws across Pennsylvania


Doylestown, Bethlehem, Allentown and Liberty, includes the list of dozens of cities across the Keystone State that are in the process of scrapping illegal laws to comply with an National Rifle Association-backed preemption measure.

The municipalities are scrambling due to Act 192, signed into law last year by Gov. Tom Corbett (R). As outlined in the language of the law, member groups such as the NRA can stand in for local citizens in challenging ordinances in court that exceed the state’s own gun laws.

The gun rights group at the time called the bill “the strongest firearms preemption statute in the country” and a “much-needed protection for gun owners in the Keystone State.”

In the scant weeks since its enactment, towns from one side of the state to the other have dusted off their laws and evaluated them for compliance.

In November, one of the first, West Mifflin, moved to roll back a 2009 ordinance that required lost or stolen handguns be reported within 72 hours. Doylestown Township did much the same with their own parks as did such rarely-mentioned locales as Castle Shannon, Duquesne and Liberty.

As reported by the Associated Press in January, at least 22 municipalities have already repealed their laws or indicated they intended to.

 

[Brain357]

Again, Kleck doesn't say that even in the quote you use he specifically states "illegal gun posession" not career criminals...and again, in the 90s people did not have the legal ability to carry guns for self defense....but did it anyway.....hence the "illegal gun possession" comment by Kleck....but don't worry....since the 90s every state in the Union now has some form of legal carry laws...to the tune of well over 11.1 million people now carrying guns for self defense...so "illegal gun possession" is no longer a problem....

No that is what he said:
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."

He gives unlawful gun possession as an example. And that would include FELONS. And again most defenses are at home, so your carrying argument isn't valid. It was legal in the 90s to defend your home.

 

[Brain357]

Brain....don't feel like going round and round tonight....have a nice weekend...

You too!

 

[2aguy]

Sorry Brain....

such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim

And he was also talking about outside the home...hence the "illegal possession" in most states.....hence, the reluctance to admit to police a gun was used to stop a violent criminal attack....

 

[Brain357]

Sorry Brain....

such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim

And he was also talking about outside the home...hence the "illegal possession" in most states.....hence, the reluctance to admit to police a gun was used to stop a violent criminal attack....

No he is talking about DGUs. He does not say only DGUs outside of the home. Sorry but you have no basis for that claim. And again unlawful gun possession includes FELONS.

 

[OnePercenter]

Over 230,000 guns stolen each year. It certainly shows that owning a gun doesn't deter crime. That's enough guns to arm every gang member in the country.

It also shows a lack of responsible gun ownership.

 

[westwall]

Do I want to spend my life being a victim and a coward, but with less risk of being killed?

When you look around the world at other modern countries, and see that we have tons of crime relative to them... I think this wussy pathetic "don't be armed, because you are less likely to be shot!" idea is the reason.

I'd rather go down fighting.

That is your choice. It really depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to get shot over my wallet. I just think people should know the facts.

Just be prepared to be a victim for the rest of your life.

Family Says Friendly 20-year-old Shot for No Reason - FOX16.com

See, if you could make the case that not being armed would guarantee not being shot.... I'd be on your side of the argument.

But completely an utterly defenseless people are shot, stabbed, raped, and killed all the time.

The difference between Daniel in this story, and the lady in the OP story, is that the lady was armed and could fight back, Daniel was unarmed, and couldn't. Daniel is dead. The lady is not.

I just think people should know the facts, too.

I've never been a victim.

There are very few guarantees. You can't guarantee that carrying a gun will keep you from being shot. In fact it makes you more likely to be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

I can guarantee if you don't own a gun that you won't accidently shoot yourself or another innocent person. More people are accidently shot each year than are criminals in defense.

I don't think being armed would have really helped Daniel. I don't think he was expecting them to kill him. In this case the criminal would have a big advantage.

How about this example:
Las Vegas Cop Killers Were Husband-Wife Team - ABC News

The armed guy in the Walmart was the only one shot and killed.

There are several countries with few guns and much lower crime rates than us. You don't need guns for people to not be raped and killed, that's just silly.

Yeah...brana was wrong...



Holding purveyors of anti-gun junk science accountable - St. Louis gun rights Examiner.com

More recently, an article by Charles Branas and others, published in the American Journal of Public Health, claimed that a person in possession of a gun is 4.46 times more likely to be shot than one who is not. Jacob Sullum, of Reason.com, pointed out a fatal flaw with the "reasoning" the authors used:

The linked to article pointing out how brana was wrong....

Armed and Vulnerable - Reason.com

The one explanation Branas et al. don’t mention is that people who anticipate violent confrontations—such as drug dealers, frequently robbed bodega owners, and women with angry ex-boyfriends—might be especially likely to possess guns, just as people who jump out of airplanes are especially likely to possess parachutes. The closest the authors come to acknowledging that possibility is their admission, toward the end of the article, that they “did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault”—that is, the possibility that a high risk of being shot “causes” gun ownership, as opposed to the other way around.

And again....keeping in mind the other numbers involved.....there are on average 8-9,000 gun murders a year in the United States....there are on average 1.6 million times a year a gun is used to stop violent crime and save lives....also...more Americans are buying and carrying guns...and the gun murder rate and the accidental gun death rate are going down, not up....so brana is full of crap......

and another look at brana....

FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT


The study by Branas et al.1 contains errors in design and execution that make it difficult to determine the meaning of their findings.

Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted). Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied. We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both.

The study does not control for time and place. The authors invoke stray bullets to argue that residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, are at equal risk for being shot, no matter where they are and what they are doing. This ignores the fact that violence is not randomly distributed and is unfair to Philadelphia.

The control group is inappropriate, as was probably guaranteed by its selection from all adult Philadelphians. There were large differences between case participants and control participants in prior criminal history and alcohol or drug involvement, all of which influence gun-carrying behavior and risk for violent victimization. Personal and geographic differences compounded one another: 83% of shootings occurred outdoors, yet while those shootings were occuring, 91% of control participants, arguably at lower risk already for personal reasons, were indoors. A list could easily be made of likely differences between case participants and control participants that were not addressed.

The problems with geography and control selection are not insurmountable. A classic study of alcohol use among adult pedestrian fatalities in Manhattan enrolled the first 4 pedestrians reaching the site where the fatality occurred “on asubsequent date, but on the same day of the week and at a time as close as possible to the exact time of day of the accident [italics retained]”2(p657) as control participants for each case participant.

Branas et al. have omitted critical detail from their results. Assaults can be independent of any prior relationship between perpetrator and victim—a would-be robber spies a prospect emerging from a bar—or can occur in the context of, and perhaps because of, some prior relationship. The association between gun possession and risk of being assaulted or shot may differ greatly between these 2 types of encounters. Attacks by strangers are common, accounting for 50.5% of robberies and aggravated assaults reported by males and 34.7% of those reported by females.3 The authors should present separate results for assaults independent of and related to prior personal involvement between victims and shooters.

And another look at why brana's study is wrong....

A Useless Study on Gun Possession - Forbes

But clearly even after including these measures all else is not equal. The study could not control for whether the individuals were in a situation where they thought they would be in danger. The study could not control for whether the individual was the kind of person who thought that someone they know may be planning on trying to shoot them. They could control for frequency of prior arrest, but not whether the individual was an active gang member. The obvious selection bias is so problematic here that it is shocking the study was even attempted. This study cannot be considered informative, except perhaps about the quality of studies the American Journal of Public Health accepts.

I don't see how any of those arguments against the study are valid. It is a really good study, you should read it. They actually do things that your sources are claiming they do not. For instance the study is only adults in an attempt to keep out gang activity.

My guess would be because you suffer from confirmation bias compounded by lack of understanding of scientific methodology as it pertains to studies and how they are supposed to be controlled. This study lacked scientific rigor, that means it is worthless. The fact that you think it's great is irrelevant in the eyes of the scientific community who are the only judges that matter.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry Brain....

such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim

And he was also talking about outside the home...hence the "illegal possession" in most states.....hence, the reluctance to admit to police a gun was used to stop a violent criminal attack....

No he is talking about DGUs. He does not say only DGUs outside of the home. Sorry but you have no basis for that claim. And again unlawful gun possession includes FELONS.

Kleck says a lot of things in his study.....people who are interested should read it......as well as the other 19 studies that show that defensive gun uses average about 1.6 million times a year......

 

[Brain357]

That is your choice. It really depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to get shot over my wallet. I just think people should know the facts.

Just be prepared to be a victim for the rest of your life.

Family Says Friendly 20-year-old Shot for No Reason - FOX16.com

See, if you could make the case that not being armed would guarantee not being shot.... I'd be on your side of the argument.

But completely an utterly defenseless people are shot, stabbed, raped, and killed all the time.

The difference between Daniel in this story, and the lady in the OP story, is that the lady was armed and could fight back, Daniel was unarmed, and couldn't. Daniel is dead. The lady is not.

I just think people should know the facts, too.

I've never been a victim.

There are very few guarantees. You can't guarantee that carrying a gun will keep you from being shot. In fact it makes you more likely to be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

I can guarantee if you don't own a gun that you won't accidently shoot yourself or another innocent person. More people are accidently shot each year than are criminals in defense.

I don't think being armed would have really helped Daniel. I don't think he was expecting them to kill him. In this case the criminal would have a big advantage.

How about this example:
Las Vegas Cop Killers Were Husband-Wife Team - ABC News

The armed guy in the Walmart was the only one shot and killed.

There are several countries with few guns and much lower crime rates than us. You don't need guns for people to not be raped and killed, that's just silly.

Yeah...brana was wrong...



Holding purveyors of anti-gun junk science accountable - St. Louis gun rights Examiner.com

More recently, an article by Charles Branas and others, published in the American Journal of Public Health, claimed that a person in possession of a gun is 4.46 times more likely to be shot than one who is not. Jacob Sullum, of Reason.com, pointed out a fatal flaw with the "reasoning" the authors used:

The linked to article pointing out how brana was wrong....

Armed and Vulnerable - Reason.com

The one explanation Branas et al. don’t mention is that people who anticipate violent confrontations—such as drug dealers, frequently robbed bodega owners, and women with angry ex-boyfriends—might be especially likely to possess guns, just as people who jump out of airplanes are especially likely to possess parachutes. The closest the authors come to acknowledging that possibility is their admission, toward the end of the article, that they “did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault”—that is, the possibility that a high risk of being shot “causes” gun ownership, as opposed to the other way around.

And again....keeping in mind the other numbers involved.....there are on average 8-9,000 gun murders a year in the United States....there are on average 1.6 million times a year a gun is used to stop violent crime and save lives....also...more Americans are buying and carrying guns...and the gun murder rate and the accidental gun death rate are going down, not up....so brana is full of crap......

and another look at brana....

FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT


The study by Branas et al.1 contains errors in design and execution that make it difficult to determine the meaning of their findings.

Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted). Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied. We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both.

The study does not control for time and place. The authors invoke stray bullets to argue that residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, are at equal risk for being shot, no matter where they are and what they are doing. This ignores the fact that violence is not randomly distributed and is unfair to Philadelphia.

The control group is inappropriate, as was probably guaranteed by its selection from all adult Philadelphians. There were large differences between case participants and control participants in prior criminal history and alcohol or drug involvement, all of which influence gun-carrying behavior and risk for violent victimization. Personal and geographic differences compounded one another: 83% of shootings occurred outdoors, yet while those shootings were occuring, 91% of control participants, arguably at lower risk already for personal reasons, were indoors. A list could easily be made of likely differences between case participants and control participants that were not addressed.

The problems with geography and control selection are not insurmountable. A classic study of alcohol use among adult pedestrian fatalities in Manhattan enrolled the first 4 pedestrians reaching the site where the fatality occurred “on asubsequent date, but on the same day of the week and at a time as close as possible to the exact time of day of the accident [italics retained]”2(p657) as control participants for each case participant.

Branas et al. have omitted critical detail from their results. Assaults can be independent of any prior relationship between perpetrator and victim—a would-be robber spies a prospect emerging from a bar—or can occur in the context of, and perhaps because of, some prior relationship. The association between gun possession and risk of being assaulted or shot may differ greatly between these 2 types of encounters. Attacks by strangers are common, accounting for 50.5% of robberies and aggravated assaults reported by males and 34.7% of those reported by females.3 The authors should present separate results for assaults independent of and related to prior personal involvement between victims and shooters.

And another look at why brana's study is wrong....

A Useless Study on Gun Possession - Forbes

But clearly even after including these measures all else is not equal. The study could not control for whether the individuals were in a situation where they thought they would be in danger. The study could not control for whether the individual was the kind of person who thought that someone they know may be planning on trying to shoot them. They could control for frequency of prior arrest, but not whether the individual was an active gang member. The obvious selection bias is so problematic here that it is shocking the study was even attempted. This study cannot be considered informative, except perhaps about the quality of studies the American Journal of Public Health accepts.

I don't see how any of those arguments against the study are valid. It is a really good study, you should read it. They actually do things that your sources are claiming they do not. For instance the study is only adults in an attempt to keep out gang activity.

My guess would be because you suffer from confirmation bias compounded by lack of understanding of scientific methodology as it pertains to studies and how they are supposed to be controlled. This study lacked scientific rigor, that means it is worthless. The fact that you think it's great is irrelevant in the eyes of the scientific community who are the only judges that matter.

Ok, you tell me why?

 

[Brain357]

Sorry Brain....

such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim

And he was also talking about outside the home...hence the "illegal possession" in most states.....hence, the reluctance to admit to police a gun was used to stop a violent criminal attack....

No he is talking about DGUs. He does not say only DGUs outside of the home. Sorry but you have no basis for that claim. And again unlawful gun possession includes FELONS.

Kleck says a lot of things in his study.....people who are interested should read it......as well as the other 19 studies that show that defensive gun uses average about 1.6 million times a year......

Yes and as he says most of those defenders are involved in criminal activity.

 

[Andylusion]

So you're telling me the police said that the guy didnt intend to use his weapon while committing robbery? I call bullshit.
Because we of course know people never get shot while being robbed...
If someone confronts you with a firearm you ALWAYS assume they are willing to use it. I dont care if it's a criminal or a cop,the only difference is how you react to em.

Being armed yourself makes you more likely to be shot.

Do I want to spend my life being a victim and a coward, but with less risk of being killed?

When you look around the world at other modern countries, and see that we have tons of crime relative to them... I think this wussy pathetic "don't be armed, because you are less likely to be shot!" idea is the reason.

I'd rather go down fighting.

That is your choice. It really depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to get shot over my wallet. I just think people should know the facts.

Just be prepared to be a victim for the rest of your life.

Family Says Friendly 20-year-old Shot for No Reason - FOX16.com

See, if you could make the case that not being armed would guarantee not being shot.... I'd be on your side of the argument.

But completely an utterly defenseless people are shot, stabbed, raped, and killed all the time.

The difference between Daniel in this story, and the lady in the OP story, is that the lady was armed and could fight back, Daniel was unarmed, and couldn't. Daniel is dead. The lady is not.

I just think people should know the facts, too.

I've never been a victim.

There are very few guarantees. You can't guarantee that carrying a gun will keep you from being shot. In fact it makes you more likely to be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

I can guarantee if you don't own a gun that you won't accidently shoot yourself or another innocent person. More people are accidently shot each year than are criminals in defense.

I don't think being armed would have really helped Daniel. I don't think he was expecting them to kill him. In this case the criminal would have a big advantage.

How about this example:
Las Vegas Cop Killers Were Husband-Wife Team - ABC News

The armed guy in the Walmart was the only one shot and killed.

There are several countries with few guns and much lower crime rates than us. You don't need guns for people to not be raped and killed, that's just silly.

Saying we should not do something, on the risk that you might harm yourself, is ridiculous.

We should ban pools and bathtubs. Thousands of people die every year in pools and bathtubs. I guarantee you will never accidentally drown in a pool or bath tub, if we eliminate all of them.

We should obviously ban cars and bikes.

You have a higher chance of dying, falling down the stairs in an average home, than from a firearm. A higher chance of dying falling from a ladder only 6 feet high, than from a firearm.

So clearly we should ban ladders and stairs, and cars and bikes, and pretty much everything.

I never said there was a guarantee that having a gun will keep you from getting shot.

But there is in fact one guarantee. There is one absolute statement, that I would place a bet of 100% of my entire life time of wages on. If a criminal intends to shoot you, and you are completely unarmed, I guarantee 100%, you will not be able to defend yourself.

Unless there is some divine intervention, or the criminal is so stupid, he drops the gun, and you pick it up. Chances are, you are going to die.

The question is, do you want to be able to defend yourself, or not? And maybe you'd rather be a sheeple. Should the rest of us, who don't want to be helpless, be able to defend ourselves, even if you don't? I say, yes we should.

 

[Brain357]

Being armed yourself makes you more likely to be shot.

Do I want to spend my life being a victim and a coward, but with less risk of being killed?

When you look around the world at other modern countries, and see that we have tons of crime relative to them... I think this wussy pathetic "don't be armed, because you are less likely to be shot!" idea is the reason.

I'd rather go down fighting.

That is your choice. It really depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to get shot over my wallet. I just think people should know the facts.

Just be prepared to be a victim for the rest of your life.

Family Says Friendly 20-year-old Shot for No Reason - FOX16.com

See, if you could make the case that not being armed would guarantee not being shot.... I'd be on your side of the argument.

But completely an utterly defenseless people are shot, stabbed, raped, and killed all the time.

The difference between Daniel in this story, and the lady in the OP story, is that the lady was armed and could fight back, Daniel was unarmed, and couldn't. Daniel is dead. The lady is not.

I just think people should know the facts, too.

I've never been a victim.

There are very few guarantees. You can't guarantee that carrying a gun will keep you from being shot. In fact it makes you more likely to be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

I can guarantee if you don't own a gun that you won't accidently shoot yourself or another innocent person. More people are accidently shot each year than are criminals in defense.

I don't think being armed would have really helped Daniel. I don't think he was expecting them to kill him. In this case the criminal would have a big advantage.

How about this example:
Las Vegas Cop Killers Were Husband-Wife Team - ABC News

The armed guy in the Walmart was the only one shot and killed.

There are several countries with few guns and much lower crime rates than us. You don't need guns for people to not be raped and killed, that's just silly.

Saying we should not do something, on the risk that you might harm yourself, is ridiculous.

We should ban pools and bathtubs. Thousands of people die every year in pools and bathtubs. I guarantee you will never accidentally drown in a pool or bath tub, if we eliminate all of them.

We should obviously ban cars and bikes.

You have a higher chance of dying, falling down the stairs in an average home, than from a firearm. A higher chance of dying falling from a ladder only 6 feet high, than from a firearm.

So clearly we should ban ladders and stairs, and cars and bikes, and pretty much everything.

I never said there was a guarantee that having a gun will keep you from getting shot.

But there is in fact one guarantee. There is one absolute statement, that I would place a bet of 100% of my entire life time of wages on. If a criminal intends to shoot you, and you are completely unarmed, I guarantee 100%, you will not be able to defend yourself.

Unless there is some divine intervention, or the criminal is so stupid, he drops the gun, and you pick it up. Chances are, you are going to die.

The question is, do you want to be able to defend yourself, or not? And maybe you'd rather be a sheeple. Should the rest of us, who don't want to be helpless, be able to defend ourselves, even if you don't? I say, yes we should.

I haven't suggested banning anything.

Ok what do you think is the chance that some criminal is going to be intent on shooting you? I can tell you if you aren't involved in criminal activity it is extremely unlikely. Based on the stats I have seen you are much more likely to accidently shoot yourself or another person. While there are about 600 accidental shooting deaths each year, only about 230 criminals are shot each year in defense. You can do whatever you want, but be aware you probably aren't really protecting yourself. I am not going to go through life so scared that I need a gun at all times. You should really overcome your fear.

 

[Andylusion]

Sorry Brain....

such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim

And he was also talking about outside the home...hence the "illegal possession" in most states.....hence, the reluctance to admit to police a gun was used to stop a violent criminal attack....

No he is talking about DGUs. He does not say only DGUs outside of the home. Sorry but you have no basis for that claim. And again unlawful gun possession includes FELONS.

Which, I disagree with.

If a felon is to be released into society, then they should be at the point where they are safe in society, even with a gun.

If you can't trust a convicted felon with a gun in society, then they shouldn't be released to begin with.

But if you are going to release them, then they should have full rights, including the right to defend themselves. This idea that you are going to say to a convicted felon "you have served your time, and paid your debt to society.... but you are actually going to be punished the rest of your life by not having the rights and freedoms of everyone else to defend yourself".... that does not make sense to me.

Beyond that point, I agree with the other poster. Because of the way the laws are written, people who defend themselves with guns, will never say anything to anyone in many cases, because it's too risky.

You flash a gun at someone who is out of control, and behaving in an aggressive and dangerous manor... you are more likely to get into trouble for defending yourself, than the person who is going nuts.

There was a case not too long ago out of California, where a veteran was approached on his own property, by a man wielding a knife I believe, and the vet got a rifle, and fired a shot into the ground, in his own backyard.

The vet made the mistake of reporting it to the police, who having no proof there was a dude in this guys back yard, promptly arrested him for, by his own admission, firing a weapon inside the city limits.... which was illegal.

So the bad guy gets away, and the good guy goes to jail (thanks to anti-gun people), and then you want to argue that there is no mass of people who defend themselves with guns and never report it? I know I wouldn't report it.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Brain....the story doesn't say who shot first......

Nope that's why I said make you wonder. I'd be curious to hear more details. Especially who started shooting first.

They brought guns didnt they? seeing as they are the ones who are the criminals, brought the guns, Id lay the blame on them, if they pointed the guns at her then she was right to shoot.

Y







Nah, braino doesn't think like a reasonable person.. The perps only brought the guns to scare the people. They had no intention of actually hurting anyone don't ya know. They just wanted to frighten them a little.

That is often the case. If every criminal with a gun started shooting people we'd have a much higher homicide rate. The police are treating it as a burglary gone bad, not murder. So it is quite possible that having a gun is the only reason she was shot.

Then why did the criminals use weapons in their home invasion?

That is your choice. It really depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to get shot over my wallet. I just think people should know the facts.

Just be prepared to be a victim for the rest of your life.

Family Says Friendly 20-year-old Shot for No Reason - FOX16.com

See, if you could make the case that not being armed would guarantee not being shot.... I'd be on your side of the argument.

But completely an utterly defenseless people are shot, stabbed, raped, and killed all the time.

The difference between Daniel in this story, and the lady in the OP story, is that the lady was armed and could fight back, Daniel was unarmed, and couldn't. Daniel is dead. The lady is not.

I just think people should know the facts, too.

I've never been a victim.

There are very few guarantees. You can't guarantee that carrying a gun will keep you from being shot. In fact it makes you more likely to be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

I can guarantee if you don't own a gun that you won't accidently shoot yourself or another innocent person. More people are accidently shot each year than are criminals in defense.

I don't think being armed would have really helped Daniel. I don't think he was expecting them to kill him. In this case the criminal would have a big advantage.

How about this example:
Las Vegas Cop Killers Were Husband-Wife Team - ABC News

The armed guy in the Walmart was the only one shot and killed.

There are several countries with few guns and much lower crime rates than us. You don't need guns for people to not be raped and killed, that's just silly.

Yeah...brana was wrong...



Holding purveyors of anti-gun junk science accountable - St. Louis gun rights Examiner.com

More recently, an article by Charles Branas and others, published in the American Journal of Public Health, claimed that a person in possession of a gun is 4.46 times more likely to be shot than one who is not. Jacob Sullum, of Reason.com, pointed out a fatal flaw with the "reasoning" the authors used:

The linked to article pointing out how brana was wrong....

Armed and Vulnerable - Reason.com

The one explanation Branas et al. don’t mention is that people who anticipate violent confrontations—such as drug dealers, frequently robbed bodega owners, and women with angry ex-boyfriends—might be especially likely to possess guns, just as people who jump out of airplanes are especially likely to possess parachutes. The closest the authors come to acknowledging that possibility is their admission, toward the end of the article, that they “did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault”—that is, the possibility that a high risk of being shot “causes” gun ownership, as opposed to the other way around.

And again....keeping in mind the other numbers involved.....there are on average 8-9,000 gun murders a year in the United States....there are on average 1.6 million times a year a gun is used to stop violent crime and save lives....also...more Americans are buying and carrying guns...and the gun murder rate and the accidental gun death rate are going down, not up....so brana is full of crap......

and another look at brana....

FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT


The study by Branas et al.1 contains errors in design and execution that make it difficult to determine the meaning of their findings.

Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted). Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied. We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both.

The study does not control for time and place. The authors invoke stray bullets to argue that residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, are at equal risk for being shot, no matter where they are and what they are doing. This ignores the fact that violence is not randomly distributed and is unfair to Philadelphia.

The control group is inappropriate, as was probably guaranteed by its selection from all adult Philadelphians. There were large differences between case participants and control participants in prior criminal history and alcohol or drug involvement, all of which influence gun-carrying behavior and risk for violent victimization. Personal and geographic differences compounded one another: 83% of shootings occurred outdoors, yet while those shootings were occuring, 91% of control participants, arguably at lower risk already for personal reasons, were indoors. A list could easily be made of likely differences between case participants and control participants that were not addressed.

The problems with geography and control selection are not insurmountable. A classic study of alcohol use among adult pedestrian fatalities in Manhattan enrolled the first 4 pedestrians reaching the site where the fatality occurred “on asubsequent date, but on the same day of the week and at a time as close as possible to the exact time of day of the accident [italics retained]”2(p657) as control participants for each case participant.

Branas et al. have omitted critical detail from their results. Assaults can be independent of any prior relationship between perpetrator and victim—a would-be robber spies a prospect emerging from a bar—or can occur in the context of, and perhaps because of, some prior relationship. The association between gun possession and risk of being assaulted or shot may differ greatly between these 2 types of encounters. Attacks by strangers are common, accounting for 50.5% of robberies and aggravated assaults reported by males and 34.7% of those reported by females.3 The authors should present separate results for assaults independent of and related to prior personal involvement between victims and shooters.

And another look at why brana's study is wrong....

A Useless Study on Gun Possession - Forbes

But clearly even after including these measures all else is not equal. The study could not control for whether the individuals were in a situation where they thought they would be in danger. The study could not control for whether the individual was the kind of person who thought that someone they know may be planning on trying to shoot them. They could control for frequency of prior arrest, but not whether the individual was an active gang member. The obvious selection bias is so problematic here that it is shocking the study was even attempted. This study cannot be considered informative, except perhaps about the quality of studies the American Journal of Public Health accepts.

I don't see how any of those arguments against the study are valid. It is a really good study, you should read it. They actually do things that your sources are claiming they do not. For instance the study is only adults in an attempt to keep out gang activity.

My guess would be because you suffer from confirmation bias compounded by lack of understanding of scientific methodology as it pertains to studies and how they are supposed to be controlled. This study lacked scientific rigor, that means it is worthless. The fact that you think it's great is irrelevant in the eyes of the scientific community who are the only judges that matter.

Your default position seems to be anyone who disagrees with you is a troll. This is a post of yours, I still would like to see your proof that "hot robberies" are rare in the US(shot three times and a rarity , she was very unlucky) and as common as dirt in Australia.
Already have. Australia outlawed weapons and violent crime jumped 44% overnight. It then dropped for several years but is now, once again, on the upswing. Further whereas hot burglaries in the US are rare, they are common as dirt in Oz. A hot burglary refers to the burglar knowing there are people in the building but he comes in anyway. They are the most dangerous for all involved.
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/{0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA}facts11.pdf

 

[Skull Pilot]

if the home owner shot first she had every right to do so.

The scum bag pieces of shit were threatening her safety the second they forced their way in

Yes but that may be why she got shot. In which case she would have been safer not being armed.

If you want to take the chance of being unarmed in while criminals invade your house that's your choice.

It didn't end too well for the Petit family in CT

Ghastly Details In Conn. Home Invasion - CBS News

So now tell me you would still rather be defenseless.

What are the odds of that happening compared to someone accidently being shot and killed? How often is the defender the only one shot like the woman in this thread?

don't know
don't care

I choose to be able to defend myself and will support anyone who does.

If you choose to be defenseless that's fine with me

Yes you don't care about what really happens. You just argue from emotion and paranoia.

You and you alone are responsible for your choices.

What other people choose to do is none of your business.

I don't understand your need to tell other people how to live.

That statement is not emotional nor is it paranoid.

You're the one so afraid that there may be accidents that you feel the need to tell people they shouldn't own guns.

You live in fear not me.

 

[Brain357]

Yes but that may be why she got shot. In which case she would have been safer not being armed.

If you want to take the chance of being unarmed in while criminals invade your house that's your choice.

It didn't end too well for the Petit family in CT

Ghastly Details In Conn. Home Invasion - CBS News

So now tell me you would still rather be defenseless.

What are the odds of that happening compared to someone accidently being shot and killed? How often is the defender the only one shot like the woman in this thread?

don't know
don't care

I choose to be able to defend myself and will support anyone who does.

If you choose to be defenseless that's fine with me

Yes you don't care about what really happens. You just argue from emotion and paranoia.

You and you alone are responsible for your choices.

What other people choose to do is none of your business.

I don't understand your need to tell other people how to live.

That statement is not emotional nor is it paranoid.

You're the one so afraid that there may be accidents that you feel the need to tell people they shouldn't own guns.

You live in fear not me.

I'm warning people about what can happen. I wish the woman shot by her 2 year old had been more careful. Clearly carrying a gun was a bad idea for her. I'm not afraid at all. I've gone my whole life not carrying and I've never needed a gun. You run around scared and paranoid. It's sad that in such a safe country you are still so scared.

 

[Brain357]

Sorry Brain....

such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim

And he was also talking about outside the home...hence the "illegal possession" in most states.....hence, the reluctance to admit to police a gun was used to stop a violent criminal attack....

No he is talking about DGUs. He does not say only DGUs outside of the home. Sorry but you have no basis for that claim. And again unlawful gun possession includes FELONS.

Which, I disagree with.

If a felon is to be released into society, then they should be at the point where they are safe in society, even with a gun.

If you can't trust a convicted felon with a gun in society, then they shouldn't be released to begin with.

But if you are going to release them, then they should have full rights, including the right to defend themselves. This idea that you are going to say to a convicted felon "you have served your time, and paid your debt to society.... but you are actually going to be punished the rest of your life by not having the rights and freedoms of everyone else to defend yourself".... that does not make sense to me.

Beyond that point, I agree with the other poster. Because of the way the laws are written, people who defend themselves with guns, will never say anything to anyone in many cases, because it's too risky.

You flash a gun at someone who is out of control, and behaving in an aggressive and dangerous manor... you are more likely to get into trouble for defending yourself, than the person who is going nuts.

There was a case not too long ago out of California, where a veteran was approached on his own property, by a man wielding a knife I believe, and the vet got a rifle, and fired a shot into the ground, in his own backyard.

The vet made the mistake of reporting it to the police, who having no proof there was a dude in this guys back yard, promptly arrested him for, by his own admission, firing a weapon inside the city limits.... which was illegal.

So the bad guy gets away, and the good guy goes to jail (thanks to anti-gun people), and then you want to argue that there is no mass of people who defend themselves with guns and never report it? I know I wouldn't report it.

Well I see no reason to legally arm felons. That is its own discussion. Regardless if a felon has a gun they aren't law abiding.