Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again...these are the studies the 1.6 million defensive gun uses are based on....collected over a 40 year period....and these aren't even all of the studies...the rest also support a high, very high number of defensive gun uses....one Police federation study...1.5 million defensive gun uses a year...
A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense
GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys
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...
The NCVS is the only one that would weed out criminals defending against criminals. It is the most accurate for law abiding defending themselves.
How can you say 1.6 million when you have such a broad range of studies? If the 100k is correct you are off by 1.1 million. If the ones in the 700k range are correct you are off by 900k. They go from 100k to 3.6 million. It's pretty clear they aren't accurate.
The number of studies shows the 100,000 number is innacurrate...it isn't even close to the lowest of the low of the studies....it is the only study with that low of a number.....out of 19 and you don't know how the other studies were conducted....we do know Kleck's studyand his methods...which were the most thorough of them all...and as John Lott said, he believes that the people responding were law abiding....I'll take his word and experience doing the research over your biased opinions.....
And here is the Kleck perspective where he mentions the Police Association study....not a pro gun organization...
Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
At least 12 national and 3 state-wide surveys have asked probability samples of the general adult population about defensive gun use. The surveys differ in many important respects. The two most sophisticated national surveys are the National Self-Defense Survey done by Marc Gertz and myself in 1995 and a smaller scale survey done by the Police Foundation in 1996.
A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.
The one survey that is clearly not suitable for estimating the total number of defensive gun uses is the National Crime Victimization Survey. This is the only survey that has ever generated results implying an annual defensive-gun-use estimate under 700,000. Not surprisingly, it is a favorite of academic gun-control supporters. If one is to make even a pretense of empirically supporting the claim that defensive gun use is rare in America, one must rely on the National Crime Victimization Survey, warts and all.
That the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate is radically wrong is now beyond serious dispute. Ultimately, the only foundation one ever has for knowing that a measurement is wrong is that it is inconsistent with other measurements of the same phenomenon. There are now at least 15 other independent estimates of the frequency of defensive gun uses and every one of them is enormously larger than the National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate. Unanimity is rare in studies of crime, but this is one of those rare cases. Apparently, however, even unanimous and overwhelming evidence is not sufficient to dissuade the gun control advocacy organizations, such as Handgun Control, Inc., and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, that the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate is at least approximately valid and that defensive gun use is rare.
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.
Doesn't matter. I did not suggest you did suggest banning anything, only that If people shouldn't have guns because they might accidentally kill themselves, then the same logic should apply to millions of other things. We should in fact, all become Amish. Of course your cart pulling horse might kill you too, so apparently even the Amish need to get rid of what little they have.
That's just absolutely not true. What you said there is just simply not true. You are lying.
Self-defense killings in US nearly doubled from 2000-2010 statistics show New York Post
First, off, justifyable self defense deaths (victims shooting criminals), is 326 reported, far higher than your suggested 230 shot.
So only 230 criminals were shot in justified self defense, but 326 were killed in self defense? Fewer people were shot, than how many were killed by firearms?
Second, again, you don't seem to grasp how many people routinely scare off a criminal, without firing a single round.
Laundromat employee 90 scares off robber with gun www.whio.com
Guy pulled a gun, and the criminal ran.
No shots fired. No criminal hit. No criminal killed.
When you limit it down to only people killed in a self defense shooting, verses all the ones who were shot and not killed, and all those who were shot at but not hit, and all those who were not shot at, but ran from a gun wielding citizen.... huge difference.
You can claim I'm not protecting myself, but that's only your opinion, based on a faulty interpretation of clearly dubious statistics.
But that's what a forum is about... you speaking your opinion. So here's mine.
I've now had a friend who was physically assaulted and brutalized to the point she was in the hospital. Another that was raped in her own home. I have come home to my house, to find it ransacked, and left in shambles, bedroom torn apart, all the drawers in my dress emptied, closet emptied, even the mattress pulled off the beds. There was a man at one point, who was stalking my sister.
Now perhaps you live in such a sterile upper class elite life style, where you have never had to live with the average people in the lower class of society, like I have. Perhaps you are so sheltered, and hidden away in the white bread world were there are no dangerous people, and everyone is like a monk in a monastery, greeting you with plastic smiles and pleasant peaceful small talk.
If that's really your case, great. I wish everyone had your perfectly little life. I wish everyone was all smiles and joy 24/7.
I live in the real world though, and life isn't perfect. And the fact is, there are crazy people. Do I live in complete fear all the time? Of course not. I wouldn't be able to function if I did. But am I wise in at least having a weapon, in case the horrible happens, and I need to defend myself or those around me, from a nut case? I say yes. Again, perhaps you are the lucky one who lives in such a perfect environment, that in your specific case, you in fact would be more a danger to yourself, than any criminal. If you are, then pat yourself on the back, and give yourself a gold star. More power to you.
Me.... I'm in the real world, as it actually is for us normal average people. Having a gun, isn't a failure to overcome fear. That might be true for you, but in the real world, it is simply a choice to have wise self defense.
Again...these are the studies the 1.6 million defensive gun uses are based on....collected over a 40 year period....and these aren't even all of the studies...the rest also support a high, very high number of defensive gun uses....one Police federation study...1.5 million defensive gun uses a year...
A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense
GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys
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...
The NCVS is the only one that would weed out criminals defending against criminals. It is the most accurate for law abiding defending themselves.
How can you say 1.6 million when you have such a broad range of studies? If the 100k is correct you are off by 1.1 million. If the ones in the 700k range are correct you are off by 900k. They go from 100k to 3.6 million. It's pretty clear they aren't accurate.
The number of studies shows the 100,000 number is innacurrate...it isn't even close to the lowest of the low of the studies....it is the only study with that low of a number.....out of 19 and you don't know how the other studies were conducted....we do know Kleck's studyand his methods...which were the most thorough of them all...and as John Lott said, he believes that the people responding were law abiding....I'll take his word and experience doing the research over your biased opinions.....
He didn't give a very good answer. Ask him what they did to confirm if they were or were not law abiding. Do you take his email over what kleck says? Kleck says most are involved in criminal activity. You sometimes pick and choose the answers you want.
Again...these are the studies the 1.6 million defensive gun uses are based on....collected over a 40 year period....and these aren't even all of the studies...the rest also support a high, very high number of defensive gun uses....one Police federation study...1.5 million defensive gun uses a year...
A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense
GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys
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...
The NCVS is the only one that would weed out criminals defending against criminals. It is the most accurate for law abiding defending themselves.
How can you say 1.6 million when you have such a broad range of studies? If the 100k is correct you are off by 1.1 million. If the ones in the 700k range are correct you are off by 900k. They go from 100k to 3.6 million. It's pretty clear they aren't accurate.
The number of studies shows the 100,000 number is innacurrate...it isn't even close to the lowest of the low of the studies....it is the only study with that low of a number.....out of 19 and you don't know how the other studies were conducted....we do know Kleck's studyand his methods...which were the most thorough of them all...and as John Lott said, he believes that the people responding were law abiding....I'll take his word and experience doing the research over your biased opinions.....
He didn't give a very good answer. Ask him what they did to confirm if they were or were not law abiding. Do you take his email over what kleck says? Kleck says most are involved in criminal activity. You sometimes pick and choose the answers you want.
No...your quote, which you like to post, merely says "illegal possession of a gun" which is not a career criminal...which is what you try to imply by focusing solely on that quote...again....as he points out, carrying a gun outside the home in the 90s was, in most states, an illegal activity, but not a life of crime.....merely people concerned for their safety choosing to carry a gun for self defense....
he specifically states that self defense uses of guns outnumber criminal uses of guns 3-4 to one......
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.
Doesn't matter. I did not suggest you did suggest banning anything, only that If people shouldn't have guns because they might accidentally kill themselves, then the same logic should apply to millions of other things. We should in fact, all become Amish. Of course your cart pulling horse might kill you too, so apparently even the Amish need to get rid of what little they have.
That's just absolutely not true. What you said there is just simply not true. You are lying.
Self-defense killings in US nearly doubled from 2000-2010 statistics show New York Post
First, off, justifyable self defense deaths (victims shooting criminals), is 326 reported, far higher than your suggested 230 shot.
So only 230 criminals were shot in justified self defense, but 326 were killed in self defense? Fewer people were shot, than how many were killed by firearms?
Second, again, you don't seem to grasp how many people routinely scare off a criminal, without firing a single round.
Laundromat employee 90 scares off robber with gun www.whio.com
Guy pulled a gun, and the criminal ran.
No shots fired. No criminal hit. No criminal killed.
When you limit it down to only people killed in a self defense shooting, verses all the ones who were shot and not killed, and all those who were shot at but not hit, and all those who were not shot at, but ran from a gun wielding citizen.... huge difference.
You can claim I'm not protecting myself, but that's only your opinion, based on a faulty interpretation of clearly dubious statistics.
But that's what a forum is about... you speaking your opinion. So here's mine.
I've now had a friend who was physically assaulted and brutalized to the point she was in the hospital. Another that was raped in her own home. I have come home to my house, to find it ransacked, and left in shambles, bedroom torn apart, all the drawers in my dress emptied, closet emptied, even the mattress pulled off the beds. There was a man at one point, who was stalking my sister.
Now perhaps you live in such a sterile upper class elite life style, where you have never had to live with the average people in the lower class of society, like I have. Perhaps you are so sheltered, and hidden away in the white bread world were there are no dangerous people, and everyone is like a monk in a monastery, greeting you with plastic smiles and pleasant peaceful small talk.
If that's really your case, great. I wish everyone had your perfectly little life. I wish everyone was all smiles and joy 24/7.
I live in the real world though, and life isn't perfect. And the fact is, there are crazy people. Do I live in complete fear all the time? Of course not. I wouldn't be able to function if I did. But am I wise in at least having a weapon, in case the horrible happens, and I need to defend myself or those around me, from a nut case? I say yes. Again, perhaps you are the lucky one who lives in such a perfect environment, that in your specific case, you in fact would be more a danger to yourself, than any criminal. If you are, then pat yourself on the back, and give yourself a gold star. More power to you.
Me.... I'm in the real world, as it actually is for us normal average people. Having a gun, isn't a failure to overcome fear. That might be true for you, but in the real world, it is simply a choice to have wise self defense.
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.
Doesn't matter. I did not suggest you did suggest banning anything, only that If people shouldn't have guns because they might accidentally kill themselves, then the same logic should apply to millions of other things. We should in fact, all become Amish. Of course your cart pulling horse might kill you too, so apparently even the Amish need to get rid of what little they have.
That's just absolutely not true. What you said there is just simply not true. You are lying.
Self-defense killings in US nearly doubled from 2000-2010 statistics show New York Post
First, off, justifyable self defense deaths (victims shooting criminals), is 326 reported, far higher than your suggested 230 shot.
So only 230 criminals were shot in justified self defense, but 326 were killed in self defense? Fewer people were shot, than how many were killed by firearms?
Second, again, you don't seem to grasp how many people routinely scare off a criminal, without firing a single round.
Laundromat employee 90 scares off robber with gun www.whio.com
Guy pulled a gun, and the criminal ran.
No shots fired. No criminal hit. No criminal killed.
When you limit it down to only people killed in a self defense shooting, verses all the ones who were shot and not killed, and all those who were shot at but not hit, and all those who were not shot at, but ran from a gun wielding citizen.... huge difference.
You can claim I'm not protecting myself, but that's only your opinion, based on a faulty interpretation of clearly dubious statistics.
But that's what a forum is about... you speaking your opinion. So here's mine.
I've now had a friend who was physically assaulted and brutalized to the point she was in the hospital. Another that was raped in her own home. I have come home to my house, to find it ransacked, and left in shambles, bedroom torn apart, all the drawers in my dress emptied, closet emptied, even the mattress pulled off the beds. There was a man at one point, who was stalking my sister.
Now perhaps you live in such a sterile upper class elite life style, where you have never had to live with the average people in the lower class of society, like I have. Perhaps you are so sheltered, and hidden away in the white bread world were there are no dangerous people, and everyone is like a monk in a monastery, greeting you with plastic smiles and pleasant peaceful small talk.
If that's really your case, great. I wish everyone had your perfectly little life. I wish everyone was all smiles and joy 24/7.
I live in the real world though, and life isn't perfect. And the fact is, there are crazy people. Do I live in complete fear all the time? Of course not. I wouldn't be able to function if I did. But am I wise in at least having a weapon, in case the horrible happens, and I need to defend myself or those around me, from a nut case? I say yes. Again, perhaps you are the lucky one who lives in such a perfect environment, that in your specific case, you in fact would be more a danger to yourself, than any criminal. If you are, then pat yourself on the back, and give yourself a gold star. More power to you.
Me.... I'm in the real world, as it actually is for us normal average people. Having a gun, isn't a failure to overcome fear. That might be true for you, but in the real world, it is simply a choice to have wise self defense.
The difference between the numbers are those who use a gun. You are taking the total number and assuming 100% are guns. All criminals killed in defense are not with a gun. And the number moves around by year obviously but is typically around 230 or so. 230 or 300 still makes the idea there are millions of defense ridiculous. You really want me to believe the more people accidently shoot and kill themselves than people kill and shoot criminals in defense?
Here is a study on defenses:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
In this study someone was shot and killed 34% of the time.
How many times have you needed a gun for defense?
"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigat a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaughter, that is reported as a murder to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorney's will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case entirely.
---------------------------Further, some of the charges, are found to be justifiable or excusable homocide by judges and juries during a trial. this is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her children from an estranged husband.9 A killing initially charged as a murder or negligent 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."
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."
At one time, it was widely believed that a fairly large percentage of defensive gun uses
might be criminals defending themselves from other criminals: marijuana growers protecting their crops, gang members de- fending themselves from other gang mem- bers, a falling out between members of a criminal enterprise. That was only specula- tion. For a long time, there was not much in the way of actual data.
Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12
There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.
In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.
In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review.
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.
Doesn't matter. I did not suggest you did suggest banning anything, only that If people shouldn't have guns because they might accidentally kill themselves, then the same logic should apply to millions of other things. We should in fact, all become Amish. Of course your cart pulling horse might kill you too, so apparently even the Amish need to get rid of what little they have.
That's just absolutely not true. What you said there is just simply not true. You are lying.
Self-defense killings in US nearly doubled from 2000-2010 statistics show New York Post
First, off, justifyable self defense deaths (victims shooting criminals), is 326 reported, far higher than your suggested 230 shot.
So only 230 criminals were shot in justified self defense, but 326 were killed in self defense? Fewer people were shot, than how many were killed by firearms?
Second, again, you don't seem to grasp how many people routinely scare off a criminal, without firing a single round.
Laundromat employee 90 scares off robber with gun www.whio.com
Guy pulled a gun, and the criminal ran.
No shots fired. No criminal hit. No criminal killed.
When you limit it down to only people killed in a self defense shooting, verses all the ones who were shot and not killed, and all those who were shot at but not hit, and all those who were not shot at, but ran from a gun wielding citizen.... huge difference.
You can claim I'm not protecting myself, but that's only your opinion, based on a faulty interpretation of clearly dubious statistics.
But that's what a forum is about... you speaking your opinion. So here's mine.
I've now had a friend who was physically assaulted and brutalized to the point she was in the hospital. Another that was raped in her own home. I have come home to my house, to find it ransacked, and left in shambles, bedroom torn apart, all the drawers in my dress emptied, closet emptied, even the mattress pulled off the beds. There was a man at one point, who was stalking my sister.
Now perhaps you live in such a sterile upper class elite life style, where you have never had to live with the average people in the lower class of society, like I have. Perhaps you are so sheltered, and hidden away in the white bread world were there are no dangerous people, and everyone is like a monk in a monastery, greeting you with plastic smiles and pleasant peaceful small talk.
If that's really your case, great. I wish everyone had your perfectly little life. I wish everyone was all smiles and joy 24/7.
I live in the real world though, and life isn't perfect. And the fact is, there are crazy people. Do I live in complete fear all the time? Of course not. I wouldn't be able to function if I did. But am I wise in at least having a weapon, in case the horrible happens, and I need to defend myself or those around me, from a nut case? I say yes. Again, perhaps you are the lucky one who lives in such a perfect environment, that in your specific case, you in fact would be more a danger to yourself, than any criminal. If you are, then pat yourself on the back, and give yourself a gold star. More power to you.
Me.... I'm in the real world, as it actually is for us normal average people. Having a gun, isn't a failure to overcome fear. That might be true for you, but in the real world, it is simply a choice to have wise self defense.
The difference between the numbers are those who use a gun. You are taking the total number and assuming 100% are guns. All criminals killed in defense are not with a gun. And the number moves around by year obviously but is typically around 230 or so. 230 or 300 still makes the idea there are millions of defense ridiculous. You really want me to believe the more people accidently shoot and kill themselves than people kill and shoot criminals in defense?
Here is a study on defenses:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
In this study someone was shot and killed 34% of the time.
How many times have you needed a gun for defense?
again...I'm not sure why you don't understand that most defensive gun uses don't involve killing the attacker.....and that killing an attacker is the smallest occurrence in self defense, the usual outcome as has just been pointed out is scaring away the attacker, next, holding the attacker at gunpoint till the police arrive, next, shooting and injuring the attacker and finally, shooting and killing the attacker.....
1) normal, law abiding people do not want to kill anyone, even criminal attackers.
2) normal, law breaking criminals do not want to get shot when they can simply run away and find another victim who doesn't have a gun.
And that "study" you point out is not a study...just a look at stories collected by the NRA "The Armed Citizen" site and from those stories how they turned out....it isn't scientific, and isn't done by a real research group.....there are no techniques to ensure quality.....look, I like "The Armed Citizen" site because it goes into detail in stories about actual people using guns for self defense....which for people who have never read stories like that prove anti gun propaganda as the myth and lies that they are......but it isn't scientific.......
If you want a better look at defensive gun uses...then you need the Cato Institute study that does the same thing, but admits its limitations, and looks at 5,000 gun stories from 2003 to 2011........I'll get it....
From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"
"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigat a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaughter, that is reported as a murder to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorney's will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case entirely.
---------------------------Further, some of the charges, are found to be justifiable or excusable homocide by judges and juries during a trial. this is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her children from an estranged husband.9 A killing initially charged as a murder or negligent 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."
They then go on to explain how this can distort numbers by siting an article from Time magazine that looked at deaths in one day and then went back to check on the cases a year later....the 14 non law enforcement justifiable homicides went up to 28 because a year later the 14 other gun crimes were found to be justifiable homicides....and at least 43 other murder cases had not gone to trial....
And they say because of this.......
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."
The Data Set
At one time, it was widely believed that a fairly large percentage of defensive gun uses
might be criminals defending themselves from other criminals: marijuana growers protecting their crops, gang members de- fending themselves from other gang mem- bers, a falling out between members of a criminal enterprise. That was only specula- tion. For a long time, there was not much in the way of actual data.
Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12
There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.
In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.
As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........
In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review.
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.
Doesn't matter. I did not suggest you did suggest banning anything, only that If people shouldn't have guns because they might accidentally kill themselves, then the same logic should apply to millions of other things. We should in fact, all become Amish. Of course your cart pulling horse might kill you too, so apparently even the Amish need to get rid of what little they have.
That's just absolutely not true. What you said there is just simply not true. You are lying.
Self-defense killings in US nearly doubled from 2000-2010 statistics show New York Post
First, off, justifyable self defense deaths (victims shooting criminals), is 326 reported, far higher than your suggested 230 shot.
So only 230 criminals were shot in justified self defense, but 326 were killed in self defense? Fewer people were shot, than how many were killed by firearms?
Second, again, you don't seem to grasp how many people routinely scare off a criminal, without firing a single round.
Laundromat employee 90 scares off robber with gun www.whio.com
Guy pulled a gun, and the criminal ran.
No shots fired. No criminal hit. No criminal killed.
When you limit it down to only people killed in a self defense shooting, verses all the ones who were shot and not killed, and all those who were shot at but not hit, and all those who were not shot at, but ran from a gun wielding citizen.... huge difference.
You can claim I'm not protecting myself, but that's only your opinion, based on a faulty interpretation of clearly dubious statistics.
But that's what a forum is about... you speaking your opinion. So here's mine.
I've now had a friend who was physically assaulted and brutalized to the point she was in the hospital. Another that was raped in her own home. I have come home to my house, to find it ransacked, and left in shambles, bedroom torn apart, all the drawers in my dress emptied, closet emptied, even the mattress pulled off the beds. There was a man at one point, who was stalking my sister.
Now perhaps you live in such a sterile upper class elite life style, where you have never had to live with the average people in the lower class of society, like I have. Perhaps you are so sheltered, and hidden away in the white bread world were there are no dangerous people, and everyone is like a monk in a monastery, greeting you with plastic smiles and pleasant peaceful small talk.
If that's really your case, great. I wish everyone had your perfectly little life. I wish everyone was all smiles and joy 24/7.
I live in the real world though, and life isn't perfect. And the fact is, there are crazy people. Do I live in complete fear all the time? Of course not. I wouldn't be able to function if I did. But am I wise in at least having a weapon, in case the horrible happens, and I need to defend myself or those around me, from a nut case? I say yes. Again, perhaps you are the lucky one who lives in such a perfect environment, that in your specific case, you in fact would be more a danger to yourself, than any criminal. If you are, then pat yourself on the back, and give yourself a gold star. More power to you.
Me.... I'm in the real world, as it actually is for us normal average people. Having a gun, isn't a failure to overcome fear. That might be true for you, but in the real world, it is simply a choice to have wise self defense.
The difference between the numbers are those who use a gun. You are taking the total number and assuming 100% are guns. All criminals killed in defense are not with a gun. And the number moves around by year obviously but is typically around 230 or so. 230 or 300 still makes the idea there are millions of defense ridiculous. You really want me to believe the more people accidently shoot and kill themselves than people kill and shoot criminals in defense?
Here is a study on defenses:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
In this study someone was shot and killed 34% of the time.
How many times have you needed a gun for defense?
again...I'm not sure why you don't understand that most defensive gun uses don't involve killing the attacker.....and that killing an attacker is the smallest occurrence in self defense, the usual outcome as has just been pointed out is scaring away the attacker, next, holding the attacker at gunpoint till the police arrive, next, shooting and injuring the attacker and finally, shooting and killing the attacker.....
1) normal, law abiding people do not want to kill anyone, even criminal attackers.
2) normal, law breaking criminals do not want to get shot when they can simply run away and find another victim who doesn't have a gun.
And that "study" you point out is not a study...just a look at stories collected by the NRA "The Armed Citizen" site and from those stories how they turned out....it isn't scientific, and isn't done by a real research group.....there are no techniques to ensure quality.....look, I like "The Armed Citizen" site because it goes into detail in stories about actual people using guns for self defense....which for people who have never read stories like that prove anti gun propaganda as the myth and lies that they are......but it isn't scientific.......
If you want a better look at defensive gun uses...then you need the Cato Institute study that does the same thing, but admits its limitations, and looks at 5,000 gun stories from 2003 to 2011........I'll get it....
From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"
"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigat a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaughter, that is reported as a murder to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorney's will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case entirely.
---------------------------Further, some of the charges, are found to be justifiable or excusable homocide by judges and juries during a trial. this is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her children from an estranged husband.9 A killing initially charged as a murder or negligent 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."
They then go on to explain how this can distort numbers by siting an article from Time magazine that looked at deaths in one day and then went back to check on the cases a year later....the 14 non law enforcement justifiable homicides went up to 28 because a year later the 14 other gun crimes were found to be justifiable homicides....and at least 43 other murder cases had not gone to trial....
And they say because of this.......
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."
The Data Set
At one time, it was widely believed that a fairly large percentage of defensive gun uses
might be criminals defending themselves from other criminals: marijuana growers protecting their crops, gang members de- fending themselves from other gang mem- bers, a falling out between members of a criminal enterprise. That was only specula- tion. For a long time, there was not much in the way of actual data.
Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12
There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.
In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.
As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........
In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review.
The Cato institute is a right wing pro gun group and I have debunked their study for you already.
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.
Doesn't matter. I did not suggest you did suggest banning anything, only that If people shouldn't have guns because they might accidentally kill themselves, then the same logic should apply to millions of other things. We should in fact, all become Amish. Of course your cart pulling horse might kill you too, so apparently even the Amish need to get rid of what little they have.
That's just absolutely not true. What you said there is just simply not true. You are lying.
Self-defense killings in US nearly doubled from 2000-2010 statistics show New York Post
First, off, justifyable self defense deaths (victims shooting criminals), is 326 reported, far higher than your suggested 230 shot.
So only 230 criminals were shot in justified self defense, but 326 were killed in self defense? Fewer people were shot, than how many were killed by firearms?
Second, again, you don't seem to grasp how many people routinely scare off a criminal, without firing a single round.
Laundromat employee 90 scares off robber with gun www.whio.com
Guy pulled a gun, and the criminal ran.
No shots fired. No criminal hit. No criminal killed.
When you limit it down to only people killed in a self defense shooting, verses all the ones who were shot and not killed, and all those who were shot at but not hit, and all those who were not shot at, but ran from a gun wielding citizen.... huge difference.
You can claim I'm not protecting myself, but that's only your opinion, based on a faulty interpretation of clearly dubious statistics.
But that's what a forum is about... you speaking your opinion. So here's mine.
I've now had a friend who was physically assaulted and brutalized to the point she was in the hospital. Another that was raped in her own home. I have come home to my house, to find it ransacked, and left in shambles, bedroom torn apart, all the drawers in my dress emptied, closet emptied, even the mattress pulled off the beds. There was a man at one point, who was stalking my sister.
Now perhaps you live in such a sterile upper class elite life style, where you have never had to live with the average people in the lower class of society, like I have. Perhaps you are so sheltered, and hidden away in the white bread world were there are no dangerous people, and everyone is like a monk in a monastery, greeting you with plastic smiles and pleasant peaceful small talk.
If that's really your case, great. I wish everyone had your perfectly little life. I wish everyone was all smiles and joy 24/7.
I live in the real world though, and life isn't perfect. And the fact is, there are crazy people. Do I live in complete fear all the time? Of course not. I wouldn't be able to function if I did. But am I wise in at least having a weapon, in case the horrible happens, and I need to defend myself or those around me, from a nut case? I say yes. Again, perhaps you are the lucky one who lives in such a perfect environment, that in your specific case, you in fact would be more a danger to yourself, than any criminal. If you are, then pat yourself on the back, and give yourself a gold star. More power to you.
Me.... I'm in the real world, as it actually is for us normal average people. Having a gun, isn't a failure to overcome fear. That might be true for you, but in the real world, it is simply a choice to have wise self defense.
The difference between the numbers are those who use a gun. You are taking the total number and assuming 100% are guns. All criminals killed in defense are not with a gun. And the number moves around by year obviously but is typically around 230 or so. 230 or 300 still makes the idea there are millions of defense ridiculous. You really want me to believe the more people accidently shoot and kill themselves than people kill and shoot criminals in defense?
Here is a study on defenses:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
In this study someone was shot and killed 34% of the time.
How many times have you needed a gun for defense?
The Armed Citizen – A Five Year Analysis
Overview
For the period 1997 – 2001, reports from “The Armed Citizen” column of the NRA Journals were collected. There were 482 incidents available for inclusion in the analysis. All involved the use of firearms by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. No law enforcement related incidents were included. The database is self-selecting in that no non-positive outcomes were reported in the column.
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.
Doesn't matter. I did not suggest you did suggest banning anything, only that If people shouldn't have guns because they might accidentally kill themselves, then the same logic should apply to millions of other things. We should in fact, all become Amish. Of course your cart pulling horse might kill you too, so apparently even the Amish need to get rid of what little they have.
That's just absolutely not true. What you said there is just simply not true. You are lying.
Self-defense killings in US nearly doubled from 2000-2010 statistics show New York Post
First, off, justifyable self defense deaths (victims shooting criminals), is 326 reported, far higher than your suggested 230 shot.
So only 230 criminals were shot in justified self defense, but 326 were killed in self defense? Fewer people were shot, than how many were killed by firearms?
Second, again, you don't seem to grasp how many people routinely scare off a criminal, without firing a single round.
Laundromat employee 90 scares off robber with gun www.whio.com
Guy pulled a gun, and the criminal ran.
No shots fired. No criminal hit. No criminal killed.
When you limit it down to only people killed in a self defense shooting, verses all the ones who were shot and not killed, and all those who were shot at but not hit, and all those who were not shot at, but ran from a gun wielding citizen.... huge difference.
You can claim I'm not protecting myself, but that's only your opinion, based on a faulty interpretation of clearly dubious statistics.
But that's what a forum is about... you speaking your opinion. So here's mine.
I've now had a friend who was physically assaulted and brutalized to the point she was in the hospital. Another that was raped in her own home. I have come home to my house, to find it ransacked, and left in shambles, bedroom torn apart, all the drawers in my dress emptied, closet emptied, even the mattress pulled off the beds. There was a man at one point, who was stalking my sister.
Now perhaps you live in such a sterile upper class elite life style, where you have never had to live with the average people in the lower class of society, like I have. Perhaps you are so sheltered, and hidden away in the white bread world were there are no dangerous people, and everyone is like a monk in a monastery, greeting you with plastic smiles and pleasant peaceful small talk.
If that's really your case, great. I wish everyone had your perfectly little life. I wish everyone was all smiles and joy 24/7.
I live in the real world though, and life isn't perfect. And the fact is, there are crazy people. Do I live in complete fear all the time? Of course not. I wouldn't be able to function if I did. But am I wise in at least having a weapon, in case the horrible happens, and I need to defend myself or those around me, from a nut case? I say yes. Again, perhaps you are the lucky one who lives in such a perfect environment, that in your specific case, you in fact would be more a danger to yourself, than any criminal. If you are, then pat yourself on the back, and give yourself a gold star. More power to you.
Me.... I'm in the real world, as it actually is for us normal average people. Having a gun, isn't a failure to overcome fear. That might be true for you, but in the real world, it is simply a choice to have wise self defense.
The difference between the numbers are those who use a gun. You are taking the total number and assuming 100% are guns. All criminals killed in defense are not with a gun. And the number moves around by year obviously but is typically around 230 or so. 230 or 300 still makes the idea there are millions of defense ridiculous. You really want me to believe the more people accidently shoot and kill themselves than people kill and shoot criminals in defense?
Here is a study on defenses:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
In this study someone was shot and killed 34% of the time.
How many times have you needed a gun for defense?
again...I'm not sure why you don't understand that most defensive gun uses don't involve killing the attacker.....and that killing an attacker is the smallest occurrence in self defense, the usual outcome as has just been pointed out is scaring away the attacker, next, holding the attacker at gunpoint till the police arrive, next, shooting and injuring the attacker and finally, shooting and killing the attacker.....
1) normal, law abiding people do not want to kill anyone, even criminal attackers.
2) normal, law breaking criminals do not want to get shot when they can simply run away and find another victim who doesn't have a gun.
And that "study" you point out is not a study...just a look at stories collected by the NRA "The Armed Citizen" site and from those stories how they turned out....it isn't scientific, and isn't done by a real research group.....there are no techniques to ensure quality.....look, I like "The Armed Citizen" site because it goes into detail in stories about actual people using guns for self defense....which for people who have never read stories like that prove anti gun propaganda as the myth and lies that they are......but it isn't scientific.......
If you want a better look at defensive gun uses...then you need the Cato Institute study that does the same thing, but admits its limitations, and looks at 5,000 gun stories from 2003 to 2011........I'll get it....
From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"
"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigat a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaughter, that is reported as a murder to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorney's will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case entirely.
---------------------------Further, some of the charges, are found to be justifiable or excusable homocide by judges and juries during a trial. this is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her children from an estranged husband.9 A killing initially charged as a murder or negligent 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."
They then go on to explain how this can distort numbers by siting an article from Time magazine that looked at deaths in one day and then went back to check on the cases a year later....the 14 non law enforcement justifiable homicides went up to 28 because a year later the 14 other gun crimes were found to be justifiable homicides....and at least 43 other murder cases had not gone to trial....
And they say because of this.......
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."
The Data Set
At one time, it was widely believed that a fairly large percentage of defensive gun uses
might be criminals defending themselves from other criminals: marijuana growers protecting their crops, gang members de- fending themselves from other gang mem- bers, a falling out between members of a criminal enterprise. That was only specula- tion. For a long time, there was not much in the way of actual data.
Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12
There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.
In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.
As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........
In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review.
The Cato institute is a right wing pro gun group and I have debunked their study for you already.
The Cato institute is a right wing pro gun group and I have debunked their study for you already
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.
Doesn't matter. I did not suggest you did suggest banning anything, only that If people shouldn't have guns because they might accidentally kill themselves, then the same logic should apply to millions of other things. We should in fact, all become Amish. Of course your cart pulling horse might kill you too, so apparently even the Amish need to get rid of what little they have.
That's just absolutely not true. What you said there is just simply not true. You are lying.
Self-defense killings in US nearly doubled from 2000-2010 statistics show New York Post
First, off, justifyable self defense deaths (victims shooting criminals), is 326 reported, far higher than your suggested 230 shot.
So only 230 criminals were shot in justified self defense, but 326 were killed in self defense? Fewer people were shot, than how many were killed by firearms?
Second, again, you don't seem to grasp how many people routinely scare off a criminal, without firing a single round.
Laundromat employee 90 scares off robber with gun www.whio.com
Guy pulled a gun, and the criminal ran.
No shots fired. No criminal hit. No criminal killed.
When you limit it down to only people killed in a self defense shooting, verses all the ones who were shot and not killed, and all those who were shot at but not hit, and all those who were not shot at, but ran from a gun wielding citizen.... huge difference.
You can claim I'm not protecting myself, but that's only your opinion, based on a faulty interpretation of clearly dubious statistics.
But that's what a forum is about... you speaking your opinion. So here's mine.
I've now had a friend who was physically assaulted and brutalized to the point she was in the hospital. Another that was raped in her own home. I have come home to my house, to find it ransacked, and left in shambles, bedroom torn apart, all the drawers in my dress emptied, closet emptied, even the mattress pulled off the beds. There was a man at one point, who was stalking my sister.
Now perhaps you live in such a sterile upper class elite life style, where you have never had to live with the average people in the lower class of society, like I have. Perhaps you are so sheltered, and hidden away in the white bread world were there are no dangerous people, and everyone is like a monk in a monastery, greeting you with plastic smiles and pleasant peaceful small talk.
If that's really your case, great. I wish everyone had your perfectly little life. I wish everyone was all smiles and joy 24/7.
I live in the real world though, and life isn't perfect. And the fact is, there are crazy people. Do I live in complete fear all the time? Of course not. I wouldn't be able to function if I did. But am I wise in at least having a weapon, in case the horrible happens, and I need to defend myself or those around me, from a nut case? I say yes. Again, perhaps you are the lucky one who lives in such a perfect environment, that in your specific case, you in fact would be more a danger to yourself, than any criminal. If you are, then pat yourself on the back, and give yourself a gold star. More power to you.
Me.... I'm in the real world, as it actually is for us normal average people. Having a gun, isn't a failure to overcome fear. That might be true for you, but in the real world, it is simply a choice to have wise self defense.
The difference between the numbers are those who use a gun. You are taking the total number and assuming 100% are guns. All criminals killed in defense are not with a gun. And the number moves around by year obviously but is typically around 230 or so. 230 or 300 still makes the idea there are millions of defense ridiculous. You really want me to believe the more people accidently shoot and kill themselves than people kill and shoot criminals in defense?
Here is a study on defenses:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
In this study someone was shot and killed 34% of the time.
How many times have you needed a gun for defense?
again...I'm not sure why you don't understand that most defensive gun uses don't involve killing the attacker.....and that killing an attacker is the smallest occurrence in self defense, the usual outcome as has just been pointed out is scaring away the attacker, next, holding the attacker at gunpoint till the police arrive, next, shooting and injuring the attacker and finally, shooting and killing the attacker.....
1) normal, law abiding people do not want to kill anyone, even criminal attackers.
2) normal, law breaking criminals do not want to get shot when they can simply run away and find another victim who doesn't have a gun.
And that "study" you point out is not a study...just a look at stories collected by the NRA "The Armed Citizen" site and from those stories how they turned out....it isn't scientific, and isn't done by a real research group.....there are no techniques to ensure quality.....look, I like "The Armed Citizen" site because it goes into detail in stories about actual people using guns for self defense....which for people who have never read stories like that prove anti gun propaganda as the myth and lies that they are......but it isn't scientific.......
If you want a better look at defensive gun uses...then you need the Cato Institute study that does the same thing, but admits its limitations, and looks at 5,000 gun stories from 2003 to 2011........I'll get it....
From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"
"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigat a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaughter, that is reported as a murder to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorney's will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case entirely.
---------------------------Further, some of the charges, are found to be justifiable or excusable homocide by judges and juries during a trial. this is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her children from an estranged husband.9 A killing initially charged as a murder or negligent 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."
They then go on to explain how this can distort numbers by siting an article from Time magazine that looked at deaths in one day and then went back to check on the cases a year later....the 14 non law enforcement justifiable homicides went up to 28 because a year later the 14 other gun crimes were found to be justifiable homicides....and at least 43 other murder cases had not gone to trial....
And they say because of this.......
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."
The Data Set
At one time, it was widely believed that a fairly large percentage of defensive gun uses
might be criminals defending themselves from other criminals: marijuana growers protecting their crops, gang members de- fending themselves from other gang mem- bers, a falling out between members of a criminal enterprise. That was only specula- tion. For a long time, there was not much in the way of actual data.
Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12
There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.
In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.
As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........
In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review.
The Cato institute is a right wing pro gun group and I have debunked their study for you already.
Brain....you need more rest....the research you are quoting from....comes from the NRA....a right wing gun rights group.....
You do realize that don't you.....the "Armed Citizen" is an NRA collection site......you realize that...right.....?
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.
Doesn't matter. I did not suggest you did suggest banning anything, only that If people shouldn't have guns because they might accidentally kill themselves, then the same logic should apply to millions of other things. We should in fact, all become Amish. Of course your cart pulling horse might kill you too, so apparently even the Amish need to get rid of what little they have.
That's just absolutely not true. What you said there is just simply not true. You are lying.
Self-defense killings in US nearly doubled from 2000-2010 statistics show New York Post
First, off, justifyable self defense deaths (victims shooting criminals), is 326 reported, far higher than your suggested 230 shot.
So only 230 criminals were shot in justified self defense, but 326 were killed in self defense? Fewer people were shot, than how many were killed by firearms?
Second, again, you don't seem to grasp how many people routinely scare off a criminal, without firing a single round.
Laundromat employee 90 scares off robber with gun www.whio.com
Guy pulled a gun, and the criminal ran.
No shots fired. No criminal hit. No criminal killed.
When you limit it down to only people killed in a self defense shooting, verses all the ones who were shot and not killed, and all those who were shot at but not hit, and all those who were not shot at, but ran from a gun wielding citizen.... huge difference.
You can claim I'm not protecting myself, but that's only your opinion, based on a faulty interpretation of clearly dubious statistics.
But that's what a forum is about... you speaking your opinion. So here's mine.
I've now had a friend who was physically assaulted and brutalized to the point she was in the hospital. Another that was raped in her own home. I have come home to my house, to find it ransacked, and left in shambles, bedroom torn apart, all the drawers in my dress emptied, closet emptied, even the mattress pulled off the beds. There was a man at one point, who was stalking my sister.
Now perhaps you live in such a sterile upper class elite life style, where you have never had to live with the average people in the lower class of society, like I have. Perhaps you are so sheltered, and hidden away in the white bread world were there are no dangerous people, and everyone is like a monk in a monastery, greeting you with plastic smiles and pleasant peaceful small talk.
If that's really your case, great. I wish everyone had your perfectly little life. I wish everyone was all smiles and joy 24/7.
I live in the real world though, and life isn't perfect. And the fact is, there are crazy people. Do I live in complete fear all the time? Of course not. I wouldn't be able to function if I did. But am I wise in at least having a weapon, in case the horrible happens, and I need to defend myself or those around me, from a nut case? I say yes. Again, perhaps you are the lucky one who lives in such a perfect environment, that in your specific case, you in fact would be more a danger to yourself, than any criminal. If you are, then pat yourself on the back, and give yourself a gold star. More power to you.
Me.... I'm in the real world, as it actually is for us normal average people. Having a gun, isn't a failure to overcome fear. That might be true for you, but in the real world, it is simply a choice to have wise self defense.
The difference between the numbers are those who use a gun. You are taking the total number and assuming 100% are guns. All criminals killed in defense are not with a gun. And the number moves around by year obviously but is typically around 230 or so. 230 or 300 still makes the idea there are millions of defense ridiculous. You really want me to believe the more people accidently shoot and kill themselves than people kill and shoot criminals in defense?
Here is a study on defenses:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
In this study someone was shot and killed 34% of the time.
How many times have you needed a gun for defense?
Brain.....this is your link....
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
And it takes it's stories that it collected from the stories the NRA collected in the Armed Citizen.....so the number is 482 incidents.....
how is the Cato institute, an independent think tank different from the NRA, a pro gun group...now keep in mind...I support both groups...but again...they are only looking at gun self defense studies that made it into the mainstream media.......so it isn't accurate for the overall picture of self defense and guns...
Get some rest Brain....
The Armed Citizen – A Five Year Analysis
Overview
For the period 1997 – 2001, reports from “The Armed Citizen” column of the NRA Journals were collected. There were 482 incidents available for inclusion in the analysis. All involved the use of firearms by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. No law enforcement related incidents were included. The database is self-selecting in that no non-positive outcomes were reported in the column.
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.
Doesn't matter. I did not suggest you did suggest banning anything, only that If people shouldn't have guns because they might accidentally kill themselves, then the same logic should apply to millions of other things. We should in fact, all become Amish. Of course your cart pulling horse might kill you too, so apparently even the Amish need to get rid of what little they have.
That's just absolutely not true. What you said there is just simply not true. You are lying.
Self-defense killings in US nearly doubled from 2000-2010 statistics show New York Post
First, off, justifyable self defense deaths (victims shooting criminals), is 326 reported, far higher than your suggested 230 shot.
So only 230 criminals were shot in justified self defense, but 326 were killed in self defense? Fewer people were shot, than how many were killed by firearms?
Second, again, you don't seem to grasp how many people routinely scare off a criminal, without firing a single round.
Laundromat employee 90 scares off robber with gun www.whio.com
Guy pulled a gun, and the criminal ran.
No shots fired. No criminal hit. No criminal killed.
When you limit it down to only people killed in a self defense shooting, verses all the ones who were shot and not killed, and all those who were shot at but not hit, and all those who were not shot at, but ran from a gun wielding citizen.... huge difference.
You can claim I'm not protecting myself, but that's only your opinion, based on a faulty interpretation of clearly dubious statistics.
But that's what a forum is about... you speaking your opinion. So here's mine.
I've now had a friend who was physically assaulted and brutalized to the point she was in the hospital. Another that was raped in her own home. I have come home to my house, to find it ransacked, and left in shambles, bedroom torn apart, all the drawers in my dress emptied, closet emptied, even the mattress pulled off the beds. There was a man at one point, who was stalking my sister.
Now perhaps you live in such a sterile upper class elite life style, where you have never had to live with the average people in the lower class of society, like I have. Perhaps you are so sheltered, and hidden away in the white bread world were there are no dangerous people, and everyone is like a monk in a monastery, greeting you with plastic smiles and pleasant peaceful small talk.
If that's really your case, great. I wish everyone had your perfectly little life. I wish everyone was all smiles and joy 24/7.
I live in the real world though, and life isn't perfect. And the fact is, there are crazy people. Do I live in complete fear all the time? Of course not. I wouldn't be able to function if I did. But am I wise in at least having a weapon, in case the horrible happens, and I need to defend myself or those around me, from a nut case? I say yes. Again, perhaps you are the lucky one who lives in such a perfect environment, that in your specific case, you in fact would be more a danger to yourself, than any criminal. If you are, then pat yourself on the back, and give yourself a gold star. More power to you.
Me.... I'm in the real world, as it actually is for us normal average people. Having a gun, isn't a failure to overcome fear. That might be true for you, but in the real world, it is simply a choice to have wise self defense.
The difference between the numbers are those who use a gun. You are taking the total number and assuming 100% are guns. All criminals killed in defense are not with a gun. And the number moves around by year obviously but is typically around 230 or so. 230 or 300 still makes the idea there are millions of defense ridiculous. You really want me to believe the more people accidently shoot and kill themselves than people kill and shoot criminals in defense?
Here is a study on defenses:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
In this study someone was shot and killed 34% of the time.
How many times have you needed a gun for defense?
again...I'm not sure why you don't understand that most defensive gun uses don't involve killing the attacker.....and that killing an attacker is the smallest occurrence in self defense, the usual outcome as has just been pointed out is scaring away the attacker, next, holding the attacker at gunpoint till the police arrive, next, shooting and injuring the attacker and finally, shooting and killing the attacker.....
1) normal, law abiding people do not want to kill anyone, even criminal attackers.
2) normal, law breaking criminals do not want to get shot when they can simply run away and find another victim who doesn't have a gun.
And that "study" you point out is not a study...just a look at stories collected by the NRA "The Armed Citizen" site and from those stories how they turned out....it isn't scientific, and isn't done by a real research group.....there are no techniques to ensure quality.....look, I like "The Armed Citizen" site because it goes into detail in stories about actual people using guns for self defense....which for people who have never read stories like that prove anti gun propaganda as the myth and lies that they are......but it isn't scientific.......
If you want a better look at defensive gun uses...then you need the Cato Institute study that does the same thing, but admits its limitations, and looks at 5,000 gun stories from 2003 to 2011........I'll get it....
From the book, or White Paper from CATO...."Tough Targets"
"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigat a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaughter, that is reported as a murder to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorney's will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case entirely.
---------------------------Further, some of the charges, are found to be justifiable or excusable homocide by judges and juries during a trial. this is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her children from an estranged husband.9 A killing initially charged as a murder or negligent 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."
They then go on to explain how this can distort numbers by siting an article from Time magazine that looked at deaths in one day and then went back to check on the cases a year later....the 14 non law enforcement justifiable homicides went up to 28 because a year later the 14 other gun crimes were found to be justifiable homicides....and at least 43 other murder cases had not gone to trial....
And they say because of this.......
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf"clearly, the FBI justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaningful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death-and is useless for understanding the vastly larger number of defensive gun uses that do not result in death."
The Data Set
At one time, it was widely believed that a fairly large percentage of defensive gun uses
might be criminals defending themselves from other criminals: marijuana growers protecting their crops, gang members de- fending themselves from other gang mem- bers, a falling out between members of a criminal enterprise. That was only specula- tion. For a long time, there was not much in the way of actual data.
Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12
There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.
In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.
As to wether they included criminals using guns defensively........
In a few instances, we have includ- ed cases where the initial news reports were clearly of legitimate defensive gun uses, but where law enforcement or a prosecutor chose to charge a gun owner.
Those are relatively rare; when there was any doubt as to whether a use of a gun might be criminal, it was not included in our list of news accounts until such time as there was confirmation that the defensive gun use was deemed lawful. In only a handful of cases did later investiga- tion turn an initial defensive gun use into a criminalcharge.Themostcommonscenario is that law enforcement officers chose not to prosecute based on the evidence at the scene and testimony of witnesses, but referred the case to a grand jury for review.
The Cato institute is a right wing pro gun group and I have debunked their study for you already.
The Cato institute is a right wing pro gun group and I have debunked their study for you already
Brain...there is nothing to debunk here.....they simply look at 5,000 news stories between 2003 and 2011 and make observations about them, and admit what they are doing is limited in scope....again...nothing to debunk...especially if you are using the NRA "The Armed Citizen."..They do however point out some relevant flaws to the FBI homicide table....and other observations about the National Crime Victimization Survey.....
The fact is I have been a gun owner since i was 16 and am now 47 and have never once been the victim of a firearm accident.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.
Her being stupid was a bad idea.
And what makes you think people want you to warn them about their life choices? WHat other people do is none of your business
I very rarely carry a gun but I have the option. My weapons are more for home defense than anything else because where I live it would take the cops at least 30 minutes if not more to respond. I'm not fearful of a break in but I am prepared nonetheless. You aren't and that's your choice.
You live in fear of accidents. FYI accidents are the leading cause of death in people under the age of 45.
Some people on here act like you need to carry to be safe. I just give the other side of the story. I don't see why gun people are so offended by statistics, surveys, and studies. Do you prefer to be blind to the facts?
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.
Doesn't matter. I did not suggest you did suggest banning anything, only that If people shouldn't have guns because they might accidentally kill themselves, then the same logic should apply to millions of other things. We should in fact, all become Amish. Of course your cart pulling horse might kill you too, so apparently even the Amish need to get rid of what little they have.
That's just absolutely not true. What you said there is just simply not true. You are lying.
Self-defense killings in US nearly doubled from 2000-2010 statistics show New York Post
First, off, justifyable self defense deaths (victims shooting criminals), is 326 reported, far higher than your suggested 230 shot.
So only 230 criminals were shot in justified self defense, but 326 were killed in self defense? Fewer people were shot, than how many were killed by firearms?
Second, again, you don't seem to grasp how many people routinely scare off a criminal, without firing a single round.
Laundromat employee 90 scares off robber with gun www.whio.com
Guy pulled a gun, and the criminal ran.
No shots fired. No criminal hit. No criminal killed.
When you limit it down to only people killed in a self defense shooting, verses all the ones who were shot and not killed, and all those who were shot at but not hit, and all those who were not shot at, but ran from a gun wielding citizen.... huge difference.
You can claim I'm not protecting myself, but that's only your opinion, based on a faulty interpretation of clearly dubious statistics.
But that's what a forum is about... you speaking your opinion. So here's mine.
I've now had a friend who was physically assaulted and brutalized to the point she was in the hospital. Another that was raped in her own home. I have come home to my house, to find it ransacked, and left in shambles, bedroom torn apart, all the drawers in my dress emptied, closet emptied, even the mattress pulled off the beds. There was a man at one point, who was stalking my sister.
Now perhaps you live in such a sterile upper class elite life style, where you have never had to live with the average people in the lower class of society, like I have. Perhaps you are so sheltered, and hidden away in the white bread world were there are no dangerous people, and everyone is like a monk in a monastery, greeting you with plastic smiles and pleasant peaceful small talk.
If that's really your case, great. I wish everyone had your perfectly little life. I wish everyone was all smiles and joy 24/7.
I live in the real world though, and life isn't perfect. And the fact is, there are crazy people. Do I live in complete fear all the time? Of course not. I wouldn't be able to function if I did. But am I wise in at least having a weapon, in case the horrible happens, and I need to defend myself or those around me, from a nut case? I say yes. Again, perhaps you are the lucky one who lives in such a perfect environment, that in your specific case, you in fact would be more a danger to yourself, than any criminal. If you are, then pat yourself on the back, and give yourself a gold star. More power to you.
Me.... I'm in the real world, as it actually is for us normal average people. Having a gun, isn't a failure to overcome fear. That might be true for you, but in the real world, it is simply a choice to have wise self defense.
The difference between the numbers are those who use a gun. You are taking the total number and assuming 100% are guns. All criminals killed in defense are not with a gun. And the number moves around by year obviously but is typically around 230 or so. 230 or 300 still makes the idea there are millions of defense ridiculous. You really want me to believe the more people accidently shoot and kill themselves than people kill and shoot criminals in defense?
Here is a study on defenses:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
In this study someone was shot and killed 34% of the time.
How many times have you needed a gun for defense?
Brain.....this is your link....
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
And it takes it's stories that it collected from the stories the NRA collected in the Armed Citizen.....so the number is 482 incidents.....
how is the Cato institute, an independent think tank different from the NRA, a pro gun group...now keep in mind...I support both groups...but again...they are only looking at gun self defense studies that made it into the mainstream media.......so it isn't accurate for the overall picture of self defense and guns...
Get some rest Brain....
The Armed Citizen – A Five Year Analysis
Overview
For the period 1997 – 2001, reports from “The Armed Citizen” column of the NRA Journals were collected. There were 482 incidents available for inclusion in the analysis. All involved the use of firearms by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. No law enforcement related incidents were included. The database is self-selecting in that no non-positive outcomes were reported in the column.
The difference is the objective. The Armed Citizen is reviewing them and showing the collective data. The Cato institute is trying to prove that most defenses aren't by criminals. Now if you want to do that the best way would be to use news articles. The least likely people to report a defense would be those who are involved in criminal activity so they are using a sample they know will have few instances. It is not honest.
The fact is I have been a gun owner since i was 16 and am now 47 and have never once been the victim of a firearm accident.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.
Her being stupid was a bad idea.
And what makes you think people want you to warn them about their life choices? WHat other people do is none of your business
I very rarely carry a gun but I have the option. My weapons are more for home defense than anything else because where I live it would take the cops at least 30 minutes if not more to respond. I'm not fearful of a break in but I am prepared nonetheless. You aren't and that's your choice.
You live in fear of accidents. FYI accidents are the leading cause of death in people under the age of 45.
Some people on here act like you need to carry to be safe. I just give the other side of the story. I don't see why gun people are so offended by statistics, surveys, and studies. Do you prefer to be blind to the facts?
I have been in several car accidents one where I was driving and 3 when someone else was driving. As far as I'm concerned and based on my life experience my guns are safer than any cars yet I still choose to drive and ride in automobiles
Those are my stats and facts. I choose to live by those numbers and not yours.
If you want to live your life by studies and statistics rather than by your own choices that's up to you.
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.
Doesn't matter. I did not suggest you did suggest banning anything, only that If people shouldn't have guns because they might accidentally kill themselves, then the same logic should apply to millions of other things. We should in fact, all become Amish. Of course your cart pulling horse might kill you too, so apparently even the Amish need to get rid of what little they have.
That's just absolutely not true. What you said there is just simply not true. You are lying.
Self-defense killings in US nearly doubled from 2000-2010 statistics show New York Post
First, off, justifyable self defense deaths (victims shooting criminals), is 326 reported, far higher than your suggested 230 shot.
So only 230 criminals were shot in justified self defense, but 326 were killed in self defense? Fewer people were shot, than how many were killed by firearms?
Second, again, you don't seem to grasp how many people routinely scare off a criminal, without firing a single round.
Laundromat employee 90 scares off robber with gun www.whio.com
Guy pulled a gun, and the criminal ran.
No shots fired. No criminal hit. No criminal killed.
When you limit it down to only people killed in a self defense shooting, verses all the ones who were shot and not killed, and all those who were shot at but not hit, and all those who were not shot at, but ran from a gun wielding citizen.... huge difference.
You can claim I'm not protecting myself, but that's only your opinion, based on a faulty interpretation of clearly dubious statistics.
But that's what a forum is about... you speaking your opinion. So here's mine.
I've now had a friend who was physically assaulted and brutalized to the point she was in the hospital. Another that was raped in her own home. I have come home to my house, to find it ransacked, and left in shambles, bedroom torn apart, all the drawers in my dress emptied, closet emptied, even the mattress pulled off the beds. There was a man at one point, who was stalking my sister.
Now perhaps you live in such a sterile upper class elite life style, where you have never had to live with the average people in the lower class of society, like I have. Perhaps you are so sheltered, and hidden away in the white bread world were there are no dangerous people, and everyone is like a monk in a monastery, greeting you with plastic smiles and pleasant peaceful small talk.
If that's really your case, great. I wish everyone had your perfectly little life. I wish everyone was all smiles and joy 24/7.
I live in the real world though, and life isn't perfect. And the fact is, there are crazy people. Do I live in complete fear all the time? Of course not. I wouldn't be able to function if I did. But am I wise in at least having a weapon, in case the horrible happens, and I need to defend myself or those around me, from a nut case? I say yes. Again, perhaps you are the lucky one who lives in such a perfect environment, that in your specific case, you in fact would be more a danger to yourself, than any criminal. If you are, then pat yourself on the back, and give yourself a gold star. More power to you.
Me.... I'm in the real world, as it actually is for us normal average people. Having a gun, isn't a failure to overcome fear. That might be true for you, but in the real world, it is simply a choice to have wise self defense.
The difference between the numbers are those who use a gun. You are taking the total number and assuming 100% are guns. All criminals killed in defense are not with a gun. And the number moves around by year obviously but is typically around 230 or so. 230 or 300 still makes the idea there are millions of defense ridiculous. You really want me to believe the more people accidently shoot and kill themselves than people kill and shoot criminals in defense?
Here is a study on defenses:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
In this study someone was shot and killed 34% of the time.
How many times have you needed a gun for defense?
Brain.....this is your link....
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
And it takes it's stories that it collected from the stories the NRA collected in the Armed Citizen.....so the number is 482 incidents.....
how is the Cato institute, an independent think tank different from the NRA, a pro gun group...now keep in mind...I support both groups...but again...they are only looking at gun self defense studies that made it into the mainstream media.......so it isn't accurate for the overall picture of self defense and guns...
Get some rest Brain....
The Armed Citizen – A Five Year Analysis
Overview
For the period 1997 – 2001, reports from “The Armed Citizen” column of the NRA Journals were collected. There were 482 incidents available for inclusion in the analysis. All involved the use of firearms by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. No law enforcement related incidents were included. The database is self-selecting in that no non-positive outcomes were reported in the column.
The difference is the objective. The Armed Citizen is reviewing them and showing the collective data. The Cato institute is trying to prove that most defenses aren't by criminals. Now if you want to do that the best way would be to use news articles. The least likely people to report a defense would be those who are involved in criminal activity so they are using a sample they know will have few instances. It is not honest.
Actually, no...they are doing the same thing that the NRA collection is doing, they just do more general info. as well.....
The fact is I have been a gun owner since i was 16 and am now 47 and have never once been the victim of a firearm accident.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.
Her being stupid was a bad idea.
And what makes you think people want you to warn them about their life choices? WHat other people do is none of your business
I very rarely carry a gun but I have the option. My weapons are more for home defense than anything else because where I live it would take the cops at least 30 minutes if not more to respond. I'm not fearful of a break in but I am prepared nonetheless. You aren't and that's your choice.
You live in fear of accidents. FYI accidents are the leading cause of death in people under the age of 45.
Some people on here act like you need to carry to be safe. I just give the other side of the story. I don't see why gun people are so offended by statistics, surveys, and studies. Do you prefer to be blind to the facts?
I have been in several car accidents one where I was driving and 3 when someone else was driving. As far as I'm concerned and based on my life experience my guns are safer than any cars yet I still choose to drive and ride in automobiles
Those are my stats and facts. I choose to live by those numbers and not yours.
If you want to live your life by studies and statistics rather than by your own choices that's up to you.
How man hours do you think you have spent driving compared to the number of hours spent shooting?
I realize my own experience is very limited. Based on my own experience it would be an easy choice. I have never needed a gun, nor has my family or friends. But obviously some people have so I am still interested in the stats.
