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.
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 sample for the NRA study is valid for the purpose of the study. The Cato institute is purposely using a sample to arrive at the answer they want. This would be like me doing a survey on gun ownership and only calling democrats.
When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender’s initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters.
Reloading was required in only 3 incidents. One of those involved killing an escaped lion with a .32 caliber revolver, which was eventually successful after 13 shots.
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 sample for the NRA study is valid for the purpose of the study. The Cato institute is purposely using a sample to arrive at the answer they want. This would be like me doing a survey on gun ownership and only calling democrats.
Brain...the NRA "The Armed Citizen" research isn't even trying to do what you claim...they are simply taking these stories and looking at what they point out about the gun fights they represent.....could someone else please explain this to him.....he obviously doesn't get it......the Cato study is the exact same thing as the NRA research with the "Armed Citizen".......wow.....
Brain...do you really want to stand your ground...a pun....on this study...since it undermines your stance on magazine capacity.......you know that...right......?
Good guys need lots of bullets....
When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender’s initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters.
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 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 sample for the NRA study is valid for the purpose of the study. The Cato institute is purposely using a sample to arrive at the answer they want. This would be like me doing a survey on gun ownership and only calling democrats.
Brain...the NRA "The Armed Citizen" research isn't even trying to do what you claim...they are simply taking these stories and looking at what they point out about the gun fights they represent.....could someone else please explain this to him.....he obviously doesn't get it......the Cato study is the exact same thing as the NRA research with the "Armed Citizen".......wow.....
The NRA study makes no claims about how often defenders are criminals. That is the difference obviously. News articles are not a valid source to try to determine that. Would you report a gun defense if you were involved in criminal activity? They are using a sample they know will have few if any positives. The fact they had any positives shows it is very rampant.
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.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.
Your line is the mere owning of a gun makes you more likely to be involved or injured in a firearm accident.
More likely that what?
As I said I have owned firearms and shot them on a regular basis for over 30 years and have had zero firearm accidents.
Every gun owner knows the risks involved and can make his own risk reward analysis. They don't need you to tell them what to do
Brain...do you really want to stand your ground...a pun....on this study...since it undermines your stance on magazine capacity.......you know that...right......?
Good guys need lots of bullets....
When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender’s initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters.
Yes and no it doesn't. It shows the vast majority of defenses don't need a hi capacity magazine.
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 sample for the NRA study is valid for the purpose of the study. The Cato institute is purposely using a sample to arrive at the answer they want. This would be like me doing a survey on gun ownership and only calling democrats.
Brain...the NRA "The Armed Citizen" research isn't even trying to do what you claim...they are simply taking these stories and looking at what they point out about the gun fights they represent.....could someone else please explain this to him.....he obviously doesn't get it......the Cato study is the exact same thing as the NRA research with the "Armed Citizen".......wow.....
The NRA study makes no claims about how often defenders are criminals. That is the difference obviously. News articles are not a valid source to try to determine that. Would you report a gun defense if you were involved in criminal activity? They are using a sample they know will have few if any positives. The fact they had any positives shows it is very rampant.
Neither does CATO....you still aren't seeing it are you?
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.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.
Your line is the mere owning of a gun makes you more likely to be involved or injured in a firearm accident.
More likely that what?
As I said I have owned firearms and shot them on a regular basis for over 30 years and have had zero firearm accidents.
Every gun owner knows the risks involved and can make his own risk reward analysis. They don't need you to tell them what to do
You didn't answer my question.
I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm just giving the facts.
Actually, no...they are doing the same thing that the NRA collection is doing, they just do more general info. as well.....
The sample for the NRA study is valid for the purpose of the study. The Cato institute is purposely using a sample to arrive at the answer they want. This would be like me doing a survey on gun ownership and only calling democrats.
Brain...the NRA "The Armed Citizen" research isn't even trying to do what you claim...they are simply taking these stories and looking at what they point out about the gun fights they represent.....could someone else please explain this to him.....he obviously doesn't get it......the Cato study is the exact same thing as the NRA research with the "Armed Citizen".......wow.....
The NRA study makes no claims about how often defenders are criminals. That is the difference obviously. News articles are not a valid source to try to determine that. Would you report a gun defense if you were involved in criminal activity? They are using a sample they know will have few if any positives. The fact they had any positives shows it is very rampant.
Neither does CATO....you still aren't seeing it are you?
Yes the Cato study does. What cato study are you talking about now?
Brain...do you really want to stand your ground...a pun....on this study...since it undermines your stance on magazine capacity.......you know that...right......?
Good guys need lots of bullets....
When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender’s initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters.
Yes and no it doesn't. It shows the vast majority of defenses don't need a hi capacity magazine.
Sorry..."the vast majority" is not 100% so you are wrong....you can't arbitrarily limit a law abiding citizens ammo capacity...since these aren't the only 3 incidents with more than 2 and more than 10 rounds fired....your theory is now shot to crap.....from your own source......
The sample for the NRA study is valid for the purpose of the study. The Cato institute is purposely using a sample to arrive at the answer they want. This would be like me doing a survey on gun ownership and only calling democrats.
Brain...the NRA "The Armed Citizen" research isn't even trying to do what you claim...they are simply taking these stories and looking at what they point out about the gun fights they represent.....could someone else please explain this to him.....he obviously doesn't get it......the Cato study is the exact same thing as the NRA research with the "Armed Citizen".......wow.....
The NRA study makes no claims about how often defenders are criminals. That is the difference obviously. News articles are not a valid source to try to determine that. Would you report a gun defense if you were involved in criminal activity? They are using a sample they know will have few if any positives. The fact they had any positives shows it is very rampant.
Neither does CATO....you still aren't seeing it are you?
Yes the Cato study does. What cato study are you talking about now?
Tough Targets...from their white paper on the defensive use of guns as found in the media.....
Brain...do you really want to stand your ground...a pun....on this study...since it undermines your stance on magazine capacity.......you know that...right......?
Good guys need lots of bullets....
When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender’s initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters.
Yes and no it doesn't. It shows the vast majority of defenses don't need a hi capacity magazine.
Sorry..."the vast majority" is not 100% so you are wrong....you can't arbitrarily limit a law abiding citizens ammo capacity...since these aren't the only 3 incidents with more than 2 and more than 10 rounds fired....your theory is now shot to crap.....from your own source......
No it is not shot to crap. I can give you MANY more instances of criminals emptying hi cap magazines than you can give me defenses using them. And most the defenders probably didn't NEED to fire so many times.
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.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.
Your line is the mere owning of a gun makes you more likely to be involved or injured in a firearm accident.
More likely that what?
As I said I have owned firearms and shot them on a regular basis for over 30 years and have had zero firearm accidents.
Every gun owner knows the risks involved and can make his own risk reward analysis. They don't need you to tell them what to do
You didn't answer my question.
I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm just giving the facts.
actually, not the facts....biased, anti gun facts and personal opinion based on nothing but your feelings......
Brain...do you really want to stand your ground...a pun....on this study...since it undermines your stance on magazine capacity.......you know that...right......?
Good guys need lots of bullets....
When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender’s initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters.
Yes and no it doesn't. It shows the vast majority of defenses don't need a hi capacity magazine.
Sorry..."the vast majority" is not 100% so you are wrong....you can't arbitrarily limit a law abiding citizens ammo capacity...since these aren't the only 3 incidents with more than 2 and more than 10 rounds fired....your theory is now shot to crap.....from your own source......
No it is not shot to crap. I can give you MANY more instances of criminals emptying hi cap magazines than you can give me defenses using them. And most the defenders probably didn't NEED to fire so many times.
Sorry....there are incidents where people need more than 2 bullets and more than 10....hence...you cannot limit their ability to defend themselves on your arbitrary and factually wrong perceptions....
Brain...the NRA "The Armed Citizen" research isn't even trying to do what you claim...they are simply taking these stories and looking at what they point out about the gun fights they represent.....could someone else please explain this to him.....he obviously doesn't get it......the Cato study is the exact same thing as the NRA research with the "Armed Citizen".......wow.....
The NRA study makes no claims about how often defenders are criminals. That is the difference obviously. News articles are not a valid source to try to determine that. Would you report a gun defense if you were involved in criminal activity? They are using a sample they know will have few if any positives. The fact they had any positives shows it is very rampant.
Neither does CATO....you still aren't seeing it are you?
Yes the Cato study does. What cato study are you talking about now?
Tough Targets...from their white paper on the defensive use of guns as found in the media.....
And what finding in the study do you think is so important?
Soooo...from the NRA "The Armed Citizen" study you praise for it's accuracy...three defensive shootings that required more than 3 bullets, one needing 13...to stop a lion attack.....
I'll add all these....
Enemy Within The Jim Patterson Incident American Handgunner
hit guy 5 times to stop...
Also....prosectued though cleared by police
Masaad ayoob mag ban hearing testimony includes 3 cases where more than 3 rounds fired...
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li..._032508_062614-Krieger-Opinion-Outfitters.pdf
Massad Ayoob, identified only three anecdotal instances in which individuals engaging
28Case 1:13-cv-01300-MSK-MJW Document 159 Filed 06/26/14 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 50
in defensive use of firearms fired more than 15 rounds, and not all of these successful defensive actions involved semiautomatic weapons.23 Of the many law enforcement officials called to testify, none were able to identify a single instance in which they were involved where a single civilian fired more than 15 shots in self-defense.24 (Indeed, the record reflects that many law enforcement agencies, including the Colorado State Patrol, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the New York City Police Department equip their officers with 15-round or smaller
23
The first incident involved a gun shop owner who lived next door to the shop. One night, carloads of people drove through his storefront to steal guns. In defending his property, the shop owner used a fully automatic M-16 and a fully automatic 9mm submachine gun to fire over 100 rounds. One perpetrator was killed, others were injured, and all were captured and convicted.
The second incident involved a man who owned a watch shop in Los Angeles and who had been involved in a series of “gun fights.” (Presumably, he had been robbed repeatedly.) The shop owner began keeping multiple pistols hidden in his shop. Mr. Ayoob recalled that at least one of the gun fights “went beyond” 17 or 19 shots before the last of the multiple perpetrators was down or had fled.
The third incident involved a Virginia jewelry store that was robbed by “two old gangster type guys.” The two brothers who owned the store successfully defended themselves and their property using multiple revolvers (not semiautomatic weapons) that were kept behind the counter. Mr. Ayoob did not specify how many rounds were fired in that incident.
************
Dr who brought gun into gun free zone shoots patient 3 times
Armed Doctor Opens Fire and Stops Active Shooter in Pennsylvania Hospital
Woman shoots home invader 5 times...
Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder www.wsbtv.com
So there you go Brain.....over 3 rounds and over 15 rounds....multiple stories.........your point is debunked....
The NRA study makes no claims about how often defenders are criminals. That is the difference obviously. News articles are not a valid source to try to determine that. Would you report a gun defense if you were involved in criminal activity? They are using a sample they know will have few if any positives. The fact they had any positives shows it is very rampant.
Neither does CATO....you still aren't seeing it are you?
Yes the Cato study does. What cato study are you talking about now?
Tough Targets...from their white paper on the defensive use of guns as found in the media.....
And what finding in the study do you think is so important?
More so there points on the why the FBI homicide stats are innaccurate, though probably the best we can do, their point that of the 5,000 stories they looked at only 12 were crimnals involved in criminal activity....and why the NCVS is such a bad tool for understanding defensive gun uses....since it is the only study that doesn't specifically ask about that and only gets their asking general crime questions......
And they also have a nice collection of actual shooting stories that can dispel anti gun myths.....
The victim's wife heard the commotion and came out of the bedroom carrying a handgun, the report said. She reportedly dove on the floor and opened fire at the suspect.
According to the report, the suspect returned fire. That's when the victim's wife reportedly grabbed another handgun from the bedroom and kept shooting.
