From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago - Page 933 - Politics and Economics

That’s almost as catchy as “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The problem is: The 2 million figure — often inflated to 2.5 million in N.R.A. literature — is bogus. Defensive gun use is actually quite rare.

Quote:

The V.P.C. also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of criminal gun homicides in the same year: 8,275. (That’s not counting gun suicides or unintentional shootings.) Or compare it with the number of Americans killed by guns since Newtown: 3,458.

As the V.P.C. paper states, “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.”

06-29-2016 , 09:51 PM

#23302

JimHammer

Digg'n the gifs

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 8,742

Quote:

Originally Posted by LASJayhawk

VPC , a gun grabber group estimates a little over 67,000 a year.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/taki...ensive-gun-use

So for 9,400,000 crimes reported , only .72% were defended with a gun.

From your link:

Quote:

06-29-2016 , 09:52 PM

#23303

True North

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 23,703

Quote:

Originally Posted by LASJayhawk

Why aren't you asking master to back up his statement it is? He's the one that made an unfounded claim, I just called him on it.

Because I've seen plenty of research to back his claim up, and nothing valid to refute it.

06-29-2016 , 10:33 PM

#23304

LASJayhawk

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2,900

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oroku$aki

Did you read your own link?

You understand that you don't have to kill somebody to qualify as a DGU, right?

And you all just gloss over the 67,000/year number, provided to you by a group that has admitted they want to take all the guns.

67,000 a year is not insignificant, whether or not you want to admit the truth. But it doesn't really matter. I have an enumerated right to have the firearms, and it has been upheld by SCOTUS.

06-29-2016 , 10:33 PM

#23305

dinopoker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 9,437

Quote:

Originally Posted by campfirewest

You can't defend yourself with Semtex.

You'd better inform the army of that. They seem to feel otherwise.

06-29-2016 , 10:46 PM

#23306

Oroku$aki

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 7,063

Quote:

Originally Posted by LASJayhawk

You understand that you don't have to kill somebody to qualify as a DGU, right?

And you all just gloss over the 67,000/year number, provided to you by a group that has admitted they want to take all the guns.

67,000 a year is not insignificant, whether or not you want to admit the truth. But it doesn't really matter. I have an enumerated right to have the firearms, and it has been upheld by SCOTUS.

It's not as dubious as 2.5 million ala the NRA, but I'm pretty sure that in a country of over 322 million the point you were supposed to take away from that article was:

Quote:

As the V.P.C. paper states, “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.”

06-30-2016 , 01:07 AM

#23307

LASJayhawk

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2,900

Keep in mind that is the low end even Slate thinks it is higher than that.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...gs_from_a.html

Bloomberg too.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...n-self-defense

Here is about 215 pages of Kleck defending his 2.5 million number. I highly recommend it if you are having problems with insomnia. After 20 years Kleck and Hemenway are still in a pissing contest over the number.

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploa...als/JFPP11.pdf

06-30-2016 , 02:05 AM

#23308

aoFrantic

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 25,221

Steve genuinely believes he is an intelligent poster making good, well thought out and rational points. He will then come November, check an "x" next to the name "Donald Trump" and pat himself on the back for another intelligent decision, continuing the streak he is currently on.

06-30-2016 , 11:43 AM

#23309

Oroku$aki

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 7,063

Quote:

Originally Posted by aoFrantic

Steve genuinely believes he is an intelligent poster making good, well thought out and rational points. He will then come November, check an "x" next to the name "Donald Trump" and pat himself on the back for another intelligent decision, continuing the streak he is currently on.

It's possible he vaguely realizes he's just being clowned by his betters itf, pride's a funny thing.

06-30-2016 , 01:25 PM

#23310

33 Big Blinds

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 2,324

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimHammer

So for 9,400,000 crimes reported , only .72% were defended with a gun.

From your link:

Except 9.4M crimes shouldn't be the number you're using since obviously drug abuse crimes cannot be defended against.

Quote:

Here are some highlights from Crime in the United States, 2014:

There were an estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes (murder and non-negligent homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults) reported by law enforcement.

So 67,000/1,165,383 = 5.7%

I'd consider 5.7% way more than needed to justify that self-defense is in fact not a "statistical myth".

*I purposely backed out burglaries, larceny-thefts, and motor vehicle thefts since there were no indications of whether or not they were commercial buildings or , if it is a residential burglary, if someone was home. Motor vehicle thefts only fall under the castle doctrine if you're in the vehicle, and I'd imagine the vast majority of vehicle thefts do not take place while an occupant is in the vehicle.

06-30-2016 , 02:01 PM

#23311

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

Lol at the guy who uses full population to discuss mortality rate getting mad about using crime rate to discuss gun defense.

06-30-2016 , 02:05 PM

#23312

LASJayhawk

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2,900

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

Lol at the guy who uses full population to discuss mortality rate getting mad about using crime rate to discuss gun defense.

Nobody has used a firearm to protect themselves from a hooker, therefore we don't need firearms. Got it.

06-30-2016 , 02:07 PM

#23313

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Pretty sure the original question was does the firearm make you safer or less safe.

Another way of wording it would be, are you more likely to use that gun in self-defense, or is it more likely to be used against you in a crime/domestic dispute or by suicide?

06-30-2016 , 02:09 PM

#23314

True North

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 23,703

Quote:

Originally Posted by 33 Big Blinds

*I purposely backed out burglaries, larceny-thefts, and motor vehicle thefts since there were no indications of whether or not they were commercial buildings or , if it is a residential burglary, if someone was home. Motor vehicle thefts only fall under the castle doctrine if you're in the vehicle, and I'd imagine the vast majority of vehicle thefts do not take place while an occupant is in the vehicle.

That's a patently ridiculous assumption, given that the 67k is comprised of both violent crimes and property crimes.

06-30-2016 , 02:34 PM

#23315

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

Quote:

Originally Posted by einbert

Which all of us understand except for those playing dumb

06-30-2016 , 02:55 PM

#23316

LASJayhawk

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2,900

Ask this guy.

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/loca...67748794-story

ETA: Ask this guy too.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...=socialnetwork

06-30-2016 , 02:57 PM

#23317

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

That's anecdotal evidence. It doesn't tell us any thing on its own, we need to know the incidences of occurrence versus the incidence of possibility. Come on, this is basic Statistics guys.

06-30-2016 , 02:59 PM

#23318

LASJayhawk

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2,900

Ask her.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-por...hilds-bedroom/

ETA: ask the 76 year old guy too.

http://krqe.com/2016/06/24/father-sh...es-no-charges/

06-30-2016 , 03:05 PM

#23319

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Quote:

Originally Posted by LASJayhawk

Ask her.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-por...hilds-bedroom/

ETA: ask the 76 year old guy too.

http://www.denverpost.com/2008/06/30...s-than-others/
http://krqe.com/2016/06/24/father-sh...es-no-charges/

You're completely missing my point. Anecdotal evidence. Case after case of a guy shooting himself in Starbucks while he's ordering coffee. The important question is, what's more likely? X or Y?

http://www.denverpost.com/2008/06/30...s-than-others/

Quote:

ATLANTA — The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens’ ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for about 55 percent of the nation’s nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year. Gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the past 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 2.6 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

The gun's most likely target is its owner, and that's just a mathematical fact. See, as Neil de Grasse Tyson is fond of saying: "It doesn't matter if you believe in science. Science doesn't care."

06-30-2016 , 03:07 PM

#23320

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

By the way let's not gloss over this very important fact:

Quote:

In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 2.6 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

06-30-2016 , 03:07 PM

#23321

LASJayhawk

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2,900

Ask these guys.

http://www.wcnc.com/mb/news/augusta-...ting/257428962

Or this guy.

http://m.wdsu.com/news/nopd-armed-ro...e-box/40155488 ( real gun trumps imaginary gun)

06-30-2016 , 03:12 PM

#23322

LASJayhawk

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2,900

Maybe ask this guy.

http://fox4kc.com/2016/06/21/shop-ow...police-arrive/

Ask this lady that used a firearm to protect herself from domestic violence.

http://wkrn.com/2016/06/21/police-wo...ing-under-bed/

06-30-2016 , 03:15 PM

#23323

PoBoy321

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 9,982

Quote:

Originally Posted by einbert

Or even better, are you more likely to use your gun to prevent a crime, or to commit a crime? Your gun doesn't just need to be wrestled away and turned on you, you can actually be the one to pick it up in a domestic dispute and turn it on your partner.