NationStates Jolt Archive

Thats right-you know its really bad when you drive through a development and see assorted netting wrapped around trees and shrubs right up against houses. And you can count more than 3 dead deer on the roadside on the average commute to work.
Shouldnt someone be collecting them for the prison cafeterias?

Ala Ted Nugent, there are "charity hunts" in CT for the soup kitchens.

What really got us in this mess was the anti-hunters in the 80s. They kept going on and on about deer birth control salt licks and such. :rolleyes:

Now we have towns with bow seasons WITHIN SIGHT OF HOUSES because deer are living on little scraps of land between highways and houses. And I'm talking like a half a block! They'll run around through people's back yards to get from one scrap of land to another... it's absurd.
Just a couple of years ago, my hometown (pop. 50,000, all four surrounding towns are larger!) had a deer run DOWN MAIN STREET and crash into a shop window. The shop in question had been there since 1830. I mean, imagine that happening in say... Nuremberg or Pisa...

Ala Ted Nugent, there are "charity hunts" in CT for the soup kitchens.

What really got us in this mess was the anti-hunters in the 80s. They kept going on and on about deer birth control salt licks and such. :rolleyes:

Now we have towns with bow seasons WITHIN SIGHT OF HOUSES because deer are living on little scraps of land between highways and houses. And I'm talking like a half a block! They'll run around through people's back yards to get from one scrap of land to another... it's absurd.
Just a couple of years ago, my hometown (pop. 50,000, all four surrounding towns are larger!) had a deer run DOWN MAIN STREET and crash into a shop window. The shop in question had been there since 1830. I mean, imagine that happening in say... Nuremberg or Pisa...

Deer kill a fair number of people in car accidents around here.

I remember seeing them throw hand grenades at a wedding. I thought it was natural selection at work. If you didn't believe in evolution and natural selection before, you'll only have to see that behavior once to know it's the truth.


Thats great. "I'm so jubilant, I want to spread shrapnel!!!"

I had a neighbor in NY a long time ago-on the Fourth of July, and after several beers, produced what he said was a live hand grenade. His father was in Korea-I cant figure where else he might have come by it. He pulled the pin and tossed it down into the back yard. No far enough away. We laughed at the stupidity of it, till it went off, rupturing and emptying his 14,000 gallon pool, shattering a sliding glass door and putting shards through the siding on his house.
Its a miracle no one was hurt-there were a load of us there. I'm glad nature didnt selct me that day. No police responded, even though fireworks are illegal in NY and the blast was a bit more than the standard M-80. The thing had to be old-I have always wondered about the fuse deteriorating maybe and going off wen he pulled the pin instead of seconds later.

Wisconsin has its fair share of deer around as well. We're starting to re-introduce wolves, though. Not going as well as we'd like.

The DNR's goal population is around 700,000 for the state. In 2003 we were at 1.6 million.

Wisconsin Deer accident stats from 1997:
Ratio of deer-related accidents to total accidents in 1995: 1 in 6

Property damage from vehicle-deer accidents 1985 - 1997: $412,000,000
The insurance industry believes that this 1997 estimate was too conservative.

Number of people hurt in vehicle-deer accidents since 1985: 7,624
Up 918 from 1997

Thats great. "I'm so jubilant, I want to spread shrapnel!!!"

I had a neighbor in NY a long time ago-on the Fourth of July, and after several beers, produced what he said was a live hand grenade. His father was in Korea-I cant figure where else he might have come by it. He pulled the pin and tossed it down into the back yard. No far enough away. We laughed at the stupidity of it, till it went off, rupturing and emptying his 14,000 gallon pool, shattering a sliding glass door and putting shards through the siding on his house.
Its a miracle no one was hurt-there were a load of us there. I'm glad nature didnt selct me that day. No police responded, even though fireworks are illegal in NY and the blast was a bit more than the standard M-80. The thing had to be old-I have always wondered about the fuse deteriorating maybe and going off wen he pulled the pin instead of seconds later.


The old "pineapple" grenade had a black powder train that was ignited as soon as you let go of the spoon. Sometimes it didn't ignite. Sometimes it burned slowly, and sometimes, like a bad firecracker, it burned all at once. It was dangerous to do anything but throw it.

The M67 grenade has an electronic timer. You get exactly five seconds if it works. The problem is, if you let up even slightly on the spoon before throwing, the arming lever can flip over and start counting before you think you've really started things.

There isn't much shrapnel from a "pineapple" style, nor is there much explosive. A few huge fragments and some small ones. The M67 is full of wire that is pre-notched - within a few meters, you're going to be hit by hundreds of pieces of wire.

The insults mixed with random, unsupported facts really isn't condusive to civil discourse on this subject. The paranoia and fear that drives people to favor light gun control laws comes from the policies of realpolitik (which perpetuate conflict, and in turn paranoia and fear because it's only about power and not progress) and feelings of phallic inadequacy. Like the samurai of feudal Japan, the firearm represents a manifestation of the masculinity and status of a man. I doubt the samurai had any issues with phallic pride, but I'm guessing it has everything to do with the blind rage and defensiveness that comes out when people who disagree interact. :headbang:




You ,sir, are an idiot. More guns less crime. There are hard statistics showing that communities with lighter gun laws and concealed carry laws have much lower crime rates than places like NY or LA where it's almost impossible to get a gun.

The insults mixed with random, unsupported facts really isn't conducive to civil discourse on this subject. The paranoia and fear that drives people to favor light gun control laws comes from the policies of realpolitik (which perpetuate conflict, and in turn paranoia and fear because it's only about power and not progress) and feelings of phallic inadequacy.


So you're going to use the same "tactics" as you are belittling? I'd say it's the paranoia and fear of those that don't like guns that try to get them banned.


Like the samurai of feudal Japan, the firearm represents a manifestation of the masculinity and status of a man. I doubt the samurai had any issues with phallic pride, but I'm guessing it has everything to do with the blind rage and defensiveness that comes out when people who disagree interact. :headbang:

I'm thinking it has to do with me not trusting the police (or anyone else for that matter) being there in time to defend my life and the lives of those I love and am responsible for. Just because you can't see it doesn't make it any less real. Time to take your head out of the sand, son.

The insults mixed with random, unsupported facts really isn't condusive to civil discourse on this subject. The paranoia and fear that drives people to favor light gun control laws comes from the policies of realpolitik (which perpetuate conflict, and in turn paranoia and fear because it's only about power and not progress) and feelings of phallic inadequacy. Like the samurai of feudal Japan, the firearm represents a manifestation of the masculinity and status of a man. I doubt the samurai had any issues with phallic pride, but I'm guessing it has everything to do with the blind rage and defensiveness that comes out when people who disagree interact. :headbang:


Random, unsupported facts?

The two most sophisticated national surveys are the National Self-Defense Survey done by Marc Gertz and Dr. Gary Kleck in 1995 and a smaller scale survey done by the Police Foundation in 1996.

The National Self-Defense Survey was the first survey specifically designed to estimate the frequency of defensive gun uses. It asked all respondents about both their own uses and those of other household members, inquired about all gun types, excluded uses against animals or connected with occupational duties, and limited recall periods to one and five years. Equally importantly, it established, with detailed questioning, whether persons claiming a defensive gun use had actually confronted an adversary (as distinct from, say, merely investigating a suspicious noise in the backyard), actually used their guns in some way, such as, at minimum, threatening their adversaries (as distinct from merely owning or carrying a gun for defensive reasons), and had done so in connection with what they regarded as a specific crime being committed against them.

The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

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.

According to the National Self Defense Survey, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

---

Now, you want peer review?

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.

... simply put, there are no predators for deer, as there are almost no coyotes/wolves. They have no predators. They have become vermin, as they are so numerous and eat everything they can.


http://www.ctsportsmen.com/issues/wilton_deer_committee_findings_a.htm

And why are there no more predators? Because people with guns shot them.

I have no problems with people hunting, so long as they eat what they kill, but I see no need to have a handgun. People say that it is for defence in the home however, although I may be wrong, isn't it against the law, even in America, to keep a loaded firearm. So mister burglar stands around waiting for you to load your gun before he hits you over the head?

I also wonder how many people who have guns for self defence would actually be able to pull the trigger if it came down to it. They are more likely to be disarmed by a person who is likely to be willing to pull the trigger.

I am just glad I don't live in a country where it is the norm to carry guns. I would be paranoid about other idiots with them and therefore probably end up with one myself. I suppose that is why everyone in America wants to own a gun. Ban all guns and this situation would disappear.

Ban all guns and this situation would disappear.

Not true. The majority of violent crime is not committed with firearms. Take that as a starting point.

2.5 million violent crimes are stopped each year by the presence of firearms. Add those to the count.

If you're making a conservative estimate, about 10 percent of those violent crimes would be murder. 250,000 additional murders per year.

You're talking about an order of magnitude increase in murder, even if all firearms were eliminated.

The insults mixed with random, unsupported facts really isn't condusive to civil discourse on this subject. The paranoia and fear that drives people to favor light gun control laws comes from the policies of realpolitik (which perpetuate conflict, and in turn paranoia and fear because it's only about power and not progress) and feelings of phallic inadequacy. Like the samurai of feudal Japan, the firearm represents a manifestation of the masculinity and status of a man. I doubt the samurai had any issues with phallic pride, but I'm guessing it has everything to do with the blind rage and defensiveness that comes out when people who disagree interact. :headbang:


I dont favor light gun control laws in that I agree there should be an ACCURATE backround check. And CRIMES committed with guns should be prosecuted vigorously and effectively.
Dont even begin to delve into the phallic issue-its moronic. The people that believe that theory probably wouldnt mind being tied with a lamp cord while their home is looted and possibly worse.
You dont need to have a gun if you feel that way. But those of us that dont agree with you and have a right to have the gun can legally obtain one and assume the responsibilty of its proper care and handling. And legal possession.
Or-you could shreik and jump off of the Staten Island Ferry when that nut brandishing a sword started slashing people. Until a retired NY city Police Officer eliminated him with one round. Did he save the day, or just whip out han extension of his manhood?
Spare us the liberal rhetoric. You're in the wrong place and the wrong time.
Feudal Japan. Yeah

And why are there no more predators? Because people with guns shot them.




There are no more predators because people like you now live where they once did. Predators cannot live amongst humans the same way deer and racoons and rats can.Now we are the predator and instead of fangs and claws we have guns and bows.

So you're going to use the same "tactics" as you are belittling? I'd say it's the paranoia and fear of those that don't like guns that try to get them banned.



I'm thinking it has to do with me not trusting the police (or anyone else for that matter) being there in time to defend my life and the lives of those I love and am responsible for. Just because you can't see it doesn't make it any less real. Time to take your head out of the sand, son.


True. Even if you trust the police, they arent stationed at your home. Its your right to protect yourself. your loved ones and your property and you have the right to do so with a gun, if you chose.
Or you could be ignorant and hysterical on the topic and wait till a criminal is done having his way with you and your family and call the police to file a report. Maybe they'll catch the criminal and you'll have your big day in court. You'll never get your stuff back, or "un-rape" any of your loved ones, or recapture any of your dignity, but you'll get the satisfaction of putting scum behind bars to lift weights and get a college degree for at least 12-18 months.

And why are there no more predators? Because people with guns shot them.


A long time ago. They're reintroducing predators in places. In others, it's up to humans to be responsible and take the place of those they killed off, to maintain the balance (and save some drivers in the process).


I have no problems with people hunting, so long as they eat what they kill, but I see no need to have a handgun. People say that it is for defence in the home however, although I may be wrong, isn't it against the law, even in America, to keep a loaded firearm.


Nope, I can legally walk down the street, carrying a loaded pistol on my hip. Some states make what you suggested illegal, however. But not on a national level.


So mister burglar stands around waiting for you to load your gun before he hits you over the head?


Nope. He'll be running or wounded. At least in my house.


I also wonder how many people who have guns for self defence would actually be able to pull the trigger if it came down to it. They are more likely to be disarmed by a person who is likely to be willing to pull the trigger.


Depends on who the person is. If you're not capable of pulling the trigger, don't use a firearm for the purpose of self defense. I'm certain I'd shoot an assailant. Not to kill, mind you, but to stop.


I am just glad I don't live in a country where it is the norm to carry guns. I would be paranoid about other idiots with them and therefore probably end up with one myself. I suppose that is why everyone in America wants to own a gun. Ban all guns and this situation would disappear.

No, it doesn't. Ban guns in America and a LOT of criminals would have them, and be free to prey upon the unarmed. Yes, you hit the control thing right on the head--you're paranoid about uncontrollable people with firearms. That's what gun control is about--not reducing crime, but controlling others you have no right to be controlling.

True. Even if you trust the police, they arent stationed at your home. Its your right to protect yourself. your loved ones and your property and you have the right to do so with a gun, if you chose.
Or you could be ignorant and hysterical on the topic and wait till a criminal is done having his way with you and your family and call the police to file a report. Maybe they'll catch the criminal and you'll have your big day in court. You'll never get your stuff back, or "un-rape" any of your loved ones, or recapture any of your dignity, but you'll get the satisfaction of putting scum behind bars to lift weights and get a college degree for at least 12-18 months.

I'll take one step back from that, even--the Supreme Court has determined that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect individuals.

They don't even have to show up that hour later to "protect" you.

The insults mixed with random, unsupported facts really isn't condusive to civil discourse on this subject. The paranoia and fear that drives people to favor light gun control laws comes from the policies of realpolitik (which perpetuate conflict, and in turn paranoia and fear because it's only about power and not progress) and feelings of phallic inadequacy. Like the samurai of feudal Japan, the firearm represents a manifestation of the masculinity and status of a man. I doubt the samurai had any issues with phallic pride, but I'm guessing it has everything to do with the blind rage and defensiveness that comes out when people who disagree interact. :headbang:

A gun is a good, just like a car or a kitchen knife.

It's illegal to carry a knife over 4" long without a license.
It's illegal to carry a gun bigger than (in CT) an air gun, shotgun, or blackpowder without a license.
It's illegal to drive without a license.

Why do you feel that a gun requires any more litigation than a car or knife?

And why are there no more predators? Because people with guns shot them.

Wolves were eradicated in Connecticut around 1710.
I know that the Europeans killed off theirs earlier; after all, you had the time and the crossbows. :rolleyes:

I have no problems with people hunting, so long as they eat what they kill, but I see no need to have a handgun. People say that it is for defence in the home however, although I may be wrong, isn't it against the law, even in America, to keep a loaded firearm. So mister burglar stands around waiting for you to load your gun before he hits you over the head?

It's perfectly legal for me to walk anywhere I want in Connecticut with my .45 in my jacket (or otherwise concealed) and fully loaded. Except for: schools, churches, in the drinking area of bars, military installations, and civil buildings (courthouses for example).

I also wonder how many people who have guns for self defence would actually be able to pull the trigger if it came down to it. They are more likely to be disarmed by a person who is likely to be willing to pull the trigger.

Depends on the person.

I am just glad I don't live in a country where it is the norm to carry guns. I would be paranoid about other idiots with them and therefore probably end up with one myself. I suppose that is why everyone in America wants to own a gun. Ban all guns and this situation would disappear.

Not even close. Almost no crime occurs due to legal arms. There are TONS of illegal guns out there. Also, as in England, a LOT of crime is knife based.

UPDATE:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4406821.stm

A man wielding a sword has killed a woman and injured at least three other people during a service at a church in southern Germany.
Police said they found "grisly" scenes, including severed limbs, at the scene of the attack in Stuttgart.

So... where's the sword ban lobby? :rolleyes:

I married a Japanese woman. If I mention guns she covers her ears and says, "Kowai!!" (means scary). I love to tease her by saying that if we have daughters I will make them join the Marines.


OOORAH! Get Some! I tease my Fiance with the same thing. Of course, since I also buy our daughter Cammie teddy bears I guess she might believe me.

OOORAH! Get Some! I tease my Fiance with the same thing. Of course, since I also buy our daughter Cammie teddy bears I guess she might believe me.

What you need to give your daughter is one of these:

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2005/03/one-more-chance-at-kalashnikitty.html

:D

What you need to give your daughter is one of these:

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2005/03/one-more-chance-at-kalashnikitty.html

:D
That is truely awsome! Yes, its offensive, and perfect! BTW was that taken in Arizona? thats where I'm from( I traded one desert for another)

That is truely awsome! Yes, its offensive, and perfect! BTW was that taken in Arizona? thats where I'm from( I traded one desert for another)

I wish I could tell you.... :(

Random, unsupported facts?

The two most sophisticated national surveys are the National Self-Defense Survey done by Marc Gertz and Dr. Gary Kleck in 1995 and a smaller scale survey done by the Police Foundation in 1996.

The National Self-Defense Survey was the first survey specifically designed to estimate the frequency of defensive gun uses. It asked all respondents about both their own uses and those of other household members, inquired about all gun types, excluded uses against animals or connected with occupational duties, and limited recall periods to one and five years. Equally importantly, it established, with detailed questioning, whether persons claiming a defensive gun use had actually confronted an adversary (as distinct from, say, merely investigating a suspicious noise in the backyard), actually used their guns in some way, such as, at minimum, threatening their adversaries (as distinct from merely owning or carrying a gun for defensive reasons), and had done so in connection with what they regarded as a specific crime being committed against them.

The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

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.

According to the National Self Defense Survey, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

*snip*

Slight problem with these statistics. Here is a link to the National Insitute of Justice's summary (http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf) of their research results. The NIJ results do not confirm the National Self Defense Survey results. To the contrary, the NIJ concluded their survey was evidence that the NSDS greatly exaggerated the defensive use of guns -- because gun owners exaggerate in responding to such surveys!

Here are a few quotes:

On the basis of National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) date, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year.

...

The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and Gertz instrument and provides a basis for replicating their estimate.

....
Almost half of these respondents reported multiple DGUs during 1994, which proivdes the basis for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23 million. This suprising figure is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!

[I]t is of considerable interest and importance to check the reasonableness of the NSPOF estimates before embracing them. .... The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high.

For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assualts is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!

NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.

....

In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents' answers to the followup items are not consistent with respondents' reported DGUs. For example of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack -- but then responded "no" to a subsequent question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?"

....

The NSPOF does not provide much evidence on whether consumers who buy guns for protection from crime get their money's worth. The NSPOF-based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exagerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly -- or perhaps both -- but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.


Now, I don't think 108,000 defensive gun uses per year is a number to be lightly dismissed. But the NIJ noted two additional problems with assuming more DGUs is a good thing:

First, people who draw their guns to defend themselves against perceived thereats are not necessarily innocent victims; they may have started fights themselves or they may simply be mistaken about whether the other persons really intended to harm them. ...

Second and more generally, the number of DGUs tells us little about the most important effects on crime of widespread gun ownership. When a high percentage of homes, vehicles, and even purses contain guns, that presumably has an important effect on the behavior of predatory criminals. Some may be deterred or diverted to other types of crime. Others may change tactices, acquiring a gun themselves or in some other way seeking to preempt gun use by the intended victim. Such consequences presumable have an important effect on criminal victimization rates but are in no way reflected in the DGU count.

I have no doubt guns are used to defend people from crimes. The rate at which this occurs is not as high as often bandied about, however. Moreover, it is only one part of the question of whether widespread gun ownership is beneficial or harmful. It says next to nothing on the more relevant questions of controls like gun registration that would not in any way hamper the defensive use of guns.

I used to own a .44 Smith & Wesson, I had to sell it to move but I plan to own another when I can afford another.


It was a gift from a friend after a former BF of mine found out I was lesbian.

My former bf came and beat me with a baseball bat then raped me, the damage from this attack was enough that I still cannot walk correctly to this day because he damaged my right knee. After the police told me they couldn't do anything about it, and he was still on the streets and threatened to do it again my friend helped me by giving me it and teaching me proper ways to use it for protection as I already knew the basic gun rules and such.

The former bf broke in my house late one night with his bat, ready to do what he said he would again. I gave him a fair warning to leave my home and never come back. Did he leave like I told him no, he desided to charge me and thats when I was forced to shoot him for my own protection.

Did he die, no he lived but I very much doubt he would attack me again if I lived in the same area.

I did call the cops when he broke in but they was 15 minutes away a the least, so it was up to me for my own protection within those 15 minutes.

Am I proud I shot someone? No, in fact I frown apon it as I prefer more peaceful resolutions to problems. I am no pacifist though, I believe there is a time and a place for peace and that was not one of them.

I have no doubt guns are used to defend people from crimes. The rate at which this occurs is not as high as often bandied about, however. Moreover, it is only one part of the question of whether widespread gun ownership is beneficial or harmful. It says next to nothing on the more relevant questions of controls like gun registration that would not in any way hamper the defensive use of guns.


You see my feline friend, it is indeed saying a goodly amount on the issue. There are many situations where a person does not have five days to wait to get a gun, they might not have a day, and since the police will not protect us we must protect ourselves. There was an incident in NY that I read about in which a womans extremely abusive boyfriend threatened to kill her, she went to the police to get protection and they said no, then she tried to get a gun permit she was told to wait five days, two days later she was dead.

You see my feline friend, it is indeed saying a goodly amount on the issue. There are many situations where a person does not have five days to wait to get a gun, they might not have a day, and since the police will not protect us we must protect ourselves. There was an incident in NY that I read about in which a womans extremely abusive boyfriend threatened to kill her, she went to the police to get protection and they said no, then she tried to get a gun permit she was told to wait five days, two days later she was dead.

A single anecdote is not persuasive, particularly second- or third-hand.

The issue is whether society at large would be safer and better with fewer handguns or more gun regulations. Your anecdote speaks to neither question.

You see my feline friend, it is indeed saying a goodly amount on the issue. There are many situations where a person does not have five days to wait to get a gun, they might not have a day, and since the police will not protect us we must protect ourselves. There was an incident in NY that I read about in which a womans extremely abusive boyfriend threatened to kill her, she went to the police to get protection and they said no, then she tried to get a gun permit she was told to wait five days, two days later she was dead.

There has been no federal waiting period since 1998.

Absolutely right. There should only be waiting periods on guns if you're willing to put one on Big Macs, SUVs and TV sets.

There has been no federal waiting period since 1998.

There should only be a waiting period on guns if you're willing to put one on Big Macs, SUVs and TV sets.

Well, you know sometimes going through the drive-through at McDonald's can last an eternity....especially around lunchtime. :)

A single anecdote is not persuasive, particularly second- or third-hand.

The issue is whether society at large would be safer and better with fewer handguns or more gun regulations. Your anecdote speaks to neither question.


It does indeed, one "harmless" regulation was the brady bill five day waiting period, it got a woman killed. Next, another anectdote: Same set up as before only in LA not NY and it was her husband not her boyfriend, she also tries to get police protection, also denied, also tries to get a gun permit, also denied, here is where the story changes, the woman then goes to the "bad" side of town and buys an illegal gun, that night her husband attacks her at the hotel she had been staying in, she shoots him twice and he dies, he had a knife with a six inch blade, if she hadn't shot him he would have carved her up like a turkey at thanksgiving.

Instacheck is still in place though, and if that screws up, as it has for me at least twice, you can be tied up in court for weeks trying to get it figured out.

It says next to nothing on the more relevant questions of controls like gun registration that would not in any way hamper the defensive use of guns.



You see my feline friend, it is indeed saying a goodly amount on the issue. There are many situations where a person does not have five days to wait to get a gun, they might not have a day, and since the police will not protect us we must protect ourselves. There was an incident in NY that I read about in which a womans extremely abusive boyfriend threatened to kill her, she went to the police to get protection and they said no, then she tried to get a gun permit she was told to wait five days, two days later she was dead.



A single anecdote is not persuasive, particularly second- or third-hand.

The issue is whether society at large would be safer and better with fewer handguns or more gun regulations. Your anecdote speaks to neither question.


Tribey, YOU stated your issue regarding gun registration. He directly responded to the statement that you yourself made. You belittled a response (since it went against your viewpoint) yet again. And then you backed off your own example. Nice.

Go away.

Well, you know sometimes going through the drive-through at McDonald's can last an eternity....especially around lunchtime. :)

True. But that's a line from demand. When you get to the windows, they don't say: "Come pick up your order on Wednesday". ;)

It does indeed, one "harmless" regulation was the brady bill five day waiting period, it got a woman killed. Next, another anectdote: Same set up as before only in LA not NY and it was her husband not her boyfriend, she also tries to get police protection, also denied, also tries to get a gun permit, also denied, here is where the story changes, the woman then goes to the "bad" side of town and buys an illegal gun, that night her husband attacks her at the hotel she had been staying in, she shoots him twice and he dies, he had a knife with a six inch blade, if she hadn't shot him he would have carved her up like a turkey at thanksgiving.

Meh.

The problem with anecdotes is they do not capture a national phenomenon.

Waiting periods may be bad. Gun regulations may be bad.

But isolated incidents don't prove the regulations did more harm than good. How many crimes were prevented by those regulations?

You have to make meaningful comparisons.

Tribey, YOU stated your issue regarding gun registration. He directly responded to the statement that you yourself made. You belittled a response (since it went against your viewpoint) yet again. And then you backed off your own example. Nice.

Go away.

Registration = wating period??? :confused:

I've explained why I find anecdotes unpersuasive. Statistics capture whether such incidents are mere anomalies or are statistically significant.

And why are these anecdotes not arguments for better police forces and domestic violence programs? Why is "she needs a gun" the only answer?

Meh.

The problem with anecdotes is they do not capture a national phenomenon.

Waiting periods may be bad. Gun regulations may be bad.

But isolated incidents don't prove the regulations did more harm than good. How many crimes were prevented by those regulations?

You have to make meaningful comparisons.

Registration = wating period??? :confused:

I've explained why I find anecdotes unpersuasive. Statistics capture whether such incidents are mere anomalies or are statistically significant.

And why are these anecdotes not arguments for better police forces and domestic violence programs? Why is "she needs a gun" the only answer?

Because the whole of the economy is based on the concept that if a good is desired and available for purchase, it can be.

So long as the person is buying it legally within the law of their state, there is no reason to delay or halt a purchase.

Because the whole of the economy is based on the concept that if a good is desired and available for purchase, it can be.

So long as the person is buying it legally within the law of their state, there is no reason to delay or halt a purchase.

Begs the question.

Most goods are regulated in manufacture, sale, or use. Many goods are restricted or banned.

Why shouldn't guns be subject to at least equal regulation as automobiles?

You may disagree with whether a waiting period is a good idea, but it is hardly true that there are no reasons for such delays.

(BTW, I will freely admit that, although I consider myself well-informed on many aspects of the gun control debate, I am no expert on most actual gun control regulations. I also admit many may well be ill-designed, ineffective, or counter-productive. But I reject the view that guns should be unregulated and widespread or that there is a fundamental right to possess and use firearms.)

Im an owner of many weapons including an AK-47, why do I own them? I love loading up a mag and just unloading at a range or trying to hit a small target and if some one ever tried to harm me or my family then may God have mercy on them because I sure as hell won't. People bash guns all the time for increasing crime but if one person really wants to kill another person they will find a way a gun is just one means of doing that.

Where were the police for both of those women? The first is dead and the second was arrested for illegal possession of a weapon, the charges were later dropped, but she was arrested. Those women were forced to wait by the brady bill, the brady bill included a clause for regristration of firearms.

Your argument that guns should be regulated in their sale or manufacture is not very well thought out, guns are very regulated in the manufacturing process already, and the murder rate was lower, per capita, before gun regulations went into effect. For example the towns of Bodie and Dodge City are widely regarded as very dangerous cities in the west, the rape rate for the entire history of those towns in the "wild west" was exactly 1, and that 1 was made by a prostitute against a john, the murder rate, excepting gunfighters, who willingly put themselves in a position to be shot, was about five a year, per capita. Those statistical enough for ya?

And why are these anecdotes not arguments for better police forces and domestic violence programs? Why is "she needs a gun" the only answer?

Good point. I agree with you on that one. I'd say the gun and domestic violence programs are worth it. I wish the police were responsible for saving her, too, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that police don't have to protect the victim.

Begs the question.

Most goods are regulated in manufacture, sale, or use. Many goods are restricted or banned.

Why shouldn't guns be subject to at least equal regulation as automobiles?

You may disagree with whether a waiting period is a good idea, but it is hardly true that there are no reasons for such delays.

(BTW, I will freely admit that, although I consider myself well-informed on many aspects of the gun control debate, I am no expert on most actual gun control regulations. I also admit many may well be ill-designed, ineffective, or counter-productive. But I reject the view that guns should be unregulated and widespread or that there is a fundamental right to possess and use firearms.)


If guns were only subjected to the restrictions and regulations applied to Automobiles, you would only need to register them at Publically-Funded shooting ranges, you wouldn't need a background check to buy, own, or use one anywhere but on public land-there would be, in fact, a massive DE Regulation if you applied automobile standards to the most heavily regulated industry in the United States. (guns.)
You can drive without a license on private property, did you know that? you can drive hammered without a license on private property...and you can own and drive as many cars, motorcycles, RV's, and Semi-Trucks without a license as you might wish...as long as you don't do it on publically-funded roads.
Apply the standards automobile owners have to meet to Guns, and you're tossing out every gun law since 1938. I'm in favour of this. Are you??

Let's do it right now!!! :D

Good point. I agree with you on that one. I'd say the gun and domestic violence programs are worth it. I wish the police were responsible for saving her, too, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that police don't have to protect the victim.

I'm not sure what Supreme Court case you are referring to, but it vaguely rings a bell. Holding that no actionable claim when victim not protected?

I should add that both those situations, in isolation, do show harm caused by gun regulations. My point is simply that you cannot reliably extrapolate from such incidents.

This is similar to the fact that aspirin causes extreme allergic reactions in me that could be fatal, but is safe and effective for medical use by others. The horror stories of myself and others do not justify condemning aspirin. I think you rightly make the point that gun control regulations cannot be justified by extrapolaton from specific incidents either.

The tough question is what balance of regulation of firearms maximizes freedom and maximizes safety while minimizing crime. Despite my aggressive advocacy (or pure obnoxiousness at times), I believe this is not a simple issue.

(As a further aside that will make some eyes roll, I would note that the much villified film Bowling for Columbine was more balanced than some may think. I and others I know were more gun-friendly and less pro-gun control after hearing some of what Michael Moore presented. (Such as the comparisons with Canada.) I have no doubt that many of you hated the film, but a work that softens opposing views can't be all bad. ;) )

Only in America could we have a movie posing as a documentary passed off as a movie. The work was mostly fiction and wild assumptions with a dash of opinionated bias thrown in for good measure. We all know the sayings about opinions and assumptions I'm sure, so I don't have to spell it out for you. (ass u me... spelling bee winner three times... go figure.)

Slight problem with these statistics. Here is a link to the National Insitute of Justice's summary (http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf) of their research results. The NIJ results do not confirm the National Self Defense Survey results. To the contrary, the NIJ concluded their survey was evidence that the NSDS greatly exaggerated the defensive use of guns -- because gun owners exaggerate in responding to such surveys!

Here are a few quotes:




Now, I don't think 108,000 defensive gun uses per year is a number to be lightly dismissed. But the NIJ noted two additional problems with assuming more DGUs is a good thing:


I have no doubt guns are used to defend people from crimes. The rate at which this occurs is not as high as often bandied about, however. Moreover, it is only one part of the question of whether widespread gun ownership is beneficial or harmful. It says next to nothing on the more relevant questions of controls like gun registration that would not in any way hamper the defensive use of guns.
Luckily, Dr. Kleck himself has responded on this very issue.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Introduction

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF ). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

Dr. Kleck's Answer

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."

(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

Luckily, Dr. Kleck himself has responded on this very issue.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Meh.

WL cited the NIJ study as matching the Kleck study. It didn't. They came to opposite conclusions.

The response you quote only describes why the NCVS may underestimate DGUs. It does not respond to the evidence that Kleck's survey and similar surveys overestimate DGUs. For example, how there could be more use of guns to stop rapes than there are rapes.

I find it curious that Kleck considers that DGUs include illegal activity.

Begs the question.

Most goods are regulated in manufacture, sale, or use. Many goods are restricted or banned.

And guns ARE regulated. For example, I can't buy a fully automatic firearm without the proper license. I can't buy a revolver or pistol without the proper license. Which is odd, since I can buy a car without being licensed to drive.

What's restricted and banned??
I can see if an item has a manufacturing defect and is unsafe (ie: the Pinto). Yet guns are the ONLY item that you can purchase in certain situations but not others -- they are the ONLY consumer good that *may* be legal to own, depending on where you live and what your local laws are. This should not be the case.
(Note: I'm also against Prohibition and drug laws, but that's not as readily equatable, since the drugs in question have never been legal, and alcohol HAD been legal before Prohibition).

Why shouldn't guns be subject to at least equal regulation as automobiles?

They're MORE regulated! I bought my first car without a license!

I can go out right now and buy a Ferrari (or whatever) that does 0 to 60 in 4 seconds. You think they're going to do a background check before I buy it? No, they're just going to make sure I can sign on the lines and PAY for it.

Consider: I can't drive an unsafe car. If it doesn't meet emissions standards, if it doesn't have working lights and brakes, etc... I can't drive it. If I do, I go to jail, or at least get a stiff fine.
By the same token, I can't carry an unsafe handgun. If it has a hair trigger, or the serial number is filed off, or it's converted to full auto, I go to jail, or at least get a stiff fine.

You may disagree with whether a waiting period is a good idea, but it is hardly true that there are no reasons for such delays.

There is no reason, period. A good is a good is a good.
(Remember, these are LEGAL firearms we're talking about here. If you're going to commit a crime, don't you think you'd get a gun that's *not* legal to do it with??)

(BTW, I will freely admit that, although I consider myself well-informed on many aspects of the gun control debate, I am no expert on most actual gun control regulations. I also admit many may well be ill-designed, ineffective, or counter-productive. But I reject the view that guns should be unregulated and widespread or that there is a fundamental right to possess and use firearms.)

There is most certainly a fundamental right to possess firearms, just like computers, cars, or beer (or drugs).
Should they be unregulated? Of course not. Nothing is these days.
My proposal (which I have put on here many times) is simply this:
* Every state needs reciprocity laws that are the same.
* Every state shall issue state firearms licenses, just like they license you to drive a car, or a plane, or a boat or a motorcycle, or large trucks.
* Once someone has this license, they can concealed carry anywhere in the US. Just because I'm from New York and I cross over into Jersey doesn't mean I suddenly have forgotten gun safety. (Note that any police officer ALREADY has this right! If you're a cop in Lost City, West Virginia, you can carry your gun anywhere in the nation.)
* All local state laws shall remain legal FOR THAT STATE, so long as they do not infringe on the general laws. So: New Hampshire can still have no licenses required for residents, but those residents need licenses to carry in Vermont (or anywhere else).

...I consider this to be a sane compromise. :)

For example, how there could be more use of guns to stop rapes than there are rapes.
Um, a rape attempt stopped by the use of a gun would not be placed in the rape column, for one. The act of rape was not actually carried through. Secondly, it's pretty much a given that the reported rape rates underestimate the amount of rapes that actually occur.

wrong wrong wrong

The only time I've come accross firewarms was during my time in the cadet force at school, and in my opinion thats the only place they should be, the military.

I've fired SA80, M16, AK47, LSW, GPME, and 7.62mm hunting rifles (as well as .22 target rifles on the school range.

I can savely say that the 5.56 mm round fired by the SA80 and M16 is considerably more powerful than a 9mm pistol round, thats why the army dont wear kevlar armour, because they're no good against anything other than 9milli, the 7.62 round fired by the AK is more powerful still and I've seen one of those shoot right through a brick wall. Having said this all the times Ive fired a weapon I was under British military supervision and like I said I think the most powerful weapon a civilian should be allowed to own is a .22 target rifle, its all you need for targets, an air rifle would suffice to be honest. I find hunting animals distastful in the extreme, and even then if you must do it you could bring down anything with a .22, I understand that you yanks have some big ass animals but seriously most of them are protected anyway what the fuck are you doing killing somthing that has no means of killing you, its dishonourable plain and simple.

The idea of carrying a gun for self defense is the most fucking stupid thing i;ve ever seen, its morons with that kind of attidude which give the US an 11,000 people a year death rate from fire arms compared to just a few hundred in the Uk

Have you ever trully hunted with a .22? I do not mean the rabbits and small game either. I am talking a 200 lb, that would be around 90 kg for those across the pond, Buck, or a Moose or even an Elk. How about a Black Bear? You would get yourself killed if you tried to hunt those animals with a .22.

I remember this time my Dad, Unlce and I were up in the UP, that is the upper pennisula for those outside the state of Michigan. We were heading to this secluded lake. The only road was a fire trail that wasn't very well kept. We came around this bend and standing in the middle of the road was the largest Moose I have ever seen. I was shocked more to the fact because I thought they were none in that part of the state. But anyway, That Moose got a good look at us and started pawing the ground, then it came a charging. About shit my pants thought for sure we were done. I never knew a full size Chevy Truck could do 40 mph in reverse. We made it off that trail with a two broken side mirrors and lots of scratches in the paint. Needless to say we never made it to my Uncles favorite fishing spot that weekend.

how easy was it to get a hold of that gun? too easy, is my guess

Well, it's not exactly the least expensive hobby in the universe.... ;)


No kidding, good thing is that I am getting my wife more involved she went to the range with us this weekend. I think she ejoyed shooting the .22, she was scared at first but warmed up after about the 20th round.

I go to a range where the State, County, and City cops go. It is fairly interesting to get into conversations with them. Also keeps me up on the laws being passed from time to time.

To everyone here that have their wives shooting with them what is the largest calibur that you went upto with her? I would like to keep her interest peaked, should I just stick with the .22 and be happy or should I try to introduce her to larger cali.?

You ,sir, are an idiot. More guns less crime. There are hard statistics showing that communities with lighter gun laws and concealed carry laws have much lower crime rates than places like NY or LA where it's almost impossible to get a gun.

To compare smaller mostly-white (homogene) city with big multietnic one like NY on the base of crime rate to make your point is really really really irrevelant

To compare smaller mostly-white (homogene) city with big multietnic one like NY on the base of crime rate to make your point is really really really irrevelant


I do not remember seeing him name any other city, but for the record you can take any small town where they have anti-gun laws and compare it to another small town with less restrict gun laws to compare the crime in those areas.

Anybody enjoy a good blackpowder shoot? Blackpowder rifles are my funnest time shooting.
I was at the range once and a father and son were in the spot next to me. The father stops his son and starts telling him about my rifle and had his son watch me load and get ready to fire and. . .of course. . .I made an ass out of myself. Pulled the trigger and nothing, wait wait, slowly bring the rifle down, check it, put on a new percussion cap, pull the trigger, nothing. wait wait, try it a third time and it hang fires.
I had forgotten to clear the oil out of the nipple. Smiled stupidly at the father and son. I could tell they were less than impressed.

No kidding, good thing is that I am getting my wife more involved she went to the range with us this weekend. I think she ejoyed shooting the .22, she was scared at first but warmed up after about the 20th round.

I go to a range where the State, County, and City cops go. It is fairly interesting to get into conversations with them. Also keeps me up on the laws being passed from time to time.

To everyone here that have their wives shooting with them what is the largest calibur that you went upto with her? I would like to keep her interest peaked, should I just stick with the .22 and be happy or should I try to introduce her to larger cali.?

Let her decide. :)

No kidding, good thing is that I am getting my wife more involved she went to the range with us this weekend. I think she ejoyed shooting the .22, she was scared at first but warmed up after about the 20th round.

I go to a range where the State, County, and City cops go. It is fairly interesting to get into conversations with them. Also keeps me up on the laws being passed from time to time.

To everyone here that have their wives shooting with them what is the largest calibur that you went upto with her? I would like to keep her interest peaked, should I just stick with the .22 and be happy or should I try to introduce her to larger cali.?

In a handgun: .44mag.

In a rifle--largest caliber was still .44mag. Largest "real" rifle caliber: .308.

If you're going to do the larger calibers, I'd suggest lots of recoil dampening--be it with a polymer frame (like the Glock or Springfield XD series) on a pistol, or heavier target barrels and recoil pads on rifles.

But be careful--once they find a gun they like, you're never getting it back. :D

Good luck (both for getting your wife into the sport and getting your firearms back). ;)

Anybody enjoy a good blackpowder shoot? Blackpowder rifles are my funnest time shooting.
I was at the range once and a father and son were in the spot next to me. The father stops his son and starts telling him about my rifle and had his son watch me load and get ready to fire and. . .of course. . .I made an ass out of myself. Pulled the trigger and nothing, wait wait, slowly bring the rifle down, check it, put on a new percussion cap, pull the trigger, nothing. wait wait, try it a third time and it hang fires.
I had forgotten to clear the oil out of the nipple. Smiled stupidly at the father and son. I could tell they were less than impressed.

Ouch. :(

I don't know....the muzzle loaders are too slow for me. I'm way too impatient.

Ouch. :(

I don't know....the muzzle loaders are too slow for me. I'm way too impatient.

But the thunder when the trigger is pulled, the gentle roll of the rifle into your shoulder rather than the smack of a modern rifle. The smell of burning powder filling the air. . .there are few things better.

Okay. Heres a question. Do you have a Colt 45 to get to your AR-15 in the event of a burglury?

But the thunder when the trigger is pulled, the gentle roll of the rifle into your shoulder rather than the smack of a modern rifle. The smell of burning powder filling the air. . .there are few things better.

Oh, I'm not doubting the experience, just that I know myself enough to know I'd need to go out with a friend who owned one, rather than going after one for myself. :D

Okay. Heres a question. Do you have a Colt 45 to get to your AR-15 in the event of a burglury?

Heh. Nope. I have a Glock 21 in a bed holster. No need to go anywhere. If I need more than 13 rounds of .45ACP, my time was up anyway.

or you could learn to go aroun and butcher everyone around you (school shootings - hmmmmmm must be down to music not jurasic GUN LAWS)

shooting can be fun in competition in safe and secure enviroments not under your pillow just because your afraid of youths because they're black

hmmm self defence dont you just love the eye for an eye stupid mentality alot of gun ownership leads to stealing guns and then selling them so gr8 if you want to arm up the whole neighbour hood and then you really have to defend yourself damm kids getting hold of guns tut... whatever next

by the way i dont like the idea of gun ownership
Apparently you don't like the ideas of proper grammar, logic, reason, or intelligent discourse, either.

But self-defense? Who is out to get you?
Do you wear a seat belt when you're in a car? Why, who is trying to run you off the road?

Heh. Nope. I have a Glock 21 in a bed holster. No need to go anywhere. If I need more than 13 rounds of .45ACP, my time was up anyway.

"Aw c'mon... it's just Czechoslovakia! It's like going to Wisconsin..."
Sorry, I just can't jive that line from Stripes and a bed holster... :D

No kidding, good thing is that I am getting my wife more involved she went to the range with us this weekend. I think she ejoyed shooting the .22, she was scared at first but warmed up after about the 20th round.

I go to a range where the State, County, and City cops go. It is fairly interesting to get into conversations with them. Also keeps me up on the laws being passed from time to time.

To everyone here that have their wives shooting with them what is the largest calibur that you went upto with her? I would like to keep her interest peaked, should I just stick with the .22 and be happy or should I try to introduce her to larger cali.?


As she gets comfortable with the .22 she will probably want to try larger caliber firearms. Just make certain that she is using good technique and keeps the rifle tight to her shoulder or if shooting a handgun that she keeps a good grip on the gun.

I regularly shoot .45s in both rifle and pistols. I have no problem shooting a .45 auto or a .44 magnum. I use a .50 caliber muzzle loader during muzzle loading season and have no problem with large caliber high powered rifles. I'm 5'4" female that weighs 130 lbs.

"Aw c'mon... it's just Czechoslovakia! It's like going to Wisconsin..."
Sorry, I just can't jive that line from Stripes and a bed holster... :D

"Well, I got the shit kicked out of me in Wisconsin once. Forget it."

:D Probably had a bed holster.

"Well, I got the shit kicked out of me in Wisconsin once. Forget it."

:D Probably had a bed holster.

No... probably ripped on someone's cows....

unless they were a FIB and just went up north, in which case they wouldn't really have to do anything to be treated thus. hehe

No... probably ripped on someone's cows....

unless they were a FIB and just went up north, in which case they wouldn't really have to do anything to be treated thus. hehe

Spent some time here, have we? ;)

"Aw c'mon... it's just Czechoslovakia! It's like going to Wisconsin..."
Sorry, I just can't jive that line from Stripes and a bed holster... :D


Wow-any of us that can quote appropriately from "Stripes" are really dating ourselves.

Anybody enjoy a good blackpowder shoot? Blackpowder rifles are my funnest time shooting.
I was at the range once and a father and son were in the spot next to me. The father stops his son and starts telling him about my rifle and had his son watch me load and get ready to fire and. . .of course. . .I made an ass out of myself. Pulled the trigger and nothing, wait wait, slowly bring the rifle down, check it, put on a new percussion cap, pull the trigger, nothing. wait wait, try it a third time and it hang fires.
I had forgotten to clear the oil out of the nipple. Smiled stupidly at the father and son. I could tell they were less than impressed.


Yes-my brother has an Italian made .44 revolver. Its a lot of work to load. And a real quantity of smoke. Makes you wonder how long a wild west shoot out could have lasted. They would have had an intermission to let the smoke clear and reload before cartridges.

Did you realize that your right to own guns is not guaranteed in the Constitution?

Did you realize that your right to own guns is not guaranteed in the Constitution?

To quote an NS elder: "Oh fuckmonkey, do you know what you've started now?"

Prepare for a shitstorm.

"Well, I got the shit kicked out of me in Wisconsin once. Forget it."

:D Probably had a bed holster.


ROTFLMAO!!

Wow-any of us that can quote appropriately from "Stripes" are really dating ourselves.

My date for tomorrow night won't be pleased to hear that... ;)

I can quote Patton, too. But it's an older movie than me.

You ,sir, are an idiot. More guns less crime. There are hard statistics showing that communities with lighter gun laws and concealed carry laws have much lower crime rates than places like NY or LA where it's almost impossible to get a gun.

wrong wrong wrong.
There are no conclusive studies which show that gun ownership decreases crime and or increases crime. In addition to that.. In the top 10 worst crime areas, like 5 counties in texas ( the home of the most lax gun laws ) rank in the top 10.
Gun crimes arent as hign in texas as in some other places,(both liberal and conservative about thier gun laws), but crime in general is higher than in most places. So saying that having a gun reduces crime is a bogus statistic pushed by the NRA with no valid studies behind it. There are NO hard statistics to proove the point that you made.

Did you realize that your right to own guns is not guaranteed in the Constitution?


No, but that same Constitution allows you to be wrong, too. :)

Yes-my brother has an Italian made .44 revolver. Its a lot of work to load. And a real quantity of smoke. Makes you wonder how long a wild west shoot out could have lasted. They would have had an intermission to let the smoke clear and reload before cartridges.

bam! bam! "Hold it! Hold it, give me a sec, gotta reload!"

"Yeah, me too, lets take a break and meet back here this evening."

wrong wrong wrong.
There are no conclusive studies which show that gun ownership decreases crime and or increases crime. In addition to that.. In the top 10 worst crime areas, like 5 counties in texas ( the home of the most lax gun laws ) rank in the top 10.
Gun crimes arent as hign in texas as in some other places,(both liberal and conservative about thier gun laws), but crime in general is higher than in most places. So saying that having a gun reduces crime is a bogus statistic pushed by the NRA with no valid studies behind it. There are NO hard statistics to proove the point that you made.

umm, but, you gave no real stats to back your claim either. 5 counties in Texas? Which ones, what are the numbers? Are five counties in Texas really representative of all areas in the US with high gun ownership compared with areas in the US with very restrictive gun laws?

Yes-my brother has an Italian made .44 revolver. Its a lot of work to load. And a real quantity of smoke. Makes you wonder how long a wild west shoot out could have lasted. They would have had an intermission to let the smoke clear and reload before cartridges.


All depends on if the wind is being good to them or not. Wind is a friend of black powder shooters. :)

All depends on if the wind is being good to them or not. Wind is a friend of black powder shooters. :)

nooooooooooooooooooo. Wind is the enemy! With wind most of that good smell is removed and all the beautiful smoke is taken away. That'S half the fun!

nooooooooooooooooooo. Wind is the enemy! With wind most of that good smell is removed and all the beautiful smoke is taken away. That'S half the fun!


LOL...you sound like a true darksider.

umm, but, you gave no real stats to back your claim either. 5 counties in Texas? Which ones, what are the numbers? Are five counties in Texas really representative of all areas in the US with high gun ownership compared with areas in the US with very restrictive gun laws?

this is the problem with government statistics.. I had a whole series of stats for this,(based on othe rprevious similar conversations), but cant find them. Id be interested to see the source of your statistics.

I looked through many fbi government statistics.

They seem to indicate high crime statistics in many large urban areas in texas, california, florida, michigan, pennsylvania,ohio, etc...
What they are missing is crime percentages based on the size of populations.

enjoy (www.fbi.gov)

The only source i could find you may discount because we all know that cnn is a tool of the leftists liberals :p
i know the statistics are out there.. but cnat spend too much more time on this for fear of losing my job :)

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/unsafest_cities/
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/safest_cities/


again I have yet to see a conclusive study based on crime vs gun laws. there isnt one.. becuase the nra doesnt want one.. and the anti-gun lobby doesnt want one either.. becuase they dont want to be found wrong.

There was another study (which admittedly i cannot find a tthe moment), which showed that victims who brandished weapons were more likely to be shot by thier perpetrators.
*grin*

Did you realize that your right to own guns is not guaranteed in the Constitution?

It is, however, in my state Constitution (and very likely yours too), and it's not likely to change any time soon.

In that sense, yes, my right to own guns is guaranteed.

again I have yet to see a conclusive study based on crime vs gun laws. there isnt one.. becuase the nra doesnt want one.. and the anti-gun lobby doesnt want one either.. becuase they dont want to be found wrong.

There was another study (which admittedly i cannot find a tthe moment), which showed that victims who brandished weapons were more likely to be shot by thier perpetrators.
*grin*

Wrong on all counts. There is an unassailable study by Kleck, which was peer reviewed by anti-gun professors - who could not find a single flaw in the study.

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

*snip*

You posted these statistics before, and I showed they were flawed.

The only change you have made is you no longer claim the NIJ study confirms the Kleck study.

The NIJ study still shows the Kleck stuty greatly exaggerated the defensive use of guns.

Here is a link to the National Insitute of Justice's summary (http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf) of their research results. Here are a few quotes:

On the basis of National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) date, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year.

...

The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and Gertz instrument and provides a basis for replicating their estimate.

....
Almost half of these respondents reported multiple DGUs during 1994, which proivdes the basis for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23 million. This suprising figure is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!

[I]t is of considerable interest and importance to check the reasonableness of the NSPOF estimates before embracing them. .... The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high.

For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assualts is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!

NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.

....

In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents' answers to the followup items are not consistent with respondents' reported DGUs. For example of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack -- but then responded "no" to a subsequent question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?"

....

The NSPOF does not provide much evidence on whether consumers who buy guns for protection from crime get their money's worth. The NSPOF-based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exagerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly -- or perhaps both -- but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.


Now, I don't think 108,000 defensive gun uses per year is a number to be lightly dismissed. But the NIJ noted two additional problems with assuming more DGUs is a good thing:

First, people who draw their guns to defend themselves against perceived thereats are not necessarily innocent victims; they may have started fights themselves or they may simply be mistaken about whether the other persons really intended to harm them. ...

Second and more generally, the number of DGUs tells us little about the most important effects on crime of widespread gun ownership. When a high percentage of homes, vehicles, and even purses contain guns, that presumably has an important effect on the behavior of predatory criminals. Some may be deterred or diverted to other types of crime. Others may change tactices, acquiring a gun themselves or in some other way seeking to preempt gun use by the intended victim. Such consequences presumable have an important effect on criminal victimization rates but are in no way reflected in the DGU count.

I have no doubt guns are used to defend people from crimes. The rate at which this occurs is not as high as often bandied about, however. Moreover, it is only one part of the question of whether widespread gun ownership is beneficial or harmful. It says next to nothing on the more relevant questions of controls like gun registration that would not in any way hamper the defensive use of guns.

I hate to tell you this WS, but some people will not listen no matter how many facts you put in front of them. They see guns as a negative thing reguardless of how many people they have saved. As a pilot, I will CCW to keep my aircraft from being hi-jacked and to keep people from stealing our aircraft. If anyone dosen't like this they can be held personally responcible for what happens. However, I know there is nothing these people can do to save me if I am mugged or hijacked. So, until these anti-gun folks can figure out a way that is 100% effective against me having someone induce bodily harm on me I will keep my guns.

If Guns Kill People then Spoons Make Michael Moore Fat

I hate to tell you this WS, but some people will not listen no matter how many facts you put in front of them. They see guns as a negative thing reguardless of how many people they have saved. As a pilot, I will CCW to keep my aircraft from being hi-jacked and to keep people from stealing our aircraft. If anyone dosen't like this they can be held personally responcible for what happens. However, I know there is nothing these people can do to save me if I am mugged or hijacked. So, until these anti-gun folks can figure out a way that is 100% effective against me having someone induce bodily harm on me I will keep my guns.

I would suggest that you read about the flaws in the NIJ study (or even the Kellerman study). Then come back - because the peer reviewers already did this, and concluded, woefully, that the Kleck study was far more valid than the NIJ or Kellerman studies.

Everyone around me knows that I carry concealed. And, some hate the idea. So, I've had some sign an agreement, that I will be held harmless in the event that they are attacked by someone else, and I happen to be present.

If they don't want to see a defensive use of a gun in their presence, to save themselves, then I won't give them the opportunity. I'll walk away.

There was a recent incident in a shopping mall near here. Several MS-13 gang members were beating a 14 year old boy, and he managed to crawl into the entrance of a Hechts department store. The manager appeared, and told him to leave, as he didn't want any trouble. The manager not only told him to leave, but he neither called mall security, nor the police.

The very strong message we're getting around here is:

1) Private store owners by policy, are not only not going to help you, they aren't even going to call the police.
2) The police will show up when everything is already over.

And the message I send is that if you don't want help later, tell me now, so I can do what the store manager does - walk away and let you suffer.

Wrong on all counts. There is an unassailable study by Kleck, which was peer reviewed by anti-gun professors - who could not find a single flaw in the study.

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

Marvin Wolfgang on Kleck's DGU survey
"J. Neil Schulman" <jneil@loop.com> writes:

> So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this
> country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even
> HE found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.

This is untrue. Wolfgang writes:
"The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck
and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small
numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the
universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including
theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments
because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific
limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism
methodologically."
(J of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:2 p617-8)

One of the limitations of survey research that Wolfgang considered too
obvious to be necessary to point out is there is no guarantee that all
respondents told the truth. Mr Schulman is perhaps unaware of this
fact.

--
Tim

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

More wolfgang articles:
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/wolfgang.htm
http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/curric/soc/crime/subcultu.htm

a link to your article :
http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html

read wolfgangs ENTIRE comment on the kleck study
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/WolfgangRemarks.htm

.. I could go on ..

Gun control activists were unhappy with the National Self Defense Survey's results, which show that "Every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal."

In a 1994 TV news taping, Handgun Control, Inc.’s, spokesman, Sandy Cooney, called the National Self Defense Survey “obscene” and threw ad hominem slurs at its lead researcher, professor of criminology, Dr. Gary Kleck. Since Kleck is an impartial social scientist with no links to gun advocates or manufacturers — in fact he’s a liberal Democrat — it appears that Kleck’s only sin was doing research which produced results that challenged the gun-control agenda of Handgun Control, Inc., the "Million" Moms, and similar organizations.

So, to refute the results of the National Self Defense Survey, two pro-gun-control researchers, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, were given funding by the Clinton administration's Department of Justice to do their own survey of Defensive Gun Uses, to attempt to prove that the National Self Defense Survey's estimate was too high.

Unfortunately for advocates of gun control, the Cook-Ludwig survey produced results about the same as the National Self Defense Survey and -- in one remarkable paragraph -- suggested that their methodology was too conservative and that the Defensive Gun Use figure could even be doubled:

"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs[

Marvin Wolfgang on Kleck's DGU survey
"J. Neil Schulman" <jneil@loop.com> writes:

> So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this
> country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even
> HE found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.

This is untrue. Wolfgang writes:
"The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck
and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small
numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the
universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including
theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments
because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific
limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism
methodologically."
(J of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:2 p617-8)

One of the limitations of survey research that Wolfgang considered too
obvious to be necessary to point out is there is no guarantee that all
respondents told the truth. Mr Schulman is perhaps unaware of this
fact.

--
Tim

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

More wolfgang articles:
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/wolfgang.htm
http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/curric/soc/crime/subcultu.htm

a link to your article :
http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html

read wolfgangs ENTIRE comment on the kleck study
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/WolfgangRemarks.htm

.. I could go on ..

Nice. :D

I'd just like to know what the anti-gun people would tell the women I've taught to shoot, so they can carry concealed.

Their days of being stalked and beaten repeatedly, with the police showing up when they are ready for the emergency room, are over.

Would you tell these women that their defensive gun uses, which haven't resulted in any deaths (or shootings!) are wrong? Bad? Uncalled for?

Would you have them rely on the "protective order" that the court issued to them?

Which do you think does a better job of drawing the "bright line" that an abusive ex-husband seems to clearly understand - seeing his ex-wife with a pistol in her hand, or with a protective order in her hand?

Gun control activists were unhappy with the National Self Defense Survey's results, which show that "Every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal."

In a 1994 TV news taping, Handgun Control, Inc.’s, spokesman, Sandy Cooney, called the National Self Defense Survey “obscene” and threw ad hominem slurs at its lead researcher, professor of criminology, Dr. Gary Kleck. Since Kleck is an impartial social scientist with no links to gun advocates or manufacturers — in fact he’s a liberal Democrat — it appears that Kleck’s only sin was doing research which produced results that challenged the gun-control agenda of Handgun Control, Inc., the "Million" Moms, and similar organizations.

So, to refute the results of the National Self Defense Survey, two pro-gun-control researchers, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, were given funding by the Clinton administration's Department of Justice to do their own survey of Defensive Gun Uses, to attempt to prove that the National Self Defense Survey's estimate was too high.

Unfortunately for advocates of gun control, the Cook-Ludwig survey produced results about the same as the National Self Defense Survey and -- in one remarkable paragraph -- suggested that their methodology was too conservative and that the Defensive Gun Use figure could even be doubled:

"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs[

Actually, here is WL's source for all of this.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

And the Cook-Ludwigh survey is the NIJ study. :rolleyes:

So you've bashed the NIJ study -- but cited it to support Kleck.

And you've cited it to support Kleck despite the study's own conclusions undermining Kleck.

Almost Orwellian. ;)

I would suggest that you read about the flaws in the NIJ study (or even the Kellerman study). Then come back - because the peer reviewers already did this, and concluded, woefully, that the Kleck study was far more valid than the NIJ or Kellerman studies.

Everyone around me knows that I carry concealed. And, some hate the idea. So, I've had some sign an agreement, that I will be held harmless in the event that they are attacked by someone else, and I happen to be present.

If they don't want to see a defensive use of a gun in their presence, to save themselves, then I won't give them the opportunity. I'll walk away.

There was a recent incident in a shopping mall near here. Several MS-13 gang members were beating a 14 year old boy, and he managed to crawl into the entrance of a Hechts department store. The manager appeared, and told him to leave, as he didn't want any trouble. The manager not only told him to leave, but he neither called mall security, nor the police.

The very strong message we're getting around here is:

1) Private store owners by policy, are not only not going to help you, they aren't even going to call the police.
2) The police will show up when everything is already over.

And the message I send is that if you don't want help later, tell me now, so I can do what the store manager does - walk away and let you suffer.

I fully agree with all you have said WS. I have a serious problem with those whom want to take my gun away but woun't lift a finger to help me if someone harming me. Criminals will be criminals and we all know they don't play by the rules. You know, even though carrying concealed isn't 100% effective, the odds are slim to nil when not carrying.

Actually, here is WL's source for all of this.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

And the Cook-Ludwigh survey is the NIJ study. :rolleyes:

So you've bashed the NIJ study -- but cited it to support Kleck.

And you've cited it to support Kleck despite the study's own conclusions undermining Kleck.

Almost Orwellian. ;)

No, the National Crime Victimization Survey is cited to support Kleck. The NIJ study comes later, and I bash it.

Call it a plethora of acronyms for studies.

No, the National Crime Victimization Survey is cited to support Kleck. The NIJ study comes later, and I bash it.

Call it a plethora of acronyms for studies.

No.

Here is the link (http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/165476.pdf) -- from your source to the "Cook-Ludwig study," which is the NIJ study. ;)

Whispering Legs.

Your kung fu is strong.. but unfortunately.. this time you appear to be beaten..

in any case.. i cant fault you for your conclusions.. if you do a search for this material online.. 99% of it appears to cite the wolfgang quote only up the point at which is begins to question it. Basically those who are citing his comments in favor of gun possession are promoting half truths.

I admit to being on the more liberal end of the spectrum, but I have not given a clear position as to my feelings on gun possession. I have only cited certain statistics.. some that I have been able to back up and more than I have not.

If you look at actual statistics and counts.. there are no conclusive answers there.
There are plenty of "advocates" on either side which cite alot of half truths.. but there are still no untainted studies beyond the raw numbers which dont really cover certain aspects.

No.

Here is the link (http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/165476.pdf) -- from your source to the "Cook-Ludwig study," which is the NIJ study. ;)

That's because they admit that they are probably too conservative in their estimate. They set out to try to suppress the Kleck study, but they admit that they are probably too conservative.

"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs"

Whispering Legs.

Your kung fu is strong.. but unfortunately.. this time you appear to be beaten..

in any case.. i cant fault you for your conclusions.. if you do a search for this material online.. 99% of it appears to cite the wolfgang quote only up the point at which is begins to question it. Basically those who are citing his comments in favor of gun possession are promoting half truths.

I admit to being on the more liberal end of the spectrum, but I have not given a clear position as to my feelings on gun possession. I have only cited certain statistics.. some that I have been able to back up and more than I have not.

If you look at actual statistics and counts.. there are no conclusive answers there.
There are plenty of "advocates" on either side which cite alot of half truths.. but there are still no untainted studies beyond the raw numbers which dont really cover certain aspects.


Statistics aside, I have seen defensive gun use work. For me, and for others. Without a shot being fired, dangerous situations were averted. It is a far, far more effective defense than a "protective order'.

Not that a protective order is completely worthless. If you have it in hand at the time of the shooting, it is an incredibly solid piece of evidence that your tormentor posed a lethal threat.

In China, posession of a gun can be punishible by death, and China has one of the highest crime rates in the world.

In China, posession of a gun can be punishible by death, and China has one of the highest crime rates in the world.

The problem, as pointed out before, is that the US is not like other countries.

The UK is, for example, not like the US. There is something in the culture that affects the nature of violent crime - to make it something essentially different.

In China, posession of a gun can be punishible by death, and China has one of the highest crime rates in the world.

It would be so nice if these statements were always followed by some statistical source. Something that could be compared against other related statistics.

I dont believe everything that people tell me and I dont hav etime to look up every single bogus claim that I read.

That's because they admit that they are probably too conservative in their estimate. They set out to try to suppress the Kleck study, but they admit that they are probably too conservative.

"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs"

Actually, that is a manufactured quote.

In the report, the first sentence comes before the second. And they are surrounded by a discussion of how false positives mean the numbers are too high.

For example, in the report, it says this:

Thus, it is of considerable interest and importance to check the reasonableness of the NSPOF estimates before embracing them. Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. The results still suggest DGUs are too high.

See how the sentence from your quote is taken out of context?

And then an out-of-context sentence from earlier in the report is added. That is pure fabrication. I expected better from you, WL. :eek:

I have no idea what you mean by "they set out to suppress the Kleck study." They expressly talk about it. Then they document the flaws in it and similar surveys.

It would be so nice if these statements were always followed by some statistical source. Something that could be compared against other related statistics.

I dont believe everything that people tell me and I dont hav etime to look up every single bogus claim that I read.


Here's the hypothetical that I give to the people that I have sign the "hold harmless".

We are walking somewhere (shopping, let's say). Several people come up and demand money, under threat of severe bodily harm.

I can:

1) Draw, and back slowly away, leaving you to be robbed or worse, or,

2) Draw, and do the same, but allow you to escape as well.

I'm assuming in the first case, that you signed the "hold harmless", and I will tell the robbers that you're on your own.

Which situation would you rather find yourself in?

Oh, and forget using your cell phone to call the police.

Here's the hypothetical that I give to the people that I have sign the "hold harmless".

We are walking somewhere (shopping, let's say). Several people come up and demand money, under threat of severe bodily harm.

I can:

1) Draw, and back slowly away, leaving you to be robbed or worse, or,

2) Draw, and do the same, but allow you to escape as well.

I'm assuming in the first case, that you signed the "hold harmless", and I will tell the robbers that you're on your own.

Which situation would you rather find yourself in?

Oh, and forget using your cell phone to call the police.

This hypothetical implies that somehow pulling out your gun makes you safer.
If the robber has a gun which is entirely possible, would a robber be more likely to shoot at you fearing that it is the only way they can get away.
And sure.. if the robber only has a knife, you iwll have the upper hand.. and youll teach that robber that the only way to have the upper hand in the next confrontation is for them aquire a gun.

so if you dont pull a gun.. and the robbers purpose is to rob you, then you are out some money/valuables. the probability that you will be physically harmed is.. i think wed agree less.
if you pull a gun.. then your probability of getting physically harmed or harming someone nearby is far greater.. and if the perpetrator has a gun, then the probability of a gunfight in which multiple people are wounded or killed is increased exponentially.

again this is a hypothetical.. but what many people do is to make a black and white issue.. where only the crime is pertinent. alot of people dont take into account human nature. Im a big proponent of understanding and utilizing a knowledge of human nature and probability.

again.. this is all hypothetical.

would you rather lose a little wallet change or would you rather take your change and possibly lose your life.
even with a knife if the robber is up close.. they can mortally wound you before you even have a chance to dig out that concealed weapon.

its all hypothetical.. just think logiclaly and decide what the best outcome of the situaton can be and what you have to do to make sure you areheading in that direction.

S-

This hypothetical implies that somehow pulling out your gun makes you safer.
If the robber has a gun which is entirely possible, would a robber be more likely to shoot at you fearing that it is the only way they can get away.
And sure.. if the robber only has a knife, you iwll have the upper hand.. and youll teach that robber that the only way to have the upper hand in that confrontation is to them aquire a weapon.

so if you dont pull a gun.. and the robbers purpose is to rob you, then you are out some money/valuables. the probability that you will be physically harmed is.. i think wed agree less.
if you pull a gun.. then your probability of getting physically harmed or harming someone nearby is far greater.. and if the perpetrator has a gun, then the probability of a gunfight in which multiple people are wounded or killed is increased exponentially.

again this is a hypothetical.. but what many people do is to make a black and white issue.. where only the crime is pertinent. alot of people dont take into account human nature. Im a big proponent of understanding and utilizing a knowledge of human nature and probability.

again.. this is all hypothetical.

would you rather lose a little wallet change or would you rather take your change and possibly lose your life.
even with a knife if the robber is up close.. they can mortally wound you before you even have a chance to dig out that concealed weapon.

its all hypothetical.. just think logiclaly and decide what the best outcome of the situaton can be and what you have to do to make sure you areheading in that direction.

S-


It has made me safer three times in real life. Three times I've pulled the gun and the situation resolved with no one getting hurt - or robbed.

So, I want to know - would you rather I leave you with the robbers, or help you escape?

You posted these statistics before, and I showed they were flawed.

The only change you have made is you no longer claim the NIJ study confirms the Kleck study.

The NIJ study still shows the Kleck stuty greatly exaggerated the defensive use of guns.


Now, I don't think 108,000 defensive gun uses per year is a number to be lightly dismissed. But the NIJ noted two additional problems with assuming more DGUs is a good thing:


.

While you have halfway convinced me on the court rulings about individual vs collective rights(I think you are wrong on miller, but right on the ones that followed)(My reading of the 2nd still leads me to believe that the Federal Govt should not be able to regulate guns at all, but the states can), you wont convince me of the validity of the NIJ study because of the following reasons. Also, Keep in mind that the courts have abused the constitution in the last century as evidenced my the rampant abuse of the commerce clause(and unfortunately it appears that Republicans and democrats are basically the same except for tax cuts so I cant expect any lessening of Federal power)

1) This survey never asked if a gun was used to prevent a crime. If the respondent said he used a gun, great, if he just said he warded off the assault then and didnt mention guns(even if he had used one) then it wasnt counted as a DGU

2) The numbers in this survey are an outlier. all the others show between 800,000 to 2.5 million

3) This survey made it very clear that it was the FEDERAL GOVT(law enforcement branch) asking the questions. Given that even a completely legal DGU(legal firearm, legal use of force) could easily cost $10,000 - 15,000 in legal fees, I would not volunteer any info to the Federal govt about using a firearm to defend myself.

4) Many of the DGUs probably happened in quasi legal circumstances such as outdoors without a carry permit or a DGU with an illegally purchased firearm or in places that no longer allow possession(NYC). This further reduces the probability that someone is going to volunteer this info on a FED GOVT study that doesnt even SPECIFICALLY ASK if a firearm was used.


5) 64+% of these incidences were reported to the police. That means that even if you discount all the ones that didnt report it to the police, 1.2 million+(roughly) people felt threatened enough to call the local police and say this incident happened, yet no reportable crime occured(beyond some sort of incidence report, e.g. no victims). Did they chase them off with a baseball bat and then say they used a gun on the survey?

Did they report they used a gun to protect themselves to the police(I dont know?). What I do know is that they reported an averted incident that could have been serious to the police and later in a survey claimed they used a gun to avert the incident.

Just the fact that they reported it to the police makes them believable in my eyes. Why would they claim gun use later unless it actually happened. Ist a person "tougher"/"cooler" is he scares off criminals with his fists/bats than is he used a gun? If someone were to ie in this circumstance, why would he lie in favour of gun use? Its possible, but not believable in my eyes..Maybe yours though?

While you have halfway convinced me on the court rulings about individual vs collective rights(I think you are wrong on miller, but right on the ones that followed)(My reading of the 2nd still leads me to believe that the Federal Govt should not be able to regulate guns at all, but the states can), you wont convince me of the validity of the NIJ study because of the following reasons. Also, Keep in mind that the courts have abused the constitution in the last century as evidenced my the rampant abuse of the commerce clause(and unfortunately it appears that Republicans and democrats are basically the same except for tax cuts so I cant expect any lessening of Federal power)

1) This survey never asked if a gun was used to prevent a crime. If the respondent said he used a gun, great, if he just said he warded off the assault then and didnt mention guns(even if he had used one) then it wasnt counted as a DGU

2) The numbers in this survey are an outlier. all the others show between 800,000 to 2.5 million

3) This survey made it very clear that it was the FEDERAL GOVT(law enforcement branch) asking the questions. Given that even a completely legal DGU(legal firearm, legal use of force) could easily cost $10,000 - 15,000 in legal fees, I would not volunteer any info to the Federal govt about using a firearm to defend myself.

4) Many of the DGUs probably happened in quasi legal circumstances such as outdoors without a carry permit or a DGU with an illegally purchased firearm or in places that no longer allow possession(NYC). This further reduces the probability that someone is going to volunteer this info on a FED GOVT study that doesnt even SPECIFICALLY ASK if a firearm was used.


5) 64+% of these incidences were reported to the police. That means that even if you discount all the ones that didnt report it to the police, 1.2 million+(roughly) people felt threatened enough to call the local police and say this incident happened, yet no reportable crime occured(beyond some sort of incidence report, e.g. no victims). Did they chase them off with a baseball bat and then say they used a gun on the survey?

Did they report they used a gun to protect themselves to the police(I dont know?). What I do know is that they reported an averted incident that could have been serious to the police and later in a survey claimed they used a gun to avert the incident.

Just the fact that they reported it to the police makes them believable in my eyes. Why would they claim gun use later unless it actually happened. Ist a person "tougher"/"cooler" is he scares off criminals with his fists/bats than is he used a gun? If someone were to ie in this circumstance, why would he lie in favour of gun use? Its possible, but not believable in my eyes..Maybe yours though?

You've confused the National Crime Victim Survey with the NIJ study.

No.

Here is the link (http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/165476.pdf) -- from your source to the "Cook-Ludwig study," which is the NIJ study. ;)


Cat tribe, the cook ludwick study only wuotes and makes referance to the Crime Victimization survey(the one with 108,000 dgus). It isnt the one that came up with the number.

You've confused the National Crime Victim Survey with the NIJ study.

Correct, I did. That is what I was reffering to. I just now took a glimpse at the NIJ survey

This hypothetical implies that somehow pulling out your gun makes you safer.
If the robber has a gun which is entirely possible, would a robber be more likely to shoot at you fearing that it is the only way they can get away.
And sure.. if the robber only has a knife, you iwll have the upper hand.. and youll teach that robber that the only way to have the upper hand in the next confrontation is for them aquire a gun.

so if you dont pull a gun.. and the robbers purpose is to rob you, then you are out some money/valuables. the probability that you will be physically harmed is..

again.. this is all hypothetical.

would you rather lose a little wallet change or would you rather take your change and possibly lose your life.

S-


Couple of points that people on your side of the fence refuse to think about.

1) the criminal is not out to rob you! That isnt his goal in life. His goal is to make money in what he perceives to be the least risky and most lucrative way possible(given his skill set)

2) The rapist/serial killer is out to harm you. But he also want to do it in the most rewarding least risky way possible.

The ability to possess firearms and concealed carry increase the perceived risk or criminals while their reward does not increase. Assuming criminals are rational, this means that some portion of them will be deterted because their risk has increased while their reward have not.


As to getting into gun fights.. why? Why would this make sense to you. A criminal that is shot is going to get caught..or die. Criminals know this. Why get into this situation when they can steal a parked car instead? or break a parking meter or something else where they dont run the risk of confronting a person able to defend themselves? I have limitted problem with people stealing my stuff, thats an issue I gladly give to the police to figure out. They are good at this sort of thing, I have insurance, its only stuff..that isnt why I carry.

Criminals dont want police investigations(the police spend more time on armed assailants than they do on parking meter thieves. There is no upside for a criminal to escalate the violence in any given situation. They receive the same reward(money) but run higher risks(harm, increased police scrutiny ect)

If you dont understand basic risk reward concepts, then you just dont. Assuming you believe criminals to be rational(I do)

Couple of points that people on your side of the fence refuse to think about.

1) the criminal is not out to rob you! That isnt his goal in life. His goal is to make money in what he perceives to be the least risky and most lucrative way possible(given his skill set)

2) The rapist/serial killer is out to harm you. But he also want to do it in the most rewarding least risky way possible.

The ability to possess firearms and concealed carry increase the perceived risk or criminals while their reward does not increase. Assuming criminals are rational, this means that some portion of them will be deterted because their risk has increased while their reward have not.


As to getting into gun fights.. why? Why would this make sense to you. A criminal that is shot is going to get caught..or die. Criminals know this. Why get into this situation when they can steal a parked car instead? or break a parking meter or something else where they dont run the risk of confronting a person able to defend themselves? I have limitted problem with people stealing my stuff, thats an issue I gladly give to the police to figure out. They are good at this sort of thing, I have insurance, its only stuff..that isnt why I carry.

Criminals dont want police investigations(the police spend more time on armed assailants than they do on parking meter thieves. There is no upside for a criminal to escalate the violence in any given situation. They receive the same reward(money) but run higher risks(harm, increased police scrutiny ect)

If you dont understand basic risk reward concepts, then you just dont. Assuming you believe criminals to be rational(I do)

let me take these points one at a time.
1. the criminal is not out to rob you.. he is out to make money.
explain where the textbook definition is not identical. A robber, burglar wants to take you for what youve got.. money, belongings, etc.. he wants to do it the easiest way which will attract the least attention. more than likely he knows the laws regarding his actions and knows that the punishment for robbery is far less than that of murder or assault. Since police rarely even investigate robberies unless they witness it in person.. it is essentially safe for the criminal to rob you and go on his/her merry way. to escalate that to assault seems to imply that either the criminal is not rational or they were not able to manage to keep the simple act of robbery under control and was forced to resort to other actions in order to prevent from being caught. In this way, a criminals motivation to not be caught for simple robbery and go to jail is usurped by his will to escape the situation without being caught at all.

2. the rapist serial killer is out to harm you.
Very rarely does the rapist or serial killer even identify with the thought of what we would consider harming another individual. This may sound silly. But let me explain. more often than not, a rapist or serial killers motivation stems from a psychological dysfunction where they feel like they must dominate or excercise power over another individual. Like a schoolyard bully, they feel they have satisfied thier urge when they have subjected thier prey to torture, pain, redemption for some past dejection (specifically rapists), or deal with inadequacies in thier own life.
Unlike the robber, thier goal is quell whatever mental craving it is without being caught.. that will often entail abduction.
A rapist/serial killer isnt going to come up to you on the street and say.. hi my name is bob.. ill be your serial rapist..
more than likely they will catch you offguard from behind and before you have an opportunity to draw a weapon of any kind. SO, unless you just happen to know whats coming before it happens, carrying a gun on you more than likely would not help. And if the rapist, serial killer has jumped you and incapacitates you.. which is the primary and first goal, then your gun is just another tool he can use against you.

Dont get me wrong.. I couldnt in good conscience say that a gun never helped anybody. I think in some situations, sometimes.. it might help.
the problem is .. the people who have had a weapon and say it has helped them in a situation can onyl ever be part of the story.. becuase the people who had a gun and it didnt help them.. chances are they cant speak from the grave.. nor can the people who didnt have a gun and were killed.

unless of course you are channeling them through john edwards :p kidding.

but you said it yourself.. the criminal wants to get away with the least amount of trouble. a robber will try to take your money and run.. a killer or rapist is going to try to catch you offguard and immediately take away your ability to fight back. do some research on behavioural patterns of serial killers and rapists.

I understand the basic reward/reward concept.. but i also understand the basica psychology of human being.. rational and otherwise.. such as the fight or flight reflex.

It has made me safer three times in real life. Three times I've pulled the gun and the situation resolved with no one getting hurt - or robbed.

So, I want to know - would you rather I leave you with the robbers, or help you escape?

The situation you are attempting to play out is more of a situation of harassment or gang violence rather than robbery.

Whereas a group of gang members might come up to you and try to start a fight with you.. possibly leaving you a chance for you to make yourself a hero or a corpse by pulling out your weapon, a robber is going to catch you by surprise with weapon in hand and unless they are truly stupid, they will have you in position where you wont be able pull out a gun without first being shot or stabbed.
Again As i said in a previous post, how many robbers are going to come up to you and say" hi my name is bob.. ill be your mugger today".
It only happens in the movies.

And once again.. I wont say a gun or weapon has never helped someone get out of a situation.. for me.. its a numbers game.. and based on human nature, I believe that you are less likely to get hurt if you dont force the robber into a situation where they cannot control the situation.. and must make a decision to fight or run. How many criminals do you think are going to stop and say.. hey that was a good move you got me.. bring me to jail.
...
I dont believe any exist.. except maybe in disney movies.

The problem, as pointed out before, is that the US is not like other countries.

The UK is, for example, not like the US. There is something in the culture that affects the nature of violent crime - to make it something essentially different.

Exactly. In England, they like knives.

LONDON: One man was dead and five other people were in critical condition Thursday after an individual armed with a knife went on a morning rampage in north London, hospital officials said. At least five people were stabbed in as many locations in north London within a two-hour period, and a man in his 30s has been arrested as a suspect, police said. afp

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-12-2004_pg4_16

Again As i said in a previous post, how many robbers are going to come up to you and say" hi my name is bob.. ill be your mugger today".
It only happens in the movies.

And once again.. I wont say a gun or weapon has never helped someone get out of a situation.. for me.. its a numbers game.. and based on human nature, I believe that you are less likely to get hurt if you dont force the robber into a situation where they cannot control the situation.. and must make a decision to fight or run. How many criminals do you think are going to stop and say.. hey that was a good move you got me.. bring me to jail.


No, so far, they have brandished a weapon (not a firearm), and demanded money. Once they saw the gun, they changed their minds, and ran.

It's a matter of what's less risky for them. It's not my job to take anyone to jail. Either they leave, or I shoot.

No, so far, they have brandished a weapon (not a firearm), and demanded money. Once they saw the gun, they changed their minds, and ran.

It's a matter of what's less risky for them. It's not my job to take anyone to jail. Either they leave, or I shoot.

You bring up a good point, WL. Many of those that don't support gun rights seem to have a perception based on Hollywood fallacies, not history or actual experiential knowledge. We're not there to play hero, cowboy, or cop. The gun is strictly for defense alone.

Most people that carry firearms for protection are generally less likely to be aggressive, as they know, in the back of their minds, that if they ever shoot someone, they're going to jail. It may be only for a day or a few hours, but they are going. With a trial, thousands of dollars are spent defending oneself, and if exonerated, the inevitable civil trial will cost even more.

Law-abiding citizens that carry realize that pulling the trigger not only releases a hammer or firing pin, but a slew of consequences. Better be sure that it's in the defense of someone's life. It's not taken lightly by those that carry legally.

2. the rapist serial killer is out to harm you.
Very rarely does the rapist or serial killer even identify with the thought of what we would consider harming another individual. This may sound silly. But let me explain. more often than not, a rapist or serial killers motivation stems from a psychological dysfunction where they feel like they must dominate or excercise power over another individual. Like a schoolyard bully, they feel they have satisfied thier urge when they have subjected thier prey to torture, pain, redemption for some past dejection (specifically rapists), or deal with inadequacies in thier own life.
Unlike the robber, thier goal is quell whatever mental craving it is without being caught.. that will often entail abduction.
A rapist/serial killer isnt going to come up to you on the street and say.. hi my name is bob.. ill be your serial rapist..
more than likely they will catch you offguard from behind and before you have an opportunity to draw a weapon of any kind. SO, unless you just happen to know whats coming before it happens, carrying a gun on you more than likely would not help. And if the rapist, serial killer has jumped you and incapacitates you.. which is the primary and first goal, then your gun is just another tool he can use against you.

There's a small problem with the serial killer idea here.
Yes, carrying a gun may give them something else to use against you, but guess what; He's going to kill you anyways. Either he does it when you try to defend yourself, or does it later, either way, he'll do it. He's not called a serial killer for nothing.
I'd much rather give myself a fighting chance than just saying "I may be unsuccessful in defending myself, so I won't even try."

There's a small problem with the serial killer idea here.
Yes, carrying a gun may give them something else to use against you, but guess what; He's going to kill you anyways. Either he does it when you try to defend yourself, or does it later, either way, he'll do it. He's not called a serial killer for nothing.
I'd much rather give myself a fighting chance than just saying "I may be unsuccessful in defending myself, so I won't even try."

no.. what im saying here is that having a gun increases the risk that you wont be abl eot get away.
If you read any data from profilers. Professional law enforcement and investogators dealing with serial crimes, youll notice that the consensus that most of these professionals have is that you should struggle and fight to tget away while making alot of noise to draw attention. That is your best chance to get away. I have not seen many recommendations for carrying your own firearm. Because of the way these people work.. its highly unlikely that you wil have an oppotrunity to brandish your weapon before they have incapacitated you.

Again its a numbers game. In certain circumstances, having a firearm at your side might help you. However, in more cases, its likely to hurt you. Just based on this logic, I think that people would be able to choose whether to carry a firearm.. armed with the proper fact and statistics.

there are other reasons why i dont believe that just any person should be able to walk around with a firearm which i wont go into here.. most of which is purely my opinion.

Again its a numbers game. In certain circumstances, having a firearm at your side might help you. However, in more cases, its likely to hurt you. Just based on this logic, I think that people would be able to choose whether to carry a firearm.. armed with the proper fact and statistics.


You're more likely to run into a robber or mugger than a serial killer, however. In more cases, the firearm will be an asset as opposed to a liability.

Contrary to Hollywood (again), a criminal isn't as skilled as many think. Generally, as long as a person is slightly aware of their surroundings, you can see suspicious behavior from quite a distance. That's how hundreds of thousands of crimes are stopped annually with a firearm--many without even firing.

If it were the case of the gun being more of a liability than asset, the numbers of injuries, crimes, and deaths from firearms would be greater than the number of crimes stopped with them, and that's just not the case.

You're more likely to run into a robber or mugger than a serial killer, however. In more cases, the firearm will be an asset as opposed to a liability.

Contrary to Hollywood (again), a criminal isn't as skilled as many think. Generally, as long as a person is slightly aware of their surroundings, you can see suspicious behavior from quite a distance. That's how hundreds of thousands of crimes are stopped annually with a firearm--many without even firing.

If it were the case of the gun being more of a liability than asset, the numbers of injuries, crimes, and deaths from firearms would be greater than the number of crimes stopped with them, and that's just not the case.

ok .. hopefully this will be my last contribution to this topic.
we already established the other day that the statistics do not show that carrying a gun is any safer than not. unfortunately, the statistics dont show either. all of the statistical data that has been accumulated has been from people who thought that having a weapon did help then. Of course any people who were killed as a result of it, were not counted because the entire study was based on feedback from the gun owners themselves.

Im not expecting that ill change anybodies mind.. everyone has a right to feel any way they want to. I only want people to know all the facts before making that determination and to discount any half truths. Im open to other ideas provided valid data supports it.
Its almost impossible to change someones mind if they have decided on a particular issue.. even if they are obvoiusly wrong. This isnt one of those issues.. there are lots of intricate details that go into the decision including personal ideology. Only people who havent formulated a solidified position can be swayed in one direction or another.

Again, human nature... for good and bad.
change is upheaval.. its a painful and shameful process ot admit when someone has been wrong.. especially where an emotional investment accompanies the decision making process.. Again, this issue doesnt necessarily fit that mold.

ok .. hopefully this will be my last contribution to this topic.
we already established the other day that the statistics do not show that carrying a gun is any safer than not. unfortunately, the statistics dont show either. all of the statistical data that has been accumulated has been from people who thought that having a weapon did help then. Of course any people who were killed as a result of it, were not counted because the entire study was based on feedback from the gun owners themselves.

Im not expecting that ill change anybodies mind.. everyone has a right to feel any way they want to. I only want people to know all the facts before making that determination and to discount any half truths. Im open to other ideas provided valid data supports it.
Its almost impossible to change someones mind if they have decided on a particular issue.. even if they are obvoiusly wrong. This isnt one of those issues.. there are lots of intricate details that go into the decision including personal ideology. Only people who havent formulated a solidified position can be swayed in one direction or another.

Again, human nature... for good and bad.
change is upheaval.. its a painful and shameful process ot admit when someone has been wrong.. especially where an emotional investment accompanies the decision making process.. Again, this issue doesnt necessarily fit that mold.

Whilst I agree that the numbers showing direct more/less safe by carrying a gun stats aren't out there, I use the next best thing: millions of crimes stopped annually by firearms (the sources I trust--that will always be an opinion--I certainly don't believe the government is going to be effective or accurate, nor will be watching out for the citizen) vs. the deaths involving and crimes committed with guns. The millions outweigh the thousands.