Gunman kills 2 in missionary center

[Diuretic]

Except, of course, we see all the time where both police and the military fail miserably in this regard.

Sure, all the time, that's why they should both be disbanded.

And, of course, the entire idea that the police are SO much more qualified than the typical person tha carries a gun is abject fallacy.

So, how's your Active Shooter Response going? Rushed into a building to take out an armed offender lately? <---- ad hom eh? Pointed I admit but necessary. I have to use that to get through to you that being competent with a firearm isn't the same as using the firearm as part of a larger task, said task composed of many other tasks in which, I stress, possession of the firearm is useful but as a means to an end.

Just recently, there was a topic on this board about a guy being shot at by police with 20 rounds from less than 10 feet away, being hit a mere 8 times.
Thank God those police officers weren't at that church...

I'm sure you could shoot a cow from 300 yards if you wanted to. But what if you were eight feet away and the cow had a gun? It's different when you're facing someone with a gun, all the niceties of the range disappear and you're left with your own nerves and a residual ability to control the weapon. I've never been in a shootout such as you described, I've never even discharged a firearm in anger, but I've faced up to one a couple of times and trust me it's a lot different from aiming at that cardboard man on the range.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure, all the time, that's why they should both be disbanded.

Non sequitur, and a strawman. No one has made that argument, and that argument doesnt logically follow from the argument that -was- made.

However, many -have- made the argument that the police, not civilians, should have guns because only the police have the training to allow them to use them effectively.

So, how's your Active Shooter Response going? Rushed into a building to take out an armed offender lately?

Not so bad. My reflexes are great, but my hand-eye coordination is not.

I have to use that to get through to you that being competent with a firearm isn't the same as using the firearm as part of a larger task, said task composed of many other tasks in which, I stress, possession of the firearm is useful but as a means to an end.

That's right.
And that's why the idea that the police are -so- musch more qualified than civilians to have guns in public is fallacious.

I'm sure you could shoot a cow from 300 yards if you wanted to. But what if you were eight feet away and the cow had a gun? It's different when you're facing someone with a gun, all the niceties of the range disappear and you're left with your own nerves and a residual ability to control the weapon.

Again:
That's right.
And that's why the idea that the police are -so- musch more qualified than civilians to have guns in public is fallacious.

 

[mattskramer]

How many tragic accidents are caused by &#8220;Dirty Harry wanna-be&#8217;s&#8221; with itchy trigger fingers?

Compare that number to the number of times people protect themselves with a gun.

What do you get?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#1

Despite claims by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that you need a gun in your home to protect yourself and your family, public health research demonstrates that the person most likely to shoot you or a family member with a gun already has the keys to your house. Simply put: guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely, according to a 1998 study by the Journal of Trauma. More kids, teenagers and adult family members are dying from firearms in their own home than criminal intruders. When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes. You may be surprised to know that, in 1999, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 154 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens with a firearm compared with a total of 8,259 firearm murders in the United States. Once a bullet leaves a gun, who is to say that it will stop only a criminal and not a family member? Yet at every opportunity the NRA uses the fear of crime to promote the need for ordinary citizens to keep guns in their home for self-protection. Furthermore, the NRA continues to oppose life-saving measures that require safe-storage of guns in the home.

Yes. I pulled the information from a web site that supports legislation limiting gun ownership, but the statistics are supported by references (end notes) from such respected scientific jourlans as JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of Trauma. Read an abstract from a referece for yourself:

Journal of Trauma:

http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtraum...GZFLSpBhJvsV6bHW!1609592453!181195628!8091!-1

Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[U]guns kept in the home for self... themselves with a gun. -What do you get?

 

[mattskramer]

You've posted this before, and I have adressed this before.

Your 'statistic' here is meaningless, as the number of justifiable killings does not in any way accurately reflect the number of times a gun is used to stop a crime, as you dont need to fire a gun to use it to stop someone.

You also didn't answer my question:

-How many tragic accidents are caused by “Dirty Harry wanna-be’s” with itchy trigger fingers?
-Compare that number to the number of times people protect themselves with a gun.
-What do you get?

Okay. I see your point. There is the variable of merely pointing a gun to an intruder. I don’t know if there is any statistical research that includes such a variable. When I find it, I’ll let you know. I still think that the number of incidences in which private citizens used guns to stop crime are less than are the number of accidents caused by private citizens having guns in the home. Still, as time permits, I’ll try to find statistical research from respected sources that will either validate or invalidate my opinion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. I see your point. There is the variable of merely pointing a gun to an intruder. I don&#8217;t know if there is any statistical research that includes such a variable.

Well... if you take the total number of times a gun is used in self-defense and subtract the number of criminals killed/wounded by someone using a gun in self-defense, you get the number of times a gun was used in self-defense w/o killing/wounding someone.

When I find it, I&#8217;ll let you know. I still think that the number of incidences in which private citizens used guns to stop crime are less than are the number of accidents caused by private citizens having guns in the home.

The average of these studies shows 1.685 million defensive gun uses per year.
http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
The US DOJ, in 1996, put it at 1.5 million
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

So:
-How many tragic accidents are caused by &#8220;Dirty Harry wanna-be&#8217;s with itchy trigger fingers"?
-Compare that number to the number of times people protect themselves with a gun.
-What do you get?

 

[AllieBaba]

You can find stats on the NRA website, which while compiled by them come from a variety of named sources (newspapers, police depts., etc.)

YOu used to be able to find the stats on anything at the CDC site, but anymore I can't figure out how to navigate the site to get to any meaningful information. It's all tripe now, and you can't actually locate stats that mean anything. It didn't used to be that way, and I used to be able to use the CDC to argue abortion, murder, and firearm debates. But they've made it so they can't be used for that sort of thing anymore. They're political now, and they have the stats, but make it so you can't find them. Or at least, I can't find them. Good luck.

 

[mattskramer]

Well... if you take the total number of times a gun is used in self-defense and subtract the number of criminals killed/wounded by someone using a gun in self-defense, you get the number of times a gun was used in self-defense w/o killing/wounding someone.


The average of these studies shows 1.685 million defensive gun uses per year.
http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
The US DOJ, in 1996, put it at 1.5 million
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

So:
-How many tragic accidents are caused by “Dirty Harry wanna-be’s with itchy trigger fingers"?
-Compare that number to the number of times people protect themselves with a gun.
-What do you get?

Okay. You practically answered your own question. I guess that there are more instances of guns used in self defence than are used in accidental injuries. You win on that count.

I still think that having a simple test for a license for people who want to keep guns in the home would be good. I know – It is unconstitutional and the 2nd amendment would need to be changed.

Whoa. Wait a minute. What about the security guard required to have a license – doesn’t that go against the 2nd amendment? I guess that they are assumed to be guilty and must prove that they are innocent – via licenses that require background checks. Isn’t there a double standard here? They must constitute a different breed of person – not your ordinary private citizen. If you have to have a license to conceal a gun, then why should you not be required to have a license to own a gun? In each care, you bear arms. It seems like it would be much simpler to have beople who want guns to begin with, to have a license.

 

[Diuretic]

Non sequitur, and a strawman. No one has made that argument, and that argument doesnt logically follow from the argument that -was- made.

Neither, I was giving you a sarcastic poke

However, many -have- made the argument that the police, not civilians, should have guns because only the police have the training to allow them to use them effectively.

You won't get that from me because it's not a valid argument.

Not so bad. My reflexes are great, but my hand-eye coordination is not.

There you go! That's a non-sequitur....

You did it again! Another non-sequitur! But now it's verging on comparing apples and oranges. I'll stick to my point. A CCW citizen may be - and is I hope - perfectly competent with the use of a firearm in certain contexts. The competence may very well transfer to the situation where the CCW citizen is one-on-one with an armed offender and is is able to defend against the criminal. No problem, good stuff. But don't try to compare the CCW citizen in a self-defence situation with an active shooter situation, the CCW citizen simply isn't competent to deal with it. I'm not talking about the opportunity to shoot a shooter in the back, I'm talking about a situation where an active shooter is in a building (school or mall or office block and so on).

Again:
That's right.
And that's why the idea that the police are -so- musch more qualified than civilians to have guns in public is fallacious.

I'd address that if I were trying to argue it so...........third non--sequitur! I ask, is this a record?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. You practically answered your own question. I guess that there are [vastly] more instances of guns used in self defence than are used in accidental injuries. You win on that count.

Yes. Thank you.

So, obviously, there is more beneft to the widespread ownership of guns, as we have it now, than detriment.

Given that, why make it harder for people to get them?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You won't get that from me because it's not a valid argument.

But it IS an argument that's often made.

I'll stick to my point. A CCW citizen may be - and is I hope - perfectly competent with the use of a firearm in certain contexts. The competence may very well transfer to the situation where the CCW citizen is one-on-one with an armed offender and is is able to defend against the criminal. No problem, good stuff. But don't try to compare the CCW citizen in a self-defence situation with an active shooter situation, the CCW citizen simply isn't competent to deal with it.

Based on what?
Compared to a police officer?

And... doesnt your argument here also likely apply to the 'active shooter' that the CCW holder is engaging?

 

[Diuretic]

But it IS an argument that's often made.

If it is then it's not well informed.

Based on what?
Compared to a police officer?

And... doesnt your argument here also likely apply to the 'active shooter' that the CCW holder is engaging?

The doctrine on active shooters changed, I think, after Columbine.

Just a point. When it comes to operational doctrine police are, compared to the military, relatively inferior at developing/researching, teaching and practising operational "doctrine" when compared to the military. There are reasons for this but nevertheless it remains a fact. The military (and I mean the military all over the world) has whole colleges devoted to doctrine. It's only been fairly recently that police have taken the same approach to development of doctrine. The Active Shooter Response was an example -

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/1357766/ -

and it's still being refined. The average police officer, even in the US, where police are (usually) trained to very high degree in the use of firearms and associated tactics (for good reason) isn't competent to deal with an active shooter unless he or she has undergone specific training. Broad statement I know but not made totally out of ignorance.

I'm not demeaning the CCW citizen. I'm very open to the argument that CCW may prevent armed crime against individuals in the street due to the fact that a would-be robber isn't sure if the quarry is going to pull a gun.

I am arguing that in an active shooter situation, a CCW citizen, unless they are in the happy position of being able to shoot dead the shooter immediately and with minimal risk to themselves (eg shooter pulls out a weapon and CCW citizen drops the shooter from behind), would be better to look after themselves and those around them rather than launch a brave but possibly misguided attempt on the shooter. Of course if they have no choice but to shoot it out then so be it (I'm thinking of a situation where the shooter enters a room where the CCW citizen is with other and starts blasting - obviously the CCW response is, nothing to lose, blast back).

 

[Larkinn]

The US DOJ, in 1996, put it at 1.5 million
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

Not quite. From the link.

Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use
in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the
sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6
percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million
adults. Almost half of these respondents reported
multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis
for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23
million. This surprising 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!

A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is
shown in the column of exhibit 7 that reflects the
application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz
to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses.
Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most
recent DGU description for any of the following
reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator;
the respondent could not state a specific crime
that was involved in the incident; or the
respondent did not actually display the gun or
mention it to the perpetrator.

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF
respondents (0.8 percent of the sample),
representing 1.5 million defensive users. This
estimate is directly comparable to the well-known
estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last
column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is
smaller, it is statistically plausible that the
difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of
multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF
respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million
DGUs.

Some troubling comparisons. If the DGU numbers are
in the right ballpark, millions of attempted
assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by
armed citizens during the 12-month period.
According to these results, guns are used far more
often to defend against crime than to perpetrate
crime. (Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07
million incidents of violent crime in 1994,
according to NCVS data.)

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 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 assaults 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.[14]

The evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even
stronger when one recalls that the DGU estimates
are calculated using only the most recently
reported DGU incidents of NSPOF respondents; as
noted, about half of the respondents who reported a
DGU indicated two or more in the preceding year.
Although there are no details on the circumstances
of those additional DGUs, presumably they are
similar to the most recent case and provide
evidence for additional millions of violent crimes
foiled and perpetrators shot.

False positives. Regardless of which estimates one
believes, only a small fraction of adults have used
guns defensively in 1994. The only question is
whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would
conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated
by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz's
criteria).

So:
-How many tragic accidents are caused by “Dirty Harry wanna-be’s with itchy trigger fingers"?
-Compare that number to the number of times people protect themselves with a gun.
-What do you get?

Given the statistical impossibility of knowing whether all of these people were correct when they showed their gun and "scared someone off", who knows.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not quite. From the link.
Given the statistical impossibility of knowing whether all of these people were correct when they showed their gun and "scared someone off", who knows.

Not quite:

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.

So, the DOJ does not dismiss the 1.5 million number with anything other than a "no way, dude!"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not quite. From the link.





Given the statistical impossibility of knowing whether all of these people were correct when they showed their gun and "scared someone off", who knows.

Sure thing, but if you agree with something then any poll, questionaire or report is just right.

You are aware of course that it is estimated that only a fraction of rapes and attempted rapes are reported?

 

[midcan5]

to reiterate, this says much about our society today, I was an altar boy for four years, walked to church early mornings to serve sometimes three masses before school, the idea that someone needed to be armed to protect the church or its belongings is so far out I cannot even imagine it! Are we making our country a third world country? of haves and have nots? of ....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

to reiterate, this says much about our society today, I was an altar boy for four years, walked to church early mornings to serve sometimes three masses before school, the idea that someone needed to be armed to protect the church or its belongings is so far out I cannot even imagine it! Are we making our country a third world country? of haves and have nots? of ....

READ what happened. The volunteer guards were there BECAUSE of the earlier attack not because they are routinely there. And the church is lucky they had them there.

But to your point.... with the active destruction of family values and family authority in general since 1960's and the mantra no one is responsible for their illegal acts, yes our society is more dangerous and deadly.

 

[Foxfyre]

to reiterate, this says much about our society today, I was an altar boy for four years, walked to church early mornings to serve sometimes three masses before school, the idea that someone needed to be armed to protect the church or its belongings is so far out I cannot even imagine it! Are we making our country a third world country? of haves and have nots? of ....

It is the sign of the times, the breakdown in fundamental shared values, the results of 'me first' and 'if it feels good, do it' and 'it isn't my fault' and 'we have to understand people, not hold them accountable' mentality that some of us were able to avoid growing up. I was blessed to grow up during a time when gun ownership was much higher than it is now, but nobody even thought about kids not being safe at school, churches remained mostly unlocked and undisturbed as were our houses and cars, and kids could roam the neighborhood at will with no worries that somebody would snatch, molest, or otherwise do violence to them.

It has absolutely nothing to do with law abiding people owning guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It has absolutely nothing to do with law abiding people owning guns.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Larkinn]

Not quite:



So, the DOJ does not dismiss the 1.5 million number with anything other than a "no way, dude!"

It doesn't dismiss them, it provides reasons why the number makes no sense.