Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Re-post your link. I followed the one in the USMB link you just gave. It gives me a 404 error. I need to see what they're calling a "defense".Sorry Candy -- if you don't buy it --- then you;re not reading my posts. I gave a set of statistics from the DOJ --- DID YOU SEE THEM?? Showing 86,000 defenses with guns a year. I'll even edit in the post number for you.. http://www.usmessageboard.com/5700613-post47.html
Now Yes -- I know that's not 100,000.. I was being CONSERVATIVE.. Because the DOJ stats are just for incidents where paperwork is filled out.. SEVERAL reputable academic studies put the number at more than 200,000 per year.. The DOJ doesn't lie -- DOES IT?
So in the time it takes you to read this message and respond (about 4 minutes), someone in the US fended off an "attack" with a firearm...is this what you're saying?
Yeah.. Exactly.. Not so hard to believe if you consider how many calls to police for personal assault or property crime occurs every minute. In general, these have better outcomes when a citizen is capable of warding off the crime or defending themselves..
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5700613-post47.html
Or I'll repost it HERE...
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92
Average annual number of victimizations
in which victims used firearms to defend
themselves or their property
________________________________________
TOTAL Attacked perp Threatened perp
________________________________________
All crimes 82,500 30,600 51,900
Total violent crime 62,200 25,500 36,700
With injury 12,100 7,300 4,900
Without injury 50,000 18,200 31,800
Theft, burglary,
motor vehicle theft 20,300 5,100 15,200
CaféAuLait;5699535 said:Maybe, or they just don't want people to know that people with guns don't always do bad things...
I'm surprised it made the news at all. To hear gun proponents commentary; this sort of thing happens all the time.
See the thing is in a place like Utah, where everyone knows lots of people carry. Just that mere fact prevents many crimes. Criminals for instance have to think a bit harder about knocking over the local 7/11 when it is highly likely there is an armed person inside.
I'm surprised it made the news at all. To hear gun proponents commentary; this sort of thing happens all the time.
See the thing is in a place like Utah, where everyone knows lots of people carry. Just that mere fact prevents many crimes. Criminals for instance have to think a bit harder about knocking over the local 7/11 when it is highly likely there is an armed person inside.
It did not stop him from stabbing people.
I'm surprised it made the news at all. To hear gun proponents commentary; this sort of thing happens all the time.
See the thing is in a place like Utah, where everyone knows lots of people carry. Just that mere fact prevents many crimes. Criminals for instance have to think a bit harder about knocking over the local 7/11 when it is highly likely there is an armed person inside.
It did not stop him from stabbing people.
Re-post your link. I followed the one in the USMB link you just gave. It gives me a 404 error. I need to see what they're calling a "defense".
So in the time it takes you to read this message and respond (about 4 minutes), someone in the US fended off an "attack" with a firearm...is this what you're saying?
Yeah.. Exactly.. Not so hard to believe if you consider how many calls to police for personal assault or property crime occurs every minute. In general, these have better outcomes when a citizen is capable of warding off the crime or defending themselves..
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5700613-post47.html
Or I'll repost it HERE...
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92
Average annual number of victimizations
in which victims used firearms to defend
themselves or their property
________________________________________
TOTAL Attacked perp Threatened perp
________________________________________
All crimes 82,500 30,600 51,900
Total violent crime 62,200 25,500 36,700
With injury 12,100 7,300 4,900
Without injury 50,000 18,200 31,800
Theft, burglary,
motor vehicle theft 20,300 5,100 15,200
Yes and the link continues to come up as a bad link. I need to see the hard data.
The word "average" in your C&P is also a bit troublesome. So if I am understanding this right, in that 5 year period, there were X number of crimes being committed or attempted or whatever (need the link again). Of that number, you divide it by 5 and you come up with 82,500. Of that 82,500, 30,600 actually attacked the "perp" with their gun; 51,900 just threatened the "perp". Am I getting that right?
http://web.archive.org/web/19990225165959/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
Self-defense with firearms
*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon.
*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.
About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92
Average annual number of victimizations
in which victims used firearms to defend
themselves or their property
________________________________________
TOTAL Attacked Perp Threatened Perp
________________________________________
All crimes 82,500 30,600 51,900
Total violent crime 62,200 25,500 36,700
With injury 12,100 7,300 4,900
Without injury 50,000 18,200 31,800
Theft, burglary,
motor vehicle theft 20,300 5,100 15,200
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Includes
victimizations in which offenders were unarmed. Excludes
homicides.
*In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
or armed with weapons other than firearms. On average between 1987
and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime
victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who
also had a firearm. (Because the NCVS collects victimization data
on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for
self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms.
Questionnaire revisions introduced in January 1993 will permit
separate consideration of police and civilian firearm cases.)
Offenders shot at victims in 17% of handgun crimes, 1987-92
Percent
_______
Shot at victim 16.6%
Hit victim 3.0
Missed victim 13.6
Nongunshot injury 1.6
No physical injury 12.0
Didn't shoot at victim 83.4%
Other attack/attempt 19.9
Verb. threat of attack 15.4
Weapon present 46.8
Other threat .8
Unknown action .5
Average annual number 699,900
Note: Excludes homicides.
CaféAuLait;5699411 said:Man with gun ends stabbing spree at Utah store
SALT LAKE CITY - A man with a gun is being credited with stopping another man who allegedly began stabbing people at a grocery store in Utah Thursday.
ABC4.com said the suspect bought a knife inside the Smith’s store, stood in the foyer, and began stabbing people.
See below to watch video
Two people were seriously injured, including one person who was stabbed in the stomach and another who was stabbed in the head and arms, according to the article.
Read more: Report: Man with gun ends stabbing spree at Utah store
I wonder why MSNBC erased the story?
I first saw this story via social media and was directed to a link at MSNBC they now have removed the story from their site:
We cannot find the page you requested.
Error 404
The link you followed may be broken or expired. Please try your link again or take a look at the blog's homepage
You can also view today's top news at msnbc.com.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...ng-spree-at-salt-lake-city-grocery-store?lite
Top link:
man stops s - Google Search
Yeah.. Exactly.. Not so hard to believe if you consider how many calls to police for personal assault or property crime occurs every minute. In general, these have better outcomes when a citizen is capable of warding off the crime or defending themselves..
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5700613-post47.html
Or I'll repost it HERE...
Yes and the link continues to come up as a bad link. I need to see the hard data.
The word "average" in your C&P is also a bit troublesome. So if I am understanding this right, in that 5 year period, there were X number of crimes being committed or attempted or whatever (need the link again). Of that number, you divide it by 5 and you come up with 82,500. Of that 82,500, 30,600 actually attacked the "perp" with their gun; 51,900 just threatened the "perp". Am I getting that right?
Oh -- you were talking about DOJ link?? Not surprised -- look at the dates.. Don't even know if they still publish this statistic. But trust me -- it was pulled from the DOJ website circa 1996 or so... We COULD use the WAYBACK internet machine to verify -- but I'm hoping you trust me here.
You got the right interpretation of the numbers... Also look at the injury lines which refer the Defender's injuries.. Note that these lines refer ONLY to the VIOLENT crime number of 62,000.. So in cases where there was a SERIOUS THREAT to life, only 20% resulted in any injury to the defender.
Yes and the link continues to come up as a bad link. I need to see the hard data.
The word "average" in your C&P is also a bit troublesome. So if I am understanding this right, in that 5 year period, there were X number of crimes being committed or attempted or whatever (need the link again). Of that number, you divide it by 5 and you come up with 82,500. Of that 82,500, 30,600 actually attacked the "perp" with their gun; 51,900 just threatened the "perp". Am I getting that right?
Oh -- you were talking about DOJ link?? Not surprised -- look at the dates.. Don't even know if they still publish this statistic. But trust me -- it was pulled from the DOJ website circa 1996 or so... We COULD use the WAYBACK internet machine to verify -- but I'm hoping you trust me here.
You got the right interpretation of the numbers... Also look at the injury lines which refer the Defender's injuries.. Note that these lines refer ONLY to the VIOLENT crime number of 62,000.. So in cases where there was a SERIOUS THREAT to life, only 20% resulted in any injury to the defender.
I really need to see what they are classifying as a defense with a firearm. I'm guessing the statistics are way overblown.
I'm still dubious of the amount. I am not much of a homebody; I go to classes, work in a major metropolitan area, dine at the Cheesecake Factory, attend sporting events, travel by car extensively since I don't enjoy the nickel and dime-fest of flying. In other words, I get around. It's not unusual for me to be seen in 20 different places a day between Starbucks, the gas station, Yoga, work, restaurants, dry cleaners, grocery stores, the gym, etc...
Never, not once, have I seen this phenomenon of someone fending off an attacker with a firearm.
Never, not once, have I heard anyone I know of fending off an attacker with a firearm.
Never, not once, have I encountered anyone in my rotations on the floors of our hospitals who was injured while being fended off by a fire arm.
Not questioning what you wrote, I am dubious of the definition of what is a "successful" defense however.
I think they may be broadening it beyond the bounds of useful data. Sort of like me saying 50+% of Americans will break the law today. Yes, if that 50% drives, usually at some point they will either speed, not stop at a stop sign, signal properly etc...
The number is higher than I thought according to the link you provided. I thought this was telling though:CandyCorn:::
I did look it up on Internet Archive.. Here's a more complete version.. I'll leave it up to you to find similiar more recent numbers from DOJ...
http://web.archive.org/web/19990225165959/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
Self-defense with firearms
*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon.
*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.
About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92
Average annual number of victimizations
in which victims used firearms to defend
themselves or their property
________________________________________
TOTAL Attacked Perp Threatened Perp
________________________________________
All crimes 82,500 30,600 51,900
Total violent crime 62,200 25,500 36,700
With injury 12,100 7,300 4,900
Without injury 50,000 18,200 31,800
Theft, burglary,
motor vehicle theft 20,300 5,100 15,200
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Includes
victimizations in which offenders were unarmed. Excludes
homicides.
*In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
or armed with weapons other than firearms. On average between 1987
and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime
victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who
also had a firearm. (Because the NCVS collects victimization data
on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for
self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms.
Questionnaire revisions introduced in January 1993 will permit
separate consideration of police and civilian firearm cases.)
Offenders shot at victims in 17% of handgun crimes, 1987-92
Percent
_______
Shot at victim 16.6%
Hit victim 3.0
Missed victim 13.6
Nongunshot injury 1.6
No physical injury 12.0
Didn't shoot at victim 83.4%
Other attack/attempt 19.9
Verb. threat of attack 15.4
Weapon present 46.8
Other threat .8
Unknown action .5
Average annual number 699,900
Note: Excludes homicides.
*In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
or armed with weapons other than firearms.
CaféAuLait;5699411 said:I wonder why MSNBC erased the story?
http://www.google.com/search?source..._pw.r_qf.&fp=757aed7c22e0b1e&biw=1280&bih=618
Good luck trying to conceal a baseball bat.A baseball bat could of taken care of it.
I'm surprised it made the news at all. To hear gun proponents commentary; this sort of thing happens all the time.
See the thing is in a place like Utah, where everyone knows lots of people carry. Just that mere fact prevents many crimes. Criminals for instance have to think a bit harder about knocking over the local 7/11 when it is highly likely there is an armed person inside.
It did not stop him from stabbing people.
Straw man. Google it.
Did need a 100 round clip and an assault rifle to stop the guy?
Oh -- you were talking about DOJ link?? Not surprised -- look at the dates.. Don't even know if they still publish this statistic. But trust me -- it was pulled from the DOJ website circa 1996 or so... We COULD use the WAYBACK internet machine to verify -- but I'm hoping you trust me here.
You got the right interpretation of the numbers... Also look at the injury lines which refer the Defender's injuries.. Note that these lines refer ONLY to the VIOLENT crime number of 62,000.. So in cases where there was a SERIOUS THREAT to life, only 20% resulted in any injury to the defender.
I really need to see what they are classifying as a defense with a firearm. I'm guessing the statistics are way overblown.
I'm still dubious of the amount. I am not much of a homebody; I go to classes, work in a major metropolitan area, dine at the Cheesecake Factory, attend sporting events, travel by car extensively since I don't enjoy the nickel and dime-fest of flying. In other words, I get around. It's not unusual for me to be seen in 20 different places a day between Starbucks, the gas station, Yoga, work, restaurants, dry cleaners, grocery stores, the gym, etc...
Never, not once, have I seen this phenomenon of someone fending off an attacker with a firearm.
Never, not once, have I heard anyone I know of fending off an attacker with a firearm.
Never, not once, have I encountered anyone in my rotations on the floors of our hospitals who was injured while being fended off by a fire arm.
Not questioning what you wrote, I am dubious of the definition of what is a "successful" defense however.
I think they may be broadening it beyond the bounds of useful data. Sort of like me saying 50+% of Americans will break the law today. Yes, if that 50% drives, usually at some point they will either speed, not stop at a stop sign, signal properly etc...
Can't rely on personal experience with stats like these because your chance of being a victim is so tiny. Or even WITNESSING a property/personal crime.. Ask yourself how many of these you witness in year? Zero -- probably..
If you want to INCREASE your likelihood of witnessing or being in such situations there's no better way than to DECREASE the presence of self-protection with firearms.
I really need to see what they are classifying as a defense with a firearm. I'm guessing the statistics are way overblown.
I'm still dubious of the amount. I am not much of a homebody; I go to classes, work in a major metropolitan area, dine at the Cheesecake Factory, attend sporting events, travel by car extensively since I don't enjoy the nickel and dime-fest of flying. In other words, I get around. It's not unusual for me to be seen in 20 different places a day between Starbucks, the gas station, Yoga, work, restaurants, dry cleaners, grocery stores, the gym, etc...
Never, not once, have I seen this phenomenon of someone fending off an attacker with a firearm.
Never, not once, have I heard anyone I know of fending off an attacker with a firearm.
Never, not once, have I encountered anyone in my rotations on the floors of our hospitals who was injured while being fended off by a fire arm.
Not questioning what you wrote, I am dubious of the definition of what is a "successful" defense however.
I think they may be broadening it beyond the bounds of useful data. Sort of like me saying 50+% of Americans will break the law today. Yes, if that 50% drives, usually at some point they will either speed, not stop at a stop sign, signal properly etc...
Can't rely on personal experience with stats like these because your chance of being a victim is so tiny. Or even WITNESSING a property/personal crime.. Ask yourself how many of these you witness in year? Zero -- probably..
If you want to INCREASE your likelihood of witnessing or being in such situations there's no better way than to DECREASE the presence of self-protection with firearms.
Would this be included, you think?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/236800-flordia-man-murders-door-to-door-salesman-for-stepping-on-his-property.html
Apparently the guy thought he was being attacked by the salesman and killed him. Is that a valid "defense"?
CaféAuLait;5700174 said:How about this, lets arm every person in the usa, legal age to buya gun 6 yours old. Lets let vigolanties carry out justice and lets call it a day, seeing as everyone wants no gun regulation and we have already more guns per person than any other nation, OR lets face facts, PEOPLE use GUNs to kill people. So if i see a fist fight where one guy is stopming the others head in, should I shoot him? What about a fight outside of a hockey game in the street where there are 20 vs 20 and I "feel like my life is in danger" and just mow those fucker down, or the best yet, let me go buy fully auto guns and extended clips and strap on some body armor and go have a shoot out that lasts 3 hours cause I outgun the police in everyway, hell why not allow privatge citizes access to rocket launchers.......this tea party shit is so fucking annoying YOU the TEA PARTY people are the real danger to our country, how many terror attacks have been on the US soil on mainland USA? now how many were a forien threat and how many where homegrowntea party fucks like some of you who play army on the weekends? fuck tarded tea party fools, you know the REAL tea party was about taxation with out representation, you fuck tards are even smart enough to know your little tiny movment in the modern era is false so why would us NORMAL people trust your judgment when it comes to gun violence, as a tea party people once told me in NJ(cheristy lover)2+2=5......hmmmm
Wow, legal age to buy a gun, 6 years old? You assume I am a Tea Partier?
Did you read the article, NO SHOTS were fired and peoples lives were saved. The people wounded were nearly killed with a knife.
I have news for you before the Tea Party existed people were for Gun rights.
Carry on with your hyperbole though...
Oh right you mean when we were not even a country and people used ball muskets to hunt rabbits and shit, not full auto hand guns with extended mags......you know the 2nd amend. was when we DID NOT have a fully functional and standing army right? so militias were used as defence, So are you telling me the united states should disband our military and revert back to how and why the 2nd rmend. was written? should we have town militias defending our boarders? and the 6 year old reference was to Yemen who is 2nd in the world with guns per captia and they arm 6 year olds.......
Ban knives! Oh, then ban forks, then ban sticks, then ban rocks, then ban garbage cans, etc.
