No...school shootings are not on the rise, according to new research.

[bluzman61]

Here we have the myth of the school shooting as common occurrence.......and it is just that, a myth.....anti-gunners need it, there is nothing better for their gun banning and confiscation schemes than dead children.....but the truth is...school shootings are extremely rare and are not on the rise...

Study Proves Mass Shootings Are NOT Becoming More Common

Researchers: Schools Shootings Not on the Rise, Schools Safer Than in the '90s

Researchers: Schools Shootings Not on the Rise, Schools Safer Than in the ’90s
'There is not an epidemic of school shootings'

Researchers from Northeastern University said on Monday that school shootings are not on the rise over the past decade and remain rare events.

James Alan Fox, the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern, and Emma Fridel, who is currently completing her doctorate at the school, revealed this week that their research indicates school shootings remain "incredibly rare events." Their findings, which are set to be published later this year, indicate that shooting incidents which involve students have actually declined since the 1990s.

The research team determined that, "on average, mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year, and about one of those incidents on average takes place at a school."

They said the rate of students killed in school shootings is only a quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.

---
"There is not an epidemic of school shootings," Fox said.

The researchers studied data from a wide variety of sources including USA Today, the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and an NYPD report on active shooters. They concluded that, on average, of the 55 million school children in the United States, 10 per year have been killed by gunfire while at school over the last 25 years. In their research they found only five cases over the past 35 years where AR-15s and similar rifles were used by the attackers.

"The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround," Fox said.

The researchers said that more kids are killed each year in accidents involving pools and bicycles than from school shootings.


They said they supported ideas like banning bump-fire stocks or raising the age for certain rifle purchases but did not believe they would prevent school shootings. They also said active shooter drills did more to alarm students than protect them, and things like installing metal detectors or requiring ID cards for entry have not prevented shootings in the past.

"I'm not a big fan of making schools look like fortresses, because they send a message to kids that the bad guy is coming for you—if we're surrounding you with security, you must have a bull's-ey

This would be good news for normal Americans.....it is horrible news for anti-gun extremist democrats....dead children are the one tool they need to push their gun control agenda......

Thanks for your fine post.

 

[2aguy]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

>> “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Violence Policy Center executive director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann. The report found ordinary people with guns rarely use their weapons in a life and death situation— taking the life of the aggressor and saving themselves or someone else.

“In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides.

Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides,” the report revealed.

And, it noted, the ratio doesn’t account for thousands of suicides using guns, which numbered nearly 20,000, or unintentional shootings, which involved just over 600 incidents.

The numbers obviously don’t add up here.

The report says that between 2007 and 2011, in less than one percent of instances did the intended victim protect themselves using a weapon.

Over the same time period, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated there were 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. << --- The Myth of Almighty Gun​

And Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders....

Yuh huh. So when you see the number "230" you think it's pronounced "1.1 million".

And more on how many lives are saved, and, how much money is saved by armed citizens...

Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct


that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—less some attackers who lost their lives to defenders. This enormous benefit dwarfs, both in human and economic terms, the losses trumpeted by hoplophobes who only choose to see the risk side of the equation.




==============
Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
--------
It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what are the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .
In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
--------------
How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.
According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.
So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.


I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.


When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”
Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”
So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.

 

[hadit]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

>> “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Violence Policy Center executive director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann. The report found ordinary people with guns rarely use their weapons in a life and death situation— taking the life of the aggressor and saving themselves or someone else.

“In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides.

Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides,” the report revealed.

And, it noted, the ratio doesn’t account for thousands of suicides using guns, which numbered nearly 20,000, or unintentional shootings, which involved just over 600 incidents.

The numbers obviously don’t add up here.

The report says that between 2007 and 2011, in less than one percent of instances did the intended victim protect themselves using a weapon.

Over the same time period, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated there were 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. << --- The Myth of Almighty Gun​

You're pretending that a gun has to kill someone to be an effective defense. That's extraordinarily disengenuous.

 

[hadit]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

>> “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Violence Policy Center executive director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann. The report found ordinary people with guns rarely use their weapons in a life and death situation— taking the life of the aggressor and saving themselves or someone else.

“In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides.

Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides,” the report revealed.

And, it noted, the ratio doesn’t account for thousands of suicides using guns, which numbered nearly 20,000, or unintentional shootings, which involved just over 600 incidents.

The numbers obviously don’t add up here.

The report says that between 2007 and 2011, in less than one percent of instances did the intended victim protect themselves using a weapon.

Over the same time period, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated there were 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. << --- The Myth of Almighty Gun​

And Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders....

Yuh huh. So when you see the number "230" you think it's pronounced "1.1 million".

Two different things. You do understand that, right?

 

[Pogo]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

>> “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Violence Policy Center executive director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann. The report found ordinary people with guns rarely use their weapons in a life and death situation— taking the life of the aggressor and saving themselves or someone else.

“In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides.

Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides,” the report revealed.

And, it noted, the ratio doesn’t account for thousands of suicides using guns, which numbered nearly 20,000, or unintentional shootings, which involved just over 600 incidents.

The numbers obviously don’t add up here.

The report says that between 2007 and 2011, in less than one percent of instances did the intended victim protect themselves using a weapon.

Over the same time period, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated there were 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. << --- The Myth of Almighty Gun​

You're pretending that a gun has to kill someone to be an effective defense. That's extraordinarily disengenuous.

It's also made-up crapola since I posted nothing of the kind.

Don't sit here and lie. It *WILL* be called out for what it is.

 

[hadit]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

>> “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Violence Policy Center executive director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann. The report found ordinary people with guns rarely use their weapons in a life and death situation— taking the life of the aggressor and saving themselves or someone else.

“In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides.

Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides,” the report revealed.

And, it noted, the ratio doesn’t account for thousands of suicides using guns, which numbered nearly 20,000, or unintentional shootings, which involved just over 600 incidents.

The numbers obviously don’t add up here.

The report says that between 2007 and 2011, in less than one percent of instances did the intended victim protect themselves using a weapon.

Over the same time period, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated there were 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. << --- The Myth of Almighty Gun​

You're pretending that a gun has to kill someone to be an effective defense. That's extraordinarily disengenuous.

It's also made-up crapola since I posted nothing of the kind.

Don't sit here and lie. It *WILL* be called out for what it is.

So what was then your purpose in quoting an article that talks only about justifiable homicides vs murders in support of the idea that guns are not frequently used in self protection? If you support the idea that a gun need not be fired to be used for self defense, the article is superfluous. So, which is it? Does a gun need to kill someone in order for it to be used in self defense or not?

 

[Pogo]

Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because there are more guns, and crime has gone down, does not mean that more guns is the reason for the decline in crime.

You seem to always cite nationwide stats to show how crime has been going down, and implying that it's because of more guns.
Here's a stat for you.
Of the 10 states with the worst gun death rates, 8 of them have a rating of F (least strict gun control laws), which in this example is the worst rating, while the remaining 2 have a C rating.
Of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates, 6 have an A rating (strictest gun control laws), 1 has a B rating, 3 have a C rating.

Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard


As far as the stats on school shootings in the article you linked, I will not comment except to point out that it leaves out shootings at colleges and universities, and that it conveniently leaves out shootings where either no one died or only 1 person died, and more importantly leaves out people who were shot, but subsequently did not die, as the health care industry continues to get better at keeping gun shot victims alive.

Having said all that, I think better progress can be made in reducing gun crime even further, by focusing more on the mental health aspect, and less on the gun control aspect.

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

>> “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Violence Policy Center executive director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann. The report found ordinary people with guns rarely use their weapons in a life and death situation— taking the life of the aggressor and saving themselves or someone else.

“In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides.

Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides,” the report revealed.

And, it noted, the ratio doesn’t account for thousands of suicides using guns, which numbered nearly 20,000, or unintentional shootings, which involved just over 600 incidents.

The numbers obviously don’t add up here.

The report says that between 2007 and 2011, in less than one percent of instances did the intended victim protect themselves using a weapon.

Over the same time period, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated there were 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. << --- The Myth of Almighty Gun​

You're pretending that a gun has to kill someone to be an effective defense. That's extraordinarily disengenuous.

It's also made-up crapola since I posted nothing of the kind.

Don't sit here and lie. It *WILL* be called out for what it is.

So what was then your purpose in quoting an article that talks only about justifiable homicides vs murders in support of the idea that guns are not frequently used in self protection? If you support the idea that a gun need not be fired to be used for self defense, the article is superfluous. So, which is it? Does a gun need to kill someone in order for it to be used in self defense or not?

Of course it does. That's what it's designed to do.

If that were not the case ------ it would be pointless to point it at somebody as a threat.

 

[hadit]

If you read more carefully, you would see I did not make that argument....in this post.

Second...using the Gifford's center for anti-2nd Amendment attacks and gun confiscation doesn't help you....

My point, which shows you have no argument is this...

The primary argument for anti-gun extremists is that more guns equal more gun crime....

End, full stop. That is the entire basis for your anti-gun movement....

What my posts show....from Pew....is that with increasing gun ownership...and even more clarifying.....more Americans carrying guns for self defense...

Gun crime did not go up.....gun murder did not go up.....violent crime did not go up...and now, school shootings did not go up...

Therefore, your entire argument for banning and confiscating guns, has no merit, has no basis in facts, truth or reality.

So.......whether or not more Americans lower the gun crime rate isn't the point of my post or my posts on the decrease in gun crime...

My point is how it makes your entire anti-gun argument silly....

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

>> “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Violence Policy Center executive director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann. The report found ordinary people with guns rarely use their weapons in a life and death situation— taking the life of the aggressor and saving themselves or someone else.

“In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides.

Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides,” the report revealed.

And, it noted, the ratio doesn’t account for thousands of suicides using guns, which numbered nearly 20,000, or unintentional shootings, which involved just over 600 incidents.

The numbers obviously don’t add up here.

The report says that between 2007 and 2011, in less than one percent of instances did the intended victim protect themselves using a weapon.

Over the same time period, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated there were 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. << --- The Myth of Almighty Gun​

You're pretending that a gun has to kill someone to be an effective defense. That's extraordinarily disengenuous.

It's also made-up crapola since I posted nothing of the kind.

Don't sit here and lie. It *WILL* be called out for what it is.

So what was then your purpose in quoting an article that talks only about justifiable homicides vs murders in support of the idea that guns are not frequently used in self protection? If you support the idea that a gun need not be fired to be used for self defense, the article is superfluous. So, which is it? Does a gun need to kill someone in order for it to be used in self defense or not?

Of course it does. That's what it's designed to do.

If that were not the case ------ it would be pointless to point it at somebody as a threat.

This is where you will have to think, not just feel.

1. When a potential rapist approaches woman and she pulls out a gun, does she have to fire it to make him think twice about following through on his intention?
2. When a mugger demands an old lady's purse and she pulls a gun out of it, does she have to fire it to make him think it would be a good idea to drop the mugging and leave?
3. When a thief breaks into a house and is confronted by a home owner with a gun, does the home owner have to fire the gun to make the thief think it would be a good idea to leave without taking anything and never come back?

These are defensive uses of guns that happen well over a million times a year, far outpacing any murder statistics. You are simply wrong, a gun does not need to be fired to be used defensively, and you would strip each of the people in those scenarios of their ability to defend themselves without hurting anyone.

 

[Pogo]

>> “The idea that ordinary citizens need access to extraordinary firepower in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals has become the default argument against a federal assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Violence Policy Center executive director and study co-author Josh Sugarmann. The report found ordinary people with guns rarely use their weapons in a life and death situation— taking the life of the aggressor and saving themselves or someone else.

“In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides.

Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides,” the report revealed.

And, it noted, the ratio doesn’t account for thousands of suicides using guns, which numbered nearly 20,000, or unintentional shootings, which involved just over 600 incidents.

The numbers obviously don’t add up here.

The report says that between 2007 and 2011, in less than one percent of instances did the intended victim protect themselves using a weapon.

Over the same time period, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated there were 29.6 million victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. << --- The Myth of Almighty Gun​

You're pretending that a gun has to kill someone to be an effective defense. That's extraordinarily disengenuous.

It's also made-up crapola since I posted nothing of the kind.

Don't sit here and lie. It *WILL* be called out for what it is.

So what was then your purpose in quoting an article that talks only about justifiable homicides vs murders in support of the idea that guns are not frequently used in self protection? If you support the idea that a gun need not be fired to be used for self defense, the article is superfluous. So, which is it? Does a gun need to kill someone in order for it to be used in self defense or not?

Of course it does. That's what it's designed to do.

If that were not the case ------ it would be pointless to point it at somebody as a threat.

This is where you will have to think, not just feel.

1. When a potential rapist approaches woman and she pulls out a gun, does she have to fire it to make him think twice about following through on his intention?
2. When a mugger demands an old lady's purse and she pulls a gun out of it, does she have to fire it to make him think it would be a good idea to drop the mugging and leave?
3. When a thief breaks into a house and is confronted by a home owner with a gun, does the home owner have to fire the gun to make the thief think it would be a good idea to leave without taking anything and never come back?

These are defensive uses of guns that happen well over a million times a year, far outpacing any murder statistics. You are simply wrong, a gun does not need to be fired to be used defensively, and you would strip each of the people in those scenarios of their ability to defend themselves without hurting anyone.

Once AGAIN for the kids who just got off the Special Bus........

NONE of these scenaria require actually firing the gun. ALL of them require the threat of firing the gun because that means injury and death. If the firing of the gun is not understood by both parties to cause injury and death --- as per its design --- THEN it doesn't matter what they do with the gun. It is completely impotent.

 

[hadit]

You're pretending that a gun has to kill someone to be an effective defense. That's extraordinarily disengenuous.

It's also made-up crapola since I posted nothing of the kind.

Don't sit here and lie. It *WILL* be called out for what it is.

So what was then your purpose in quoting an article that talks only about justifiable homicides vs murders in support of the idea that guns are not frequently used in self protection? If you support the idea that a gun need not be fired to be used for self defense, the article is superfluous. So, which is it? Does a gun need to kill someone in order for it to be used in self defense or not?

Of course it does. That's what it's designed to do.

If that were not the case ------ it would be pointless to point it at somebody as a threat.

This is where you will have to think, not just feel.

1. When a potential rapist approaches woman and she pulls out a gun, does she have to fire it to make him think twice about following through on his intention?
2. When a mugger demands an old lady's purse and she pulls a gun out of it, does she have to fire it to make him think it would be a good idea to drop the mugging and leave?
3. When a thief breaks into a house and is confronted by a home owner with a gun, does the home owner have to fire the gun to make the thief think it would be a good idea to leave without taking anything and never come back?

These are defensive uses of guns that happen well over a million times a year, far outpacing any murder statistics. You are simply wrong, a gun does not need to be fired to be used defensively, and you would strip each of the people in those scenarios of their ability to defend themselves without hurting anyone.

Once AGAIN for the kids who just got off the Special Bus........

NONE of these scenaria require actually firing the gun. ALL of them require the threat of firing the gun because that means injury and death. If the firing of the gun is not understood by both parties to cause injury and death --- as per its design --- THEN it doesn't matter what they do with the gun. It is completely impotent.

Of course, which naturally begs the question, why did you link to an article comparing body counts to bolster an argument that guns are not frequently used defensively? A defensive gun use need not result in a dead body, or even a gun being fired, as long as the potential assailant values living more than whatever he thought he was going to get from the potential victim. In many cases, the threat is all that's required to defuse the situation.

I'm glad you were actually able to think far enough to realize that the scenarios I presented represent successful defensive gun uses without the need for firing a shot. You're making a little progress. Next thing, you'll be admitting it's a good idea for unaccompanied women to have and know how use a firearm.