Teenager and 20 year old shot Friday night....in Britain, where they have gun control...

[Tommy Tainant]

You need a license. This weeds out the nutters who seem to carry out many of your murders.

However I understand that Pres trump has tightened up on nutters owning guns so maybe that might reduce the body count.

Except for the Cumbria shooter in 2010...right....? He held a legal certificate for both a shotgun and rifle.......and tell us which gun law in Britain kept him from going to a school and killing kids......He killed 20 people....in gun controlled Britain...

He could easily have gone to a grammar school and killed kids...he chose not to......

Which of Britain's gun laws stopped him?

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British histor

----------

Bird had held a shotgun certificate since 1974 and had renewed it several times, most recently in 2005, and had held a firearms certificate for a rifle from 2007 onward.[30][31]

Derick Bird was the exception. His case was the only one under current legislation. If only the US could say the same eh ?

No....you don't get to do that....he was a licensed gun owner.....more than likely stored his gun safely.....now tell us....which British gun control law kept him from walking into a school and murdering kids...instead of the 12 people he actually murdered?

You haven't had more school shootings because of the culture, or nature of British citizens....not because of your gun control laws.....but as I keep showing you...your gun crime rate is going up.....after decades of your ban....

And again I tell you that our gun laws are a part of our culture that makes us safer than you.
Its laughable that you consider yourself qualified to lecture us on our gun laws.
Please help me here. How can we bring "down" our fatalities to US levels ?

Allowing normal, law abiding citizens to own and carry guns......long prison sentences for criminals caught carrying guns....

Hiring more police.....you are short police...and that is going to catch up with you......

We had a spike in crime going into the 1960s.......that lasted till the mid 1990s.....when we changed our laws and allowed people to carry guns....our gun murder rate went down 49%...our gun crime rate went down 75%...our violent crime rate went down 72%....

You are entering a period much like our 1960s.....your crime rates are going up...you have young males raised by single mothers...and on top of that, you have imported foreigners from countries that do not share your British culture......it is leading to more violence.....

Fuck me you bought it. We have fuck all to learn about law and order from gun nuts like you.

 

[2aguy]

Except for the Cumbria shooter in 2010...right....? He held a legal certificate for both a shotgun and rifle.......and tell us which gun law in Britain kept him from going to a school and killing kids......He killed 20 people....in gun controlled Britain...

He could easily have gone to a grammar school and killed kids...he chose not to......

Which of Britain's gun laws stopped him?

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British histor

----------

Bird had held a shotgun certificate since 1974 and had renewed it several times, most recently in 2005, and had held a firearms certificate for a rifle from 2007 onward.[30][31]

Derick Bird was the exception. His case was the only one under current legislation. If only the US could say the same eh ?

No....you don't get to do that....he was a licensed gun owner.....more than likely stored his gun safely.....now tell us....which British gun control law kept him from walking into a school and murdering kids...instead of the 12 people he actually murdered?

You haven't had more school shootings because of the culture, or nature of British citizens....not because of your gun control laws.....but as I keep showing you...your gun crime rate is going up.....after decades of your ban....

And again I tell you that our gun laws are a part of our culture that makes us safer than you.
Its laughable that you consider yourself qualified to lecture us on our gun laws.
Please help me here. How can we bring "down" our fatalities to US levels ?

Allowing normal, law abiding citizens to own and carry guns......long prison sentences for criminals caught carrying guns....

Hiring more police.....you are short police...and that is going to catch up with you......

We had a spike in crime going into the 1960s.......that lasted till the mid 1990s.....when we changed our laws and allowed people to carry guns....our gun murder rate went down 49%...our gun crime rate went down 75%...our violent crime rate went down 72%....

You are entering a period much like our 1960s.....your crime rates are going up...you have young males raised by single mothers...and on top of that, you have imported foreigners from countries that do not share your British culture......it is leading to more violence.....

Fuck me you bought it. We have fuck all to learn about law and order from gun nuts like you.

Tell us that 10 years from now.......you are just getting started on your violent murder increase......

 

[Meane]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?

Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.

BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?

What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries

The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.

To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.

So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.

The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.

The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.

Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.

For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.

And donahue is still wrong....here is a look at guns and rape prevention....

And here we have studies that show that guns are the most effective way to stop a rape.....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

Most rapes take place in relationships and marriages. Shall I keep the gun under my pillow and hope he never finds it?

 

[Faun]

Starting from just a few years after the ban went into effect, looks like a significant drop to me. Although graphs like that don't speak to reasons for the drop.

so explain the spike

Why on Earth would I waste my time researching your claims??



You posted that chart. It shows a significant decline in homicides since a few years after the gun ban started. Way to make your point.

And it shows that the gun band didn't reduce murder rate to below pre-ban levels
the same thing happened with the 1960's gun laws in the UK

I bet there is more shooting in US than UK. You have to separate murder and shooting.

Of course there is. We have nearly five times the population that the UK has.

And approximately 140 times the number of homicides firearms.

 

[Skull Pilot]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?

Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.

BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?

What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries

The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.

To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.

So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.

The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.

The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.

Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.

For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.

I don't really care about other countries

And it's really not any earth shattering news that a gun in the house can be correlated to a shooting in that house a pool on a property increases your chance of drowning as well

This is about personal freedom and personal choice

You are afraid of guns and don't want one in your home that's fine with me
I'm not afraid of guns, have owned guns since I was 16, have had a carry permit since I was 21 and in the past 3 plus decades have never had one unintentional discharge, have never had anyone find an unsecured gun in any of my residences and certainly have never shot anyone

I don't know how many times I can explain to you that I am not responsible for the behavior of other people who either own guns legally or obtain them illegally and use them to commit crimes

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, it doesn't....what exactly keeps the owner of the shotgun from killing kids?


And in this country, we have 74.2 million kids...less than 25 toddlers died in gun accidents.....332 died in car accidents........

And because we own and carry guns....1,500,000 Americans stop violent crime with their guns.....

You need a license. This weeds out the nutters who seem to carry out many of your murders.

However I understand that Pres trump has tightened up on nutters owning guns so maybe that might reduce the body count.

Except for the Cumbria shooter in 2010...right....? He held a legal certificate for both a shotgun and rifle.......and tell us which gun law in Britain kept him from going to a school and killing kids......He killed 20 people....in gun controlled Britain...

He could easily have gone to a grammar school and killed kids...he chose not to......

Which of Britain's gun laws stopped him?

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British histor

----------

Bird had held a shotgun certificate since 1974 and had renewed it several times, most recently in 2005, and had held a firearms certificate for a rifle from 2007 onward.[30][31]

Derick Bird was the exception. His case was the only one under current legislation. If only the US could say the same eh ?

No....you don't get to do that....he was a licensed gun owner.....more than likely stored his gun safely.....now tell us....which British gun control law kept him from walking into a school and murdering kids...instead of the 12 people he actually murdered?

You haven't had more school shootings because of the culture, or nature of British citizens....not because of your gun control laws.....but as I keep showing you...your gun crime rate is going up.....after decades of your ban....

And again I tell you that our gun laws are a part of our culture that makes us safer than you.
Its laughable that you consider yourself qualified to lecture us on our gun laws.
Please help me here. How can we bring "down" our fatalities to US levels ?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?

Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.

BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?

What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries

The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.

To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.

So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.

The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.

The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.

Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.

For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.

And donahue is still wrong....here is a look at guns and rape prevention....

And here we have studies that show that guns are the most effective way to stop a rape.....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

Most rapes take place in relationships and marriages. Shall I keep the gun under my pillow and hope he never finds it?

keep it on your hip

 

[2aguy]

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?

Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.

BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?

What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries

The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.

To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.

So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.

The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.

The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.

Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.

For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.

And donahue is still wrong....here is a look at guns and rape prevention....

And here we have studies that show that guns are the most effective way to stop a rape.....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

Most rapes take place in relationships and marriages. Shall I keep the gun under my pillow and hope he never finds it?

Yeah...except for the ones that don't....the ones where the woman is dragged away from the bus stop and raped in an alley.......how about allowing those women to stop those rapes?

 

[2aguy]

so explain the spike

Why on Earth would I waste my time researching your claims??



You posted that chart. It shows a significant decline in homicides since a few years after the gun ban started. Way to make your point.

And it shows that the gun band didn't reduce murder rate to below pre-ban levels
the same thing happened with the 1960's gun laws in the UK

I bet there is more shooting in US than UK. You have to separate murder and shooting.

Of course there is. We have nearly five times the population that the UK has.

And approximately 140 times the number of homicides firearms.

And even more defenseive uses where crimes are stopped by gun carrying Americans...1,500,000 times a year....and in 2015...9,616 gun murders, mostly against other criminals.....

So on the whole, guns save lives...

 

[Faun]

Why on Earth would I waste my time researching your claims??



You posted that chart. It shows a significant decline in homicides since a few years after the gun ban started. Way to make your point.

And it shows that the gun band didn't reduce murder rate to below pre-ban levels
the same thing happened with the 1960's gun laws in the UK

I bet there is more shooting in US than UK. You have to separate murder and shooting.

Of course there is. We have nearly five times the population that the UK has.

And approximately 140 times the number of homicides firearms.

And even more defenseive uses where crimes are stopped by gun carrying Americans...1,500,000 times a year....and in 2015...9,616 gun murders, mostly against other criminals.....

So on the whole, guns save lives...

And then there is the additional hundreds of thousands of non-fatal shootings, assaults, and robberies with firearms.

 

[2aguy]

And it shows that the gun band didn't reduce murder rate to below pre-ban levels
the same thing happened with the 1960's gun laws in the UK

I bet there is more shooting in US than UK. You have to separate murder and shooting.

Of course there is. We have nearly five times the population that the UK has.

And approximately 140 times the number of homicides firearms.

And even more defenseive uses where crimes are stopped by gun carrying Americans...1,500,000 times a year....and in 2015...9,616 gun murders, mostly against other criminals.....

So on the whole, guns save lives...

And then there is the additional hundreds of thousands of non-fatal shootings, assaults, and robberies with firearms.

No...there are not hundreds of thousands of non fatal shootings......and of the criminals.....1,500,000 times a year Americans use guns to stop assaults, robberies....even against criminals who have illegal guns.....

And in Britain...they have far more assaults, rapes and robberies.......

 

[2aguy]

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

Can you recall any country where guns are available the way they are in US and the crime statistics are good? Good as a that the place is considered in world wide compairson to be safe?

Britain is if course not the only one to have this system.

BTW, I cane by this. Is this then considered bullshit as well?

What Americans can learn about gun control from other advanced countries

The Charleston murders have renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this latest of tragedies.

To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church,

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.

So far, however, the U.S. has not done something about it.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it’s unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.

The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.

The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies—including the federal government—is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer, who echoed the tea party mantra of taking back our country.

I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.

Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.

The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court—over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia—refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.

The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.

For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents—this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands.

In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are
In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential—particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.
more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime—to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.,.....etc.

And donahue is still wrong....here is a look at guns and rape prevention....

And here we have studies that show that guns are the most effective way to stop a rape.....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

Most rapes take place in relationships and marriages. Shall I keep the gun under my pillow and hope he never finds it?

And again....the woman dragged from the bus stop and raped in the alley? She should just lay back and enjoy it because the guy raping her isn't her boyfriend or husband?

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

********************

So, again a woman's best chance for stopping the rape and ultimately surviving the situation is to use a gun.....

 

[2aguy]

And it shows that the gun band didn't reduce murder rate to below pre-ban levels
the same thing happened with the 1960's gun laws in the UK

I bet there is more shooting in US than UK. You have to separate murder and shooting.

Of course there is. We have nearly five times the population that the UK has.

And approximately 140 times the number of homicides firearms.

And even more defenseive uses where crimes are stopped by gun carrying Americans...1,500,000 times a year....and in 2015...9,616 gun murders, mostly against other criminals.....

So on the whole, guns save lives...

And then there is the additional hundreds of thousands of non-fatal shootings, assaults, and robberies with firearms.

And again......as more Americans own and carry guns......gun murder in this country went down 49%.....gun crime down 75%....violent crime down 72%, so nothing you point to is true, factual or accurate...

 

[Faun]

I bet there is more shooting in US than UK. You have to separate murder and shooting.

Of course there is. We have nearly five times the population that the UK has.

And approximately 140 times the number of homicides firearms.

And even more defenseive uses where crimes are stopped by gun carrying Americans...1,500,000 times a year....and in 2015...9,616 gun murders, mostly against other criminals.....

So on the whole, guns save lives...

And then there is the additional hundreds of thousands of non-fatal shootings, assaults, and robberies with firearms.

No...there are not hundreds of thousands of non fatal shootings......and of the criminals.....1,500,000 times a year Americans use guns to stop assaults, robberies....even against criminals who have illegal guns.....

And in Britain...they have far more assaults, rapes and robberies.......

Sure there are ... 56K non-fatal shootings, 138K assaults, 122K robberies. And those are just the ones reported. The actual numbers would be higher.

And your 1.5 million figure of stopping crimes is utter bullshit. It's based on a poll where 1.5 million were estimated to have used a firearm defensively, not necessarily during the commission of a crime. And that poll was taken in 1994 and crime is down about a third since then. Hell, in 2015, there were about 1.1 million reported assaults and robberies -- and you claim there were 1.5 million such crimes stopped with a gun.

 

[2aguy]

Of course there is. We have nearly five times the population that the UK has.

And approximately 140 times the number of homicides firearms.

And even more defenseive uses where crimes are stopped by gun carrying Americans...1,500,000 times a year....and in 2015...9,616 gun murders, mostly against other criminals.....

So on the whole, guns save lives...

And then there is the additional hundreds of thousands of non-fatal shootings, assaults, and robberies with firearms.

No...there are not hundreds of thousands of non fatal shootings......and of the criminals.....1,500,000 times a year Americans use guns to stop assaults, robberies....even against criminals who have illegal guns.....

And in Britain...they have far more assaults, rapes and robberies.......

Sure there are ... 56K non-fatal shootings, 138K assaults, 122K robberies. And those are just the ones reported. The actual numbers would be higher.

And your 1.5 million figure of stopping crimes is utter bullshit. It's based on a poll where 1.5 million were estimated to have used a firearm defensively, not necessarily during the commission of a crime. And that poll was taken in 1994 and crime is down about a third since then. Hell, in 2015, there were about 1.1 million reported assaults and robberies -- and you claim there were 1.5 million such crimes stopped with a gun.

No moron...you are wrong....

obama had the CDC in 2013 look at all current research on defensive gun use...he found that guns were used between 500,000 and 3 million times a year....and all of the studies done over a 40 year period support those claims.....

And the main point you asswipes make...that more guns = more crime....is a lie.....

200 million guns in private hands in 1990s...4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997

357-400 million guns in 2016....over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense...legally...

---our gun murder rate went down 49%

--Our gun crime rate went down 75%

--our violent crime rate went down 72%


You don't know what you are talking about......

And here are a list of all the studies, notice the numbers.....twit.

I just averaged the studies at the bottom......I took only studies that exluded military and police gun use.....notice, theses studies which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

Self defense with a gun:

Self defense with a gun......40 years of actual research...first is the name of the group that conducted the research, then the year, then the number of defensive gun uses and finally wether the research contained police or military defensive gun uses....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[2aguy]

Of course there is. We have nearly five times the population that the UK has.

And approximately 140 times the number of homicides firearms.

And even more defenseive uses where crimes are stopped by gun carrying Americans...1,500,000 times a year....and in 2015...9,616 gun murders, mostly against other criminals.....

So on the whole, guns save lives...

And then there is the additional hundreds of thousands of non-fatal shootings, assaults, and robberies with firearms.

No...there are not hundreds of thousands of non fatal shootings......and of the criminals.....1,500,000 times a year Americans use guns to stop assaults, robberies....even against criminals who have illegal guns.....

And in Britain...they have far more assaults, rapes and robberies.......

Sure there are ... 56K non-fatal shootings, 138K assaults, 122K robberies. And those are just the ones reported. The actual numbers would be higher.

And your 1.5 million figure of stopping crimes is utter bullshit. It's based on a poll where 1.5 million were estimated to have used a firearm defensively, not necessarily during the commission of a crime. And that poll was taken in 1994 and crime is down about a third since then. Hell, in 2015, there were about 1.1 million reported assaults and robberies -- and you claim there were 1.5 million such crimes stopped with a gun.

The major flaw in your point.....

You assume that if you get rid of all the guns in this country....taking them away from legal gun owners...that all of those attacks you point out would not happen....do you actually think this?

What would actually happen....those attacks still happen...and the Americans who use guns to stop 1,500,000 times a year....now become victims instead of stopping those violent criminal attacks........increasing crime rates all over the place....

And do you even realize that Britain, with it's gun ban is far more violent than the United States?

 

[2aguy]

Of course there is. We have nearly five times the population that the UK has.

And approximately 140 times the number of homicides firearms.

And even more defenseive uses where crimes are stopped by gun carrying Americans...1,500,000 times a year....and in 2015...9,616 gun murders, mostly against other criminals.....

So on the whole, guns save lives...

And then there is the additional hundreds of thousands of non-fatal shootings, assaults, and robberies with firearms.

No...there are not hundreds of thousands of non fatal shootings......and of the criminals.....1,500,000 times a year Americans use guns to stop assaults, robberies....even against criminals who have illegal guns.....

And in Britain...they have far more assaults, rapes and robberies.......

Sure there are ... 56K non-fatal shootings, 138K assaults, 122K robberies. And those are just the ones reported. The actual numbers would be higher.

And your 1.5 million figure of stopping crimes is utter bullshit. It's based on a poll where 1.5 million were estimated to have used a firearm defensively, not necessarily during the commission of a crime. And that poll was taken in 1994 and crime is down about a third since then. Hell, in 2015, there were about 1.1 million reported assaults and robberies -- and you claim there were 1.5 million such crimes stopped with a gun.

And suicides on your list.....do not count. Japan, China, South Korea, have absolute gun control for law abiding citizens...the police and criminals have the guns....they all have higher suicide rates than we do....

And for the last two years..non gun suicide rates in the U.S. were higher than gun suicide rates.....as more Americans bought and actually carried guns...

Leading Causes of Death | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2015
Gun suicide...

22,018

Non Gun suicide...

22,078
---------

2014....
Gun suicide....21,334
non gun....21,439
2014

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf

gun....21,334
non gun...21,439
------------

2013

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

gun....21,175

non gun...19,974

 

[2aguy]

Of course there is. We have nearly five times the population that the UK has.

And approximately 140 times the number of homicides firearms.

And even more defenseive uses where crimes are stopped by gun carrying Americans...1,500,000 times a year....and in 2015...9,616 gun murders, mostly against other criminals.....

So on the whole, guns save lives...

And then there is the additional hundreds of thousands of non-fatal shootings, assaults, and robberies with firearms.

No...there are not hundreds of thousands of non fatal shootings......and of the criminals.....1,500,000 times a year Americans use guns to stop assaults, robberies....even against criminals who have illegal guns.....

And in Britain...they have far more assaults, rapes and robberies.......

Sure there are ... 56K non-fatal shootings, 138K assaults, 122K robberies. And those are just the ones reported. The actual numbers would be higher.

And your 1.5 million figure of stopping crimes is utter bullshit. It's based on a poll where 1.5 million were estimated to have used a firearm defensively, not necessarily during the commission of a crime. And that poll was taken in 1994 and crime is down about a third since then. Hell, in 2015, there were about 1.1 million reported assaults and robberies -- and you claim there were 1.5 million such crimes stopped with a gun.

Non fatal gun accident injuries have gone down, not up as more AMericans not only own, but actually carry guns for self defense....from the CDC....


http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
Non fatal gun injury stats from 1999......

Nonfatal and Fatal Firearm-Related Injuries -- United States, 1993-1997
CDC non fatal gun accident.....

1993... 104,390
1994... 89,744
1995... 84,322
1996... 69,649
1997... 64,207
2001.... 17,696

2002... 17,579

2003... 18,941

2004... 16,555

2005... 15,388

2006... 14,678

2007... 15,698

2008... 17,215

2009... 18,610

2010... 14,161

2011... 14,675

2012... 17,362

2013... 16,864

2014..... 15,928

Non fatal gun injury stats from 1999......

 

[Meane]

And approximately 140 times the number of homicides firearms.

And even more defenseive uses where crimes are stopped by gun carrying Americans...1,500,000 times a year....and in 2015...9,616 gun murders, mostly against other criminals.....

So on the whole, guns save lives...

And then there is the additional hundreds of thousands of non-fatal shootings, assaults, and robberies with firearms.

No...there are not hundreds of thousands of non fatal shootings......and of the criminals.....1,500,000 times a year Americans use guns to stop assaults, robberies....even against criminals who have illegal guns.....

And in Britain...they have far more assaults, rapes and robberies.......

Sure there are ... 56K non-fatal shootings, 138K assaults, 122K robberies. And those are just the ones reported. The actual numbers would be higher.

And your 1.5 million figure of stopping crimes is utter bullshit. It's based on a poll where 1.5 million were estimated to have used a firearm defensively, not necessarily during the commission of a crime. And that poll was taken in 1994 and crime is down about a third since then. Hell, in 2015, there were about 1.1 million reported assaults and robberies -- and you claim there were 1.5 million such crimes stopped with a gun.

The major flaw in your point.....

You assume that if you get rid of all the guns in this country....taking them away from legal gun owners...that all of those attacks you point out would not happen....do you actually think this?

What would actually happen....those attacks still happen...and the Americans who use guns to stop 1,500,000 times a year....now become victims instead of stopping those violent criminal attacks........increasing crime rates all over the place....

And do you even realize that Britain, with it's gun ban is far more violent than the United States?

Do you read any of the responses you get. Because we already dealt with the definition of a violent crime.
this conversation is useless.

 

[2aguy]

And even more defenseive uses where crimes are stopped by gun carrying Americans...1,500,000 times a year....and in 2015...9,616 gun murders, mostly against other criminals.....

So on the whole, guns save lives...

And then there is the additional hundreds of thousands of non-fatal shootings, assaults, and robberies with firearms.

No...there are not hundreds of thousands of non fatal shootings......and of the criminals.....1,500,000 times a year Americans use guns to stop assaults, robberies....even against criminals who have illegal guns.....

And in Britain...they have far more assaults, rapes and robberies.......

Sure there are ... 56K non-fatal shootings, 138K assaults, 122K robberies. And those are just the ones reported. The actual numbers would be higher.

And your 1.5 million figure of stopping crimes is utter bullshit. It's based on a poll where 1.5 million were estimated to have used a firearm defensively, not necessarily during the commission of a crime. And that poll was taken in 1994 and crime is down about a third since then. Hell, in 2015, there were about 1.1 million reported assaults and robberies -- and you claim there were 1.5 million such crimes stopped with a gun.

The major flaw in your point.....

You assume that if you get rid of all the guns in this country....taking them away from legal gun owners...that all of those attacks you point out would not happen....do you actually think this?

What would actually happen....those attacks still happen...and the Americans who use guns to stop 1,500,000 times a year....now become victims instead of stopping those violent criminal attacks........increasing crime rates all over the place....

And do you even realize that Britain, with it's gun ban is far more violent than the United States?

Do you read any of the responses you get. Because we already dealt with the definition of a violent crime.
this conversation is useless.

Yep.....and comparing apples to apples Britain is still more violent than the U.S.

Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does

We thought Bier’s points were reasonable, so we tried to replicate his approach. We looked at the raw violent crime numbers for each country, using statistics for England and Wales for 2012 and for the United States for 2011, in a way that sought to compare apples to apples. (We should note that the United Kingdom includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the numbers in the meme appear to be based only on crime in England and Wales, which are calculated separately.)

For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.