The Right To Bear Arms

[Ernie S.]

Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.

VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
And that is just the killers. A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor. The janitor had a carry permit....

The article avoids saying that 169 cases apparently resulted in acquittals or dropped charges.
That leaves 510 of which 190 were suicides or 320. 17 were lawful self defense where no charges were filed and 18 were ruled accidental. That's 285, 60 of which are pending trial. We can expect half to end in acquittals, so we have 255 unlawful killings with guns by concealed carry permit holders.

What's that? 6 months death toll for Chicago alone?

Out of a country of over 310 million people......285.....

In 6 years. That's 153 cases per billion, yes BILLION per year.

No there are only about 11 million with carry permits.

OK we'll multiply my 153 per billion by 150. We get >23 per million.

 

[Silent Warrior]

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.

 

[Ernie S.]

In my case, I feel a responsibility to my patrons. I take their safety very seriously and at 2 AM, there is a lot of cash and a lot of vulnerable people in any bar.
I'm very proud that there have, up to this point, been no injuries, assaults or robberies at the place since I took it over from the previous owners.
Hel! We haven't even had to rough up an unruly drunk. We've asked people to leave and shown solidarity to enforce it, but other than one "gentle shove" in the direction of the door, we haven't had to use force.
The one guy who did invite me outside when I asked him to leave, backed down when he noticed the 6'7" 380 pound gentleman standing behind him.

 

[Brain357]

Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year. The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals. Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.

 

[Brain357]

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.

Nobody is ignoring those. But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed. And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense. You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.

Nobody is ignoring those. But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed. And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense. You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

And yet facts do not support that supposed claim. Of the murders a year how many were firearms owners and not criminals? How many of the shootings are firearms owners that shot themselves accidentally? And no I am not counting suicide.

 

[Brain357]

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.

Nobody is ignoring those. But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed. And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense. You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

And yet facts do not support that supposed claim. Of the murders a year how many were firearms owners and not criminals? How many of the shootings are firearms owners that shot themselves accidentally? And no I am not counting suicide.

You lost me which claim that you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot than to shoot a criminal? Or that you are more likely to be shot if you carry a gun? Your response doesn't make much sense for either, but please specify.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.

Nobody is ignoring those. But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed. And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense. You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

And yet facts do not support that supposed claim. Of the murders a year how many were firearms owners and not criminals? How many of the shootings are firearms owners that shot themselves accidentally? And no I am not counting suicide.

You lost me which claim that you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot than to shoot a criminal? Or that you are more likely to be shot if you carry a gun? Your response doesn't make much sense for either, but please specify.

You claim owning a firearm makes you 3 x more likely to be shot. Prove it and do not include career criminals or gang members.

 

[2aguy]

Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.

VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
And that is just the killers. A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor. The janitor had a carry permit....

The article avoids saying that 169 cases apparently resulted in acquittals or dropped charges.
That leaves 510 of which 190 were suicides or 320. 17 were lawful self defense where no charges were filed and 18 were ruled accidental. That's 285, 60 of which are pending trial. We can expect half to end in acquittals, so we have 255 unlawful killings with guns by concealed carry permit holders.

What's that? 6 months death toll for Chicago alone?

Out of a country of over 310 million people......285.....

In 6 years. That's 153 cases per billion, yes BILLION per year.

No there are only about 11 million with carry permits.

11.1 from the research......

 

[Brain357]

VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
And that is just the killers. A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor. The janitor had a carry permit....

The article avoids saying that 169 cases apparently resulted in acquittals or dropped charges.
That leaves 510 of which 190 were suicides or 320. 17 were lawful self defense where no charges were filed and 18 were ruled accidental. That's 285, 60 of which are pending trial. We can expect half to end in acquittals, so we have 255 unlawful killings with guns by concealed carry permit holders.

What's that? 6 months death toll for Chicago alone?

Out of a country of over 310 million people......285.....

In 6 years. That's 153 cases per billion, yes BILLION per year.

No there are only about 11 million with carry permits.

11.1 from the research......

Sorry I wasn't very specific. My point was that using the whole population of the country was not correct.

 

[2aguy]

Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year. The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals. Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.

actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......

 

[2aguy]

The 230 number is not accurate either....the FBI doesn't keep track of homicides very well because convictions and prosecutions are very fluid....

 

[Brain357]

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.

Nobody is ignoring those. But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed. And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense. You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

And yet facts do not support that supposed claim. Of the murders a year how many were firearms owners and not criminals? How many of the shootings are firearms owners that shot themselves accidentally? And no I am not counting suicide.

You lost me which claim that you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot than to shoot a criminal? Or that you are more likely to be shot if you carry a gun? Your response doesn't make much sense for either, but please specify.

You claim owning a firearm makes you 3 x more likely to be shot. Prove it and do not include career criminals or gang members.

No that is not at all what I claimed. I claimed that you are 3X more likely to accidently shoot and kill someone than you are to shoot and kill a criminal. There are about 600 people accidently shot and killed each year. Per FBI stats there are about 230 or so criminals shot and killed in defense each year. So it's pretty simple math from there.

 

[Brain357]

The 230 number is not accurate either....the FBI doesn't keep track of homicides very well because convictions and prosecutions are very fluid....

Prove it. Sorry Bill but I believe the FBI stats above the Bill stats.

 

[2aguy]

Just putting out another resource...this one discusses the usual stuff......

http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf

They have a more detailed bread down on why the National Crime Victimization Survey is so off compared to the other 19 studies on gun violence....

Also, keep in mind....this was from the 90s when the States were first making their moves to allowing people to carry guns in public.....in states that had banned that activity before.....

On why the National Crime Victimization Survey is the worst of the bunch....

Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-pro- tection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden. It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes, 2 7 thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.

For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are rela- tively easy to get)28 , the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.

In at least ten states, it is punishable by a puni- tively mandatory minimum prison sentence.29 Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were commit- ted away from the victim's home,30 i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively.
Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,31 the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.

 

[Vandalshandle]

And, here we have the truth about the myth of defensive gun ownership:

The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership - Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes - POLITICO Magazine

"In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

The claim has since become gospel for gun advocates and is frequently touted by the National Rifle Association, pro-gun scholars such as John Lott and conservative politicians. The argument typically goes something like this: Guns are used defensively “over 2 million times every year—five times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes.” Or, as Gun Owners of America states, “firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.” Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum has frequently opined on the benefits of defensive gun use, explaining: “In fact, there are millions of lives that are saved in America every year, or millions of instances like that where gun owners have prevented crimes and stopped things from happening because of having guns at the scene.”

It may sound reassuring, but is utterly false. In fact, gun owners are far more likely to end up like Theodore Wafer or Eusebio Christian, accidentally shooting an innocent person or seeing their weapons harm a family member, than be heroes warding off criminals."



Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262.html#ixzz3OwnzpGfX

 

[Brain357]

Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year. The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals. Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.

actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......

Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it. The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home. It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home. Try again.

 

[Brain357]

Just putting out another resource...this one discusses the usual stuff......

http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf

They have a more detailed bread down on why the National Crime Victimization Survey is so off compared to the other 19 studies on gun violence....

Also, keep in mind....this was from the 90s when the States were first making their moves to allowing people to carry guns in public.....in states that had banned that activity before.....

On why the National Crime Victimization Survey is the worst of the bunch....

Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-pro- tection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden. It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes, 2 7 thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.

For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are rela- tively easy to get)28 , the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.

In at least ten states, it is punishable by a puni- tively mandatory minimum prison sentence.29 Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were commit- ted away from the victim's home,30 i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively.
Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,31 the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.

The NCVS survey is the only one that weeds out all the criminals defending against criminals. I don't see why you'd want to count those.

 

[2aguy]

Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.

Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year. The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals. Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.

actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......

Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it. The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home. It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home. Try again.

Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....

 

[2aguy]

This paper explains how the FBI numbers on homicide get distorted....and why the NCVS numbers are way off....


http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigate a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaugh- ter, that is reported as a murder or man- slaughter to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorneys will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case en- tirely.

Further, some of those charges are found to be justifiable or excusable homicide by judges and juries during a trial. This is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her chil- dren from an estranged husband.9 A killing initially charged as a murder or nonnegli- gent homicide that is later reclassified as a justifiable or excusable homicide, will not be moved in the Uniform Crime Reports data from the homicide column to the justifiable homicide column.

How do we find out how many such cases exist? In 1989, Time magazine published an article called “Death by Gun.” It included photographs and information about every person killed by a gun in one week in the United States: May 1–7, 1989. There were 464 gun deaths reported in the article. Of these, 216 were suicides, 14 were initially reported as non–law enforcement defensive homicides, 13 were police justifiable homi- cides, and 22 accidents.10 That left 199 mur- ders and manslaughters.

The Time article, like the FBI’s data col- lection, showed the number of defensive gun uses that resulted in a death based on initial reports. A year later, Time followed up on the murder cases, to see how the courts handled them. Instead of 14 self-defense or “justifiable” homicides, there were now 28. This was because 14 of the “crimes” report- ed in “Death by Gun” were now found to be justifiable homicides. At least 43 murder cases had still not gone to trial, and it was possible that some of those would be found “justifiable.”11 Clearly, the FBI’s justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaning- ful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death—and is useless for un- derstanding the vastly larger number of de- fensive gun uses that do not result in death. Just as clearly, a better data set is needed.