What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

When 2nd Amendment Saves Lives

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
92,329
Reaction score
31,740
Points
2,250
The numbers are very uncertain. Here.


A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

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, no military)

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

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

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

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
92,329
Reaction score
31,740
Points
2,250

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
76,884
Reaction score
17,061
Points
2,180
Not a link to the story......please provide a link so that we can show you exactly what the NRA did instead of the spin from the rabidly anti-gun CNBC......

What was the expansion?

What was the reason for objecting to this expansion?

Did the expansion require family members to do background checks on family members?

Did the background checks include letting a friend shoot a gun at a range?

This is the problem with background checks...

1) you want them just so you can then demand gun registration...which you need to ban and confiscate guns...

2).....one type of expansion Bill that we will not accept...



3)
Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Summary

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store.
If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon.

Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

The bill has some narrow exemptions. The minuscule exemption for self-defense does not cover stalking victims. None of the exemptions cover farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, or storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws.
And this......they love this...

The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by
regulation.
-----

The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain—and is certainly not "immediate"—the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun. Sometimes, threats are manifested at night, when gun stores are not open.
-------

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.
-----


Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation

"(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."

"(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

------
Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way. If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from the store.

3) More.....


Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge. The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation. Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations. Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.


When you actually include detail to what you claim...then you will be an honest participant in this discussion..until then, you are nothing more than a vile, anti-gun extremist....
 

Batcat

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
2,652
Reaction score
2,552
Points
1,938
of course it is not but it is the basis of how the shooter got a gun in the first place as well as the other guy who is the hero. I am assuming they both got their guns legally.

yeah its about forming a militia but it doesn't stop special interest groups to expand its meaning

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Supreme Court has ruled the Militia angle isn’t as important as you think it is.


On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States, in McDonald v. City of Chicago—a case challenging handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois—ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense nationwide. The Court declared, "We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." The decision reverses the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which upheld the bans, and requires that court to reconsider the McDonald case in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. The handgun bans remain in place, for the time being.

The Court's majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas concurring in whole or in part. These five Justices also constituted the 5-4 majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, private, individually-held right to keep and bear arms, without regard to a person's relationship to a militia, and that the District of Columbia's bans on handguns and on keeping firearms assembled within the home were unconstitutional. Dissenting in McDonald were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, all of whom dissented in Heller, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, recently appointed to the Court by President Barack Obama….
emphasis added

***snip***

The Court further explained:
Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Explaining that "the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" in the home, we found that this right applies to handguns because they are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family." Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted "to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense." Heller makes it clear that this right is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.". . . . The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights.
 
Last edited:

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
76,884
Reaction score
17,061
Points
2,180
Ooooh......ooooh....ask bulldog if he supports that system......a system that is free, does not require gun registration, and allows anyone to do the background check....likely with a free phone app...

Ask him/her/it, and see what they say..........
Family members should be expected know if the receiver of the gun is allowed to have one, so of course I would support a system like that. What makes you think I wouldn't?
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
92,329
Reaction score
31,740
Points
2,250


And the internet answers the question....

Here....from your linked story.......

H.R. 8, a bipartisan proposal that passed the Democratic-controlled House in February and has yet to be taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate.


Notice.....your story didn't give any details of what was in the Bill....it simply said the NRA was against Background Checks......a lie by miles of omission...


I have the details of HR8.........and why we opposed it...........again...

Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Summary

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store.



If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon.

Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

The bill has some narrow exemptions. The minuscule exemption for self-defense does not cover stalking victims. None of the exemptions cover farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, or storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws.
And this......they love this...

The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by
regulation.

-----
The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain—and is certainly not "immediate"—the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun. Sometimes, threats are manifested at night, when gun stores are not open.
-------

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.
-----


Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation

"(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."

"(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

------
Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way.

If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from the store.

Since you and the other anti-gun extremists hide your true intentions at every turn....you are the reason we do not trust anti-gun extremists...
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
92,329
Reaction score
31,740
Points
2,250

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
92,329
Reaction score
31,740
Points
2,250
Oh my. A batshit crazy gun nut called me dishonest. How will I ever be able to go on now?


And you confirm just what I said...thanks.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
92,329
Reaction score
31,740
Points
2,250
You're too goofy to take yes for an answer. You're just another goofy gun nut.


And again...your dishonesty, and lameness on display...

You can't defend your positions honestly, and so you devolve into those posts....
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
63,823
Reaction score
21,655
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually

Employee who killed gunman likely saved lives, police say​

...
SUPERIOR, Neb. (AP) — An employee who returned fire after a gunman killed two people at a Nebraska grain elevator likely prevented more deaths, a Nebraska State Patrol official said Friday.

The employee, who was not named, retrieved a weapon and shot Max Hoskinson, 61, after Hoskinson began shooting at the Agrex Elevator in Superior, Nebraska, on Thursday. Hoskinson, of Superior, was pronounced dead at a hospital.

Authorities said Hoskinson had been fired earlier Thursday and returned that afternoon with a gun and began shooting in an office area.
...
This fails as a confirmation bias fallacy.
 

JGalt

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
42,132
Reaction score
33,532
Points
3,635
Which is a bullshit number because you intentionally don't count the defensive use of a gun unless the victim shoots their assailant. The vast majority of the time just showing you have the gun, PREVENTS the crime.

1.5 million yearly self-defense cases. Rarely is anyone actually shot. The mere presence of a gun usually deters the attacker.

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives | GOA
 

progressive hunter

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
34,704
Reaction score
18,414
Points
1,915
of course it is not but it is the basis of how the shooter got a gun in the first place as well as the other guy who is the hero. I am assuming they both got their guns legally.

yeah its about forming a militia but it doesn't stop special interest groups to expand its meaning

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
where does it say its about forming a militia??
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
63,823
Reaction score
21,655
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
Guns were used in self-defense only in 1.3% of violent crimes.
Hence the idiocy of using ‘self-defense’ as ‘justification’ to possess firearms.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.
 

Relative Ethics

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2021
Messages
1,807
Reaction score
678
Points
193

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,729
Reaction score
965
Points
140
where does it say its about forming a militia??
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.



The Supreme Court has ruled the Militia angle isn’t as important as you think it is.


On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States, in McDonald v. City of Chicago—a case challenging handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois—ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense nationwide. The Court declared, "We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." The decision reverses the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which upheld the bans, and requires that court to reconsider the McDonald case in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. The handgun bans remain in place, for the time being.

The Court's majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas concurring in whole or in part. These five Justices also constituted the 5-4 majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, private, individually-held right to keep and bear arms, without regard to a person's relationship to a militia, and that the District of Columbia's bans on handguns and on keeping firearms assembled within the home were unconstitutional. Dissenting in McDonald were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, all of whom dissented in Heller, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, recently appointed to the Court by President Barack Obama….
emphasis added

***snip***

The Court further explained:


Well I am just referring to how some likes to quote the 2nd amendment. Yes, the supreme court has taken up the issue but it is the government that regulates who can have a gun and who cannot have a gun. It is the government that set the rules.

It is not the 2nd amendment.

The government allows individual owners to have guns. It set rules for who can legally own a gun. It also set rules for who cannot legally own a gun. I do not have a problem with that as it is the law.

I am just tired of the 2nd amendment argument being used to justify gun ownership.

It really is a LIBERAL interpretation of the 2nd amendment and when the argument can be made that it is legal to own a gun based on the laws that are on the book which specifically clarifies it.
 

progressive hunter

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
34,704
Reaction score
18,414
Points
1,915
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.






Well I am just referring to how some likes to quote the 2nd amendment. Yes, the supreme court has taken up the issue but it is the government that regulates who can have a gun and who cannot have a gun. It is the government that set the rules.

It is not the 2nd amendment.

The government allows individual owners to have guns. It set rules for who can legally own a gun. It also set rules for who cannot legally own a gun. I do not have a problem with that as it is the law.

I am just tired of the 2nd amendment argument being used to justify gun ownership.

It really is a LIBERAL interpretation of the 2nd amendment and when the argument can be made that it is legal to own a gun based on the laws that are on the book which specifically clarifies it.
the government has stolen that power,,

the 2nd doesnt need interpreted since its written in simple english even a moron can read,,
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
76,884
Reaction score
17,061
Points
2,180
the government has stolen that power,,

the 2nd doesnt need interpreted since its written in simple english even a moron can read,,
That's the problem. Lots of morons read it, but are too stupid to know what it says.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$85.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top