Lots of people have debated this 2.5 million claim. But one part of the argument I've never seen is this.
Some percentage of DGU incidents is not defensive and legitimate. If the bad guy is dead, it's easy for the shooter to shade the circumstances enough in his direction to make it legit. If the bad guy lives, people tend not to believe what he has to say, he is a bad guy after all.
This goes double for those supposed brandishings in which the bad guy runs away.
So, I take the lowest estimate out there, which is about 50,000 or 60,000 and cut it in half. That's what you've got for true DGUs, and that corresponds perfectly with what we read in the news.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
True DGUs - How Many Are There Each Year
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don’t care. You want to use a smaller DGU count (or the ratio of gun crimes to DGUs) as a reason for more gun control. Well, I am about to punch more holes in that logic than a paper target after a day at the range:
ReplyDelete1) The UK has somewhere near zero DGUs a year, and their ratio of gun crimes to DGUs is somewhere near infinity. Your logic says they need more gun control even more badly than we do. Does that make sense to you?
2) You always want to delegitimize a portion of DGUs by saying the gun wielder may have been a criminal. So what? A life saved is a life saved. You guys obviously count gang on gang deaths for your stats, so if a gang member protects their own life from a rival gang member who was trying to kill them- then that is a life saved. Right?
3) DGUs are reactionary to crime (as in you can’t have a DGU without the crime happening first). If crime drops and all other things remaining equal- DGUs will drop as well. A less violent society will naturally see fewer DGUs. Obviously being less violent should not be a call for more gun control, right? Or so you have always claimed.
4) The more prominent DGUs become, the more we will benefit from the passive effect of gun ownership. If criminals are stopping their behavior for risk of a DGU, then actual DGUs will also decrease. The DGU count would be “shooting itself in the foot” statistically. The passive effect of DGUs is the very best outcome we can all hope for. What is better than a would-be criminal who decides not to risk getting shot over an old lady’s purse, or considers it downright suicidal to commit a hot break-in of a home?
5) Another reason why DGUs should not be directly compared to gun crimes is that criminals have the tremendous advantage of being able to pick the target, the time, and the place of their attack. The best the victim can do is react. As much as you want to stress how prevalent guns are in our society- the fact remains that very few victims of violent crimes have been armed. Only if everyone had a gun at all times could you make a relevant comparison for how many get used for good, and how many get used for bad (not that I am calling for that- but it is the only way to make a fair comparison).
6) If you really want to make a comparison it should not be the ratio of DGUs to gun crimes, but rather how often self-defense with a gun is/would be justified- even if they didn’t have one. That is you count the unarmed woman who was violently raped as a reason for self-defense with a firearm. So can we please get a better comparison out of you than “guns are more likely to be misused than used to save the day”? How about gun misuse versus total victims of violence who were defenseless (where a defensive gun use would have been legally justified) plus the “would-be” victims who successfully defended themselves with a gun?
7) If you are still hell-bent on making comparisons for misuse of guns vs. positive use of guns, then you should include all the people who own guns responsibly, safely, and use them for sport, pleasure, and available for self defense if need be. Why should it matter that no one tried to kill me? Does putting myself in a position where someone might try to kill me increase my rights? Again, does that make sense to you?
I see no holes.
Delete1. intentional homicide rate US vs. UK.
2. The Oklahoma pharmacist
3. sometimes a so-called DGU happens when there was no crime or only a minor one.
4. you're way of making them "more prominent" is by lying in both quantity and quality.
5. Blathering idiocy: "Only if everyone had a gun at all times."
6. sure, let's think up some other things to compare.
7. I didn't start this nonsense of comparing DGUs to misuse of guns, you guys did that with the 2.5 million hoax.
NONE of you answer actually address the points I made.
Delete1) So are you agreeing with me that gun crime to DGU is not a valid argument for gun control? Shall we stick with murder rates?
2) What does some pharmacist in Oklahoma have to do with anything? It sounds you are using an anecdote to disprove an aggregate. My question to you: is a gang member who uses an illegal gun to save his life from a rival gang member who was trying to kill him because of the color of his shirt as positive outcome? Say nobody dies. Do you care about that young man’s life, or does he deserve to guy because he was brought up in a neighborhood where gang culture is the only culture?
3) So? The point isn’t about what “sometimes” happens. The point is that if fewer people are being attacked there will be fewer opportunities for DGUs (all else being equal). Is that a true statement or not?
4) Umm… not a bad thing if criminals believe the risk of being shot is greater than it actually is and it causes them to rethink their lives. You are missing the point of no.4- and that is criminals not engaging in a violent crime for fear of being shot. Is this, or is this not a positive outcome?
5) You are breaking my balls, Mike. Didn’t you see me say “not that I am calling for that”?
6) Do you agree with my no.6 then?
7) I don’t perpetuate the 2.5 million number, and I don’t think the misuse to DGU ratio should matter for gun rights (but you apparently do). I would look at the ratio of violent crimes where a gun use would have been justified to DGUs. If there are too few instances of people being able to protect themselves we might want to look at gun control as a reason why, and think about ways we can empower the people. Gun control reduces the DGU count. Do you agree with that statement?
YS, I don't think I agree with anything you say, but I don't have the time or the energy to give you the blow-by-blow.
DeleteMikeb, now you've sunk to copying and pasting yourself. As I said in response to your comment, you're guessing. You have no evidence. I'm not going to base my rights or my decisions on your guesses.
ReplyDeleteGreg, where was this comment posted? The proper thing to do would be for Mike to link to the original.
DeleteIs that "sinking," copying and pasting something I wrote in a comment? Is it "improper" to not link to it?
DeleteWhat is wrong with you guys? Let me guess, the argument proposed in my comment/post had you speechless and rather than capitulate you made these two silly observations.
I already addressed your point where you originally made it, but I'll repeat it here. You're just guessing. You have no evidence. But you're not fooling anyone who isn't already fooled.
Delete"Is it "improper" to not link to it?"
DeleteLinking to it would provide context.
I posted it like that, Anonymous, because it stands on its own. Greg, likes to dismiss it as "guessing," but I suggest there's a wide chasm between guessing at something and providing evidence. It's called reasonable and logical conclusions.
DeleteIf you employed logic, I wouldn't call it a guess.
Deletenra can't live with the truth. shhhhhhhhhhhh
ReplyDeletebullies rule...when they have guns!
tom webber miami
Bullies rule when good people are unarmed.
DeleteI think we have found Democommie's replacement.
DeleteSo because YOU don't like the numbers reported you've decided to pull some made up numbers out of your ass? And even with your made up numbers there are still more DGUs per year than there are gun deaths even if you count suicides. One life saved, isn't that your mantra? So even using your made up numbers there are more lives saved than are lost to guns. I'd say you just shot yourself in the foot and according to your rules that means you don't get to shoot anymore.
ReplyDeleteYup, Mikeb claims that the ratio is 100:1 bad to good, but he just stated that the number of defensive gun uses is 25,000 to 30,000, which is about one to one. Add that to the fact that he acknowledged that gun control doesn't affect gun violence in an earlier post, and we're left to wonder why he still supports gun control.
DeleteNo, Scott, no one said every single one results in a death.
DeleteMikeb, how does that respond to what Scott said? You've stated that legitimate defensive gun uses are, in your opinion, around 25,000 to 30,000 per annum. That's about the number of gun deaths in the same period. Answer that.
DeleteWhat Mike wants to do is compare total DGUs to total bad uses of guns (not just gun deaths). I haven’t looked it up in a while, but I believe it is in the neighborhood of 700,000 or so per year (includes armed robberies, etc.). He is also saying that of the 30,000 DGUs he believes are legitimate, only a fraction of those would have resulted in death if not for the gun. I agree with this, but the true value is that those people didn’t have to find out if they were going to be murdered because they had a gun. And of course, they are many things besides being murdered worth defending oneself with a gun from. But I all these comparisons are a fool’s errand, based on my essay above.
DeleteAnd Mike, if you ever do have the time I would like to hear your point by point rebuttal. I don’t blame you for punting. You are going to have a hard time justifying why it is better for a gang member to be stabbed to death than scare off his attacker with a gun, or show how rampant DGUs are in England and Australia. Good luck with that.
Every single legitimate DGU, which I might accept as being as high as 30,000, does not equal a life saved. Only a small percentage of them would have resulted in death.
Delete30,000 gun deaths, on the other hand, are 30,000 gun deaths.