arma virumque cano (et alia)
As often happens, the VPC leaves some important data out. During the same year, there were 385 justifiable homicides with a firearm by law enforcement. Justifiable homicides arent a complete picture od defensive gun uses by civilians. Just the easiest to track. There are at least two other possible outcomes that apply to defensive gun uses both by civilians and law enforcement. One is that the assailant is shot and survives their wounds and also that the assailant stops their attack by either surrendering of fleeing. The challenge is how to track that with any kind of accuracy. Some might say that the most difficult to track is the most successful defensive gun use because no one gets hurt. There have been two studies on defensive gun uses that I know of. The oft maligned Lott study and the same study that gun control advocates have used to document the "gun show loophole and it's 40% figure. Strangely, both studies came up with similar numbers. Though for some reason, they decided that the data couldnt be right. I'm not conversant in the beer math used by those that do these studies. But my question would be in that case, if the data was ok in one part of the study, why not the other? Perhaps this is an area that will defy accurate study.
Some might say that the most difficult to track is the most successful defensive gun use because no one gets hurt.Exactly. It's bloodthirsty creatures like VPC, Democratic Underground, and Mikeb who dismiss an act of self-defense if no one dies.
If you guys want to count the non-fatal defensive uses of guns you have to also count the non-fatal mis-uses of guns.Either way, you lose.
Not hardly, Mikeb, unless we buy into your estimate of the numbers.
Either way, you lose.Um--no, we don't. Simply asserting that misuse of guns is more prevalent than self-defense usage proves exactly nothing.I know you feel unfairly put upon when gun rights advocates, evidently as some part of right-wing, pro-gun conspiracy, demand evidence before accepting an assertion, because you "don't like evidence," but we're still not going to let you spout absurdities without challenge.Besides, even if your claims were accurate--let's say misuse of guns outnumbered self-defense 10 to 1. Or, hell--100 to 1, or better yet, a trillion to none.So what? My right to the means of defending my life and liberty are in no way contingent on the actions of others. That's one of the cool things about being an individual, rather than a hive insect.Try it some time, Mikb.
Sarge's comment explains what's wrong with the poster that you presented, Mikeb, but do tell: Why do you buy what the Violence Policy Center says, but not studies by our side? Do you have scientific or statistical reasons for this, or could it be that you decide based on the result of the study?
This "report" by a political Astroturf committee, neglects the fact that the far majority of the time when a firearm is used in an act of self defense, the firearm is rarely used. The mere presence of a firearm in the hands of the innocent party is usually enough to deter most criminals from causing any additional injury. Firearms provide the only safe, practical and reliable means (last resort) for individual self defense in the modern world, and therefore it is prudent, and necessary for the public welfare to ensure and vigorously protect the general availability of lethal arms for use by civilian actors. A Fool on a High Hill
As I said above, the vast majority of mis-uses of guns are not fatal. They aren't represented on the poster either.
Mike, you’d be better off not reposting this kind of drivel. You keep accusing permit holders are being blood thirsty, trigger happy, and just itching to kill someone under Stand Your Ground laws, but then say it’s not self-defense unless there is a dead body. Come on.
You win this round, TS.
I never said it't not self-defense unless there's a fatality. Why would you say such a thing?The criminal use of guns is in the order of a half-a-million incidents a year. Most are non-fatal. The true count of defensive gun uses, including all the brandishing kind, doesn't even come close.
"The criminal use of guns is in the order of a half-a-million incidents a year. Most are non-fatal. The true count of defensive gun uses, including all the brandishing kind, doesn't even come close" Mike, do you happen to have a source you could share to support this contention? I'm sure everyone would be interested in seeing your data.
Would you care to share the source for the data that supports your statement? Sorry if this is a repeat, it didnt show my original post a being submitted.
Violent crime committed with a gun stats are readily available. Don't ask me for something implying that what I said is not true.
"The true count of defensive gun uses, including all the brandishing kind, doesn't even come close"Mike, I wasn't asking for stats on violent crime. I was asking for your source for stats on defensive gun uses including brandishing. So you're suggesting that since there are more criminal uses of guns than lawful defensive gun uses I should be ok with being disarmed?
Yes, and you and that Propaganda Professor are the only ones I know saying that the true number of defensive gun uses in a year is about 500. Reliable sources say many orders of magnitude higher.
MikeB: "why would you say such a thing?"VPV said it on their poster- and you reposted it with no corrections implying that you agree with their "study". By the way, since when is a two minute google search a "study"?
"VPV said it on their poster- and you reposted it with no corrections implying that you agree with their "study". "Who are you to say what I'm implying? Are you pretending to read my mind? The fact is I sometimes post things that I have no agreement with just because I find them interesting. And I don't take the time to disavow every one of them. Deal with it, man and stop reading my mind wrongly in order to catch me out.
So now, Mikeb, you're telling us that you don't accept the conclusion being drawn on that poster? Can we expect that in the future, you will refrain from using those numbers in making your case?
No, not at all. The poster is fine, but of course it's limited to deaths. If you want to include all the non-death DGUs, then you need to include all the non-death gun crimes. That's all.
"So you're suggesting that since there are more criminal uses of guns than lawful defensive gun uses I should be ok with being disarmed?"When did I ever say you or any of the others should be disarmed? I say we need strict gun control, and one of the simplest and most obvious reasons is that there are more crimes with guns than DGUs, yes.
As I've shown you time after time, your proposals would make legal ownership all but impossible and legal carry just about non-existent.How about this: Show us an example of a gun owner you approve of and explain why that is.
So the UK needs strict gun control even more than we do- since their ratio of DGUs/gun crime is worse than ours.