But the person that uses the gun got it illegally right?
Holy nit pick,they are new clean guns,not dirty or smuggled as what was suggested by some.
Point is, stop selling guns like corner store candy and the gangs will have trouble getting them.(the clean one's anyway) Even gang members won't carry a gun that may have had a ballistic's test from a crime.
"Gun-control advocates look at guns only as a means to harm others even though they are more often used to prevent injury. According to a 1995 study entitled Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year."
"Other studies give similar results. Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, by the Clinton administrations Justice Department shows that between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States use a firearm to defend themselves and others from criminals each year. A 1986 study by Hart Research Associates puts the upper limit at 3.2 million."
So all these organizations are presenting "bunk" numbers?
People don't use their guns for defense at all?
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year
"Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.) In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
Do you check you facts before you post them????????
1. Many studies more well designed than the one that came up with the 2.5 million actually come up to 46000 and 80000-82000 (National Crime victimization Survey). So no, all studies are not in the millions, in fact, not many are. Bunk
2. The 2.5 million in the 1995 Study by Kleck has been proven to be bunk many, many times by the the very paper you next refer to and by the people I mentioned earlier. It is also quite vigorously shown to be bunk here:
You simply cannot extrapolate what 56 positive responses from gun owners say to actual events of 100 million citizens. That is terrible science, even you would know that. The p value is so out of range that it should have been embarrassing for anyone who knows anything about science to even mention, yet gun advocates use it. Astounding...bunk even
3. You quote Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, by the Clinton administration. If you read it, which you can here:
It's sole assertion is that these phone surveys DO NOT provide any useable data. In fact, here is a direct quote for you: "Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack" Yet you quote it to support your assertion? Yes....bunk
4. You quote an imaginary study done by Hart Reasearch Associate for well-known gun advocator John Lott. Apparently, Lott paid for this study to be done and the results were given to him by phone. He "forgot" to get any data from them. Interestingly, the Hart Research Associates do not have any knowledge of doing this study. In fact, the only source one can find is a leaflet that sources Lott for the figures (Blackman, Paul H.n.d. "Armed Citizens and Crime Control" (leaflet, 4 pp.). Fairfax, VA: National Rifle Association.) So, yes......bunk.
I'm guessing by the lack of response you haven't seen my answer to your numbers. Do you see why people often disregard numbers from gun defense advocates?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
States allow 'gunshows' where there is minimal checking of any one, have state ID and you can buy a gun, there is no database or the like and it is all legal and above board.
Its actually a pretty good way to get a gun if you are a canadian as well, just hang around a stall making appropriate noises about damned facist canadian goverment won't let me defend myself from (insert appropriate racial invective, depending on the race of the seller) and there is a good chance he/she will overlook your canadian license for a hefty increase in the price, gun shows and private sales are virtually unregulated.
Okay, I know that you don't like guns and England is awesome but this is where you're completely wrong and with out a doubt being ignorant to the fact that they follow the same standards at gun shows as they do in their own gun store.
How do do I know? well the last firearm I purchased was a 1911a1 and it was at a gun show. They had all the same paperwork that you had to fill out and they also still had to call the NCIS to make sure that you're legal to purchase a firearm. In fact I remember a guy flipping out because he wasn't able to purchase a firearm because of he had a run in with the law for domestic abuse.
This isn't a personal swipe at you, it's that I hear that crap from the anti-gun crowd and it's tiresome when they say crap like that. It's like the idiots that scream to the world that Obama is Muslim.
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
Okay, I know that you don't like guns and England is awesome but this is where you're completely wrong and with out a doubt being ignorant to the fact that they follow the same standards at gun shows as they do in their own gun store.
How do do I know? well the last firearm I purchased was a 1911a1 and it was at a gun show. They had all the same paperwork that you had to fill out and they also still had to call the NCIS to make sure that you're legal to purchase a firearm. In fact I remember a guy flipping out because he wasn't able to purchase a firearm because of he had a run in with the law for domestic abuse.
This isn't a personal swipe at you, it's that I hear that crap from the anti-gun crowd and it's tiresome when they say crap like that. It's like the idiots that scream to the world that Obama is Muslim.
This only applies to dealers, if on the other hand you are not a dealer, basically if you say you arn't (and don't have a shop) then you do not have to apply any of that, you have to see ID and, if challanged by the atf you have to say you don't believe the person is a criminal.
it is pretty well unregulated
I have some friends up here who hunt that have been quite candid that they have bought guns in the states to leave at a buddys house down there as it is less hassle than trying to take a gun across the line.
It has been three years since Omar Samaha last saw his sister Reema alive. Reema was one of 32 victims whose life was taken in the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech University. This weekend marks the third anniversary. Images of Reema dancing the weekend before the attacks are still fresh in her family's mind. "It's nothing you really get over," family member Nina Samaha-Reiten said. And three years later, Reema's family is also not over the fight; the fight to close what many consider a glaring loophole in Virginia's gun laws. It is called the gun show "loophole" and as it exists, anyone can buy a gun from a private dealer without a background check.
And early this week, just one day before the third anniversary, three Virginia congressmen, urged their colleagues to reconsider closing the loophole. Democrats Jim Moran, Bobby Scott and Gerald Conolly sent a letter to members of the House of Representatives asking them to support a bill requiring private sellers to perform background checks on buyers at gun shows.
One year ago ABC News followed Reema's brother Omar to a gun show in Richmond, Va. Within a few minutes of arriving, Omar was able to purchase a glock handgun, the same make of gun used to kill at Virginia Tech. After one hour at the show, Omar walked away with a handful of guns, all purchased without one single background check. Watching the entire transaction was former ATF agent Jerry Nunziato. "There was nothing illegal about their transactions," Nunziato said. In spite of the congressmen's recent appeal, three years later, those transactions are still perfectly legal. Many gun rights advocates say it should stay that way. Last May a bill introduced to end the loophole has yet to be heard by committee or brought up for debate. For Reema Samaha's family the fight continues.
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 04-15-2012 at 09:27 PM.
Okay, I know that you don't like guns and England is awesome but this is where you're completely wrong and with out a doubt being ignorant to the fact that they follow the same standards at gun shows as they do in their own gun store.
How do do I know? well the last firearm I purchased was a 1911a1 and it was at a gun show. They had all the same paperwork that you had to fill out and they also still had to call the NCIS to make sure that you're legal to purchase a firearm. In fact I remember a guy flipping out because he wasn't able to purchase a firearm because of he had a run in with the law for domestic abuse.
This isn't a personal swipe at you, it's that I hear that crap from the anti-gun crowd and it's tiresome when they say crap like that. It's like the idiots that scream to the world that Obama is Muslim.
Which, if it gains any traction at all, will be attacked by the NRA, who will deem it unconstitutional, unamerican, and pressure as many repub and needy politicians they can to their cause, and it will be easily defeated without even going to congress.
I'm guessing by the lack of response you haven't seen my answer to your numbers. Do you see why people often disregard numbers from gun defense advocates?
Well, it's hard to have a discussion about gun defense when one side denies/minimizes the basic purpose of the firearm in the first place....but if the numbers are flawed projections then fine.
Aside from those 3-4 sources of gun defense stats in America, the only other one I can find is from the CDC.
They say gun defense actions occur about 498,000 times/year... Even with this more conservative estimate, ...that is still a staggering number. The point I was making is that gun defense actions far, far outweigh any gun crimes commited by legal gun owners, and that citizen gun owners pose little threat to society (as per my previous post showing crime conviction rates for CHL holders in Texas).
Well, it's hard to have a discussion about gun defense when one side denies/minimizes the basic purpose of the firearm in the first place....but if the numbers are flawed projections then fine.
Aside from those 3-4 sources of gun defense stats in America, the only other one I can find is from the CDC.
They say gun defense actions occur about 498,000 times/year... Even with this more conservative estimate, ...that is still a staggering number. The point I was making is that gun defense actions far, far outweigh any gun crimes commited by legal gun owners, and that citizen gun owners pose little threat to society (as per my previous post showing crime conviction rates for CHL holders in Texas).
The obvious counter arguement being that if everyone didn't have guns then they wouldn't need guns, that the only reason to defend yourself with a gun is because everyone else has a gun.
The US doesn't have significantly lower crime figures than comprable other western countries therefore having guns for defence isn't lowering crime.
It is reasonable to posit that gun defense is at best slightly moderating the effect of guns in the US, not actually helping.
Well, it's hard to have a discussion about gun defense when one side denies/minimizes the basic purpose of the firearm in the first place....but if the numbers are flawed projections then fine.
Aside from those 3-4 sources of gun defense stats in America, the only other one I can find is from the CDC.
They say gun defense actions occur about 498,000 times/year... Even with this more conservative estimate, ...that is still a staggering number. The point I was making is that gun defense actions far, far outweigh any gun crimes commited by legal gun owners, and that citizen gun owners pose little threat to society (as per my previous post showing crime conviction rates for CHL holders in Texas).
These numbers are always incredible.
If 2.5 million people have actively defended themselves with a gun every year, then I (or at least one of my friends) should have met one of these people in the 15 years that I've been in the US. Someone I know must have a story, no?
But apparently I'm blind and have missed the 37.5 million incidents during my time in the US. Even at the supposedly low end of 0.5 million a year, that's 7.5 million incidents. Almost 1500 incidents every day. 300 per state, per day. Uh huh.
The incidence of people using guns for self-defense is wildly over-reported. When these events do happen, they are prominent nightly news events. In our locale about a month ago, a grandma made a robber flee by coming downstairs with her rifle while he was rummaging in the living room. That's the only example that I can recall during my 7 year stay in this state. So unless there is a news conspiracy to not report all the other ones (I've lived in two very gun friendly midwestern states), they just don't happen nearly as often as gun advocates tout.
I don't really care if people have guns, but this whole "self-defense" angle is bollocks.
The incidence of people using guns for self-defense is wildly over-reported. When these events do happen, they are prominent nightly news events. In our locale about a month ago, a grandma made a robber flee by coming downstairs with her rifle while he was rummaging in the living room. That's the only example that I can recall during my 7 year stay in this state. So unless there is a news conspiracy to not report all the other ones (I've lived in two very gun friendly midwestern states), they just don't happen nearly as often as gun advocates tout.
I don't really care if people have guns, but this whole "self-defense" angle is bollocks.
No way. They are under-reported.
In many cases there is no motivation or incentive for the potential victim to report a gun defense. For example, if someone simply brandished their pistol if they saw a guy trying to pry into their car ...or any minor incident where the bad guy flees and no damage is done.
Also, common sense tells me the media will most likely report a murder/shooting at about a 10:1 ratio to a gun defense story for the pure sensationalism of it all. I mean really? Isn't it kind of obvious the press in America is generally anti-gun?
In many cases there is no motivation or incentive for the potential victim to report a gun defense. For example, if someone simply brandished their pistol if they saw a guy trying to pry into their car ...or any minor incident where the bad guy flees and no damage is done.
Also, common sense tells me the media will most likely report a murder/shooting at about a 10:1 ratio to a gun defense story for the pure sensationalism of it all. I mean really? Isn't it kind of obvious the press in America is generally anti-gun?
Not really, you just assume it is anti gun because when they report the facts, kids shooting their toddler sister or the like, it makes the whole gun lobby thing sound ridiculous.
There isn't any way to report gun crime and make US gun laws make sense, the US has more murders than anywhere outside of third world crap holes like Afghanistan and the Congo, so obviously guns arn't keeping anyone safe and there isn't anyway to report that that doesn't make any half sensible person think it is a bit absurd. Because you like guns you then assume it is an attack.
What you need to do is stop trying to defened guns on a practical level, it isn't statistically possible, you need to just embrace the reality that americans like guns and as such are prepared to pay the price, 35,000 deaths a year or so, I could respect that, it is no different than cigerettes.
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 04-16-2012 at 08:48 PM.
This only applies to dealers, if on the other hand you are not a dealer, basically if you say you arn't (and don't have a shop) then you do not have to apply any of that, you have to see ID and, if challanged by the atf you have to say you don't believe the person is a criminal.
it is pretty well unregulated
I have some friends up here who hunt that have been quite candid that they have bought guns in the states to leave at a buddys house down there as it is less hassle than trying to take a gun across the line.
It has been three years since Omar Samaha last saw his sister Reema alive. Reema was one of 32 victims whose life was taken in the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech University. This weekend marks the third anniversary. Images of Reema dancing the weekend before the attacks are still fresh in her family's mind. "It's nothing you really get over," family member Nina Samaha-Reiten said. And three years later, Reema's family is also not over the fight; the fight to close what many consider a glaring loophole in Virginia's gun laws. It is called the gun show "loophole" and as it exists, anyone can buy a gun from a private dealer without a background check.
And early this week, just one day before the third anniversary, three Virginia congressmen, urged their colleagues to reconsider closing the loophole. Democrats Jim Moran, Bobby Scott and Gerald Conolly sent a letter to members of the House of Representatives asking them to support a bill requiring private sellers to perform background checks on buyers at gun shows.
One year ago ABC News followed Reema's brother Omar to a gun show in Richmond, Va. Within a few minutes of arriving, Omar was able to purchase a glock handgun, the same make of gun used to kill at Virginia Tech. After one hour at the show, Omar walked away with a handful of guns, all purchased without one single background check. Watching the entire transaction was former ATF agent Jerry Nunziato. "There was nothing illegal about their transactions," Nunziato said. In spite of the congressmen's recent appeal, three years later, those transactions are still perfectly legal. Many gun rights advocates say it should stay that way. Last May a bill introduced to end the loophole has yet to be heard by committee or brought up for debate. For Reema Samaha's family the fight continues.
Yeah I would love to see one of these guys sell to the undercover cop at the show. Also I wasn't allowed in the show until after I was ran to make sure I wasn't a felon and could own a gun.
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
I'm sorry a kid that shoots his toddler sister shouldn't have a gun and his parents deserve to be put in prison. But just because one family is like that, that must mean the rest of us are and take our guns away.
I'm done arguing, we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't see firearms as a big deal and some think that they grow legs and kill everything in sight.
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
So you think that 300 incidents per state per day is under-reported and that the number per day is higher than that?
In other words, the state I live in decided to not report the 300+ incidents that occurred today, April 16th 2012, wherein citizens protected themselves by wielding a gun?
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
Well, it's hard to have a discussion about gun defense when one side denies/minimizes the basic purpose of the firearm in the first place....but if the numbers are flawed projections then fine.
Aside from those 3-4 sources of gun defense stats in America, the only other one I can find is from the CDC.
They say gun defense actions occur about 498,000 times/year... Even with this more conservative estimate, ...that is still a staggering number. The point I was making is that gun defense actions far, far outweigh any gun crimes commited by legal gun owners, and that citizen gun owners pose little threat to society (as per my previous post showing crime conviction rates for CHL holders in Texas).
No one has minimized the basic purpose of having a gun. People buy them to protect themselves for the most part. That is why they buy them. However, they ARE primarily used for harm.
I cannot find that CDC statistic. I've looked and it doesn't seem to exist, so unless you can provide a source, I'm gonna guess it's bunk too.
There are valid reasons to argue for gun ownership, but self defense just isn't one. If any of those numbers are true, the US becomes ridiculously violent. 16% of criminal acts using guns were done by legal gun owners. That ain't much I will concede. But these weren't illegally manufactured guns, either. More control to prevent this diversion of guns would be good, no?
Another interesting tidbit: If these numbers are to be believed, in right-to-carry states, if you add the current crime rates to those violent crimes that are suddenly now prevented, the crime rate suddenly triples/quadruples!