Another good guy with a gun story.

[fskimospy]

My daughter knew one of the girls that died at she school shooting at her school (UCSB) and she heard the gun shots of the shooting that happened a mile from our house tonight where 11 people were shot https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/thousands-oaks-california-bar-shooting/index.html So let me just say FUCK YOU and your "good gun" stories.

You can't reason with these people and you no amount of facts will cause them to change their mind. No matter how often it is shown that 'good guys with guns' don't come even close to making up for all the bad effects of guns they just ignore the evidence and cling to them even harder. I mean earlier in this thread I showed empirical evidence that most defensive gun use is actually criminal activity. Did it change the OP's mind one iota? Of course not, as he's reasoning emotionally instead of logically.

I'm sorry you and your family are having to suffer the consequences of our stupid gun laws.

 

[Sunburn74]

If she knew someone killed in the Nice terror attack (killed by a vehicle), would you be angry at a good guy with a truck saving lives story? Don't be such an emotional wreck, use logic.

This is insane. Absolutely insane.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Sad that the stats will never capture how many future crimes would be stopped if a perpetrator like this guy is shot dead.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/gun-owne...t-attack-after-hearing-blood-curdling-screams

Saved potentially four lives, who knows.

It is sad that we will never know if the person he killed would have had kids that discovered the cure for cancer. The what-if game can used to support any position in any argument. It is a literally tells us nothing at all.

 

[cfenton]

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent







.

I dug up the report because selective quoting of a 100+ page study is a pretty easy way to mislead. Here's the full text of the relevant section:

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual
defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it's not as clear cut as CNS News presents it. The whole report is basically a call for additional research.

 

[Kwatt]

You can't reason with these people and you no amount of facts will cause them to change their mind. No matter how often it is shown that 'good guys with guns' don't come even close to making up for all the bad effects of guns they just ignore the evidence and cling to them even harder. I mean earlier in this thread I showed empirical evidence that most defensive gun use is actually criminal activity. Did it change the OP's mind one iota? Of course not, as he's reasoning emotionally instead of logically.

I'm sorry you and your family are having to suffer the consequences of our stupid gun laws.

I did not know that random phone survey qualified as "empirical evidence".
On a side note what one person tells another is called "hearsay" in court.

Language is surely a strange beast.

.

 

[fskimospy]

I did not know that random phone survey qualified as "empirical evidence".
On a side note what one person tells another is called "hearsay" in court.

Language is surely a strange beast.

.

You clearly don’t know what hearsay is.

Look if you want to love guns knock yourself out. You should just admit it is emotional as opposed to factual.

 

[Paratus]

I dug up the report because selective quoting of a 100+ page study is a pretty easy way to mislead. Here's the full text of the relevant section:



Perhaps unsurprisingly, it's not as clear cut as CNS News presents it. The whole report is basically a call for additional research.

When Harvard did research they found 0.9% of crimes had a defensive gun use.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense

I also seem to remember that when self reported defensive gun uses were actually investigated a large portion were actually illegal I.e. brandishing.

 

[blankslate]

Sure a gun works, but its not like its the only solution to stopping a crime.

But it's the only one that allows them to live out their Rambo: First Blood fantasies to orgasmic completion....



_________

 

[IJTSSG]

No empirical data has been presented to show most defensive gun use is illegal. Not even close.

 

[fskimospy]

No empirical data has been presented to show most defensive gun use is illegal. Not even close.

I literally already provided it and linked it.

 

[IJTSSG]

Did you read the study or just the abstract? It's a joke. Phone surveys? OK. From your link:

"Only five judges, from three states, assessed the self defense gun incidents from the surveys;
they were a convenience rather than a random sample, and the sample is too small to be confident of the stability of the aggregate ratings we report here."

Study is full of holes. You usually do better.

 

[Thump553]

Got actual documented peer reviewed info to back that statement up?

For years/decades now the NRA's stooges in Congress have legally barred the CDC and any recipient of federal funds from researching the effects of gun violence. Not that they are trying to hide anything, right?

 

[fskimospy]

Did you read the study or just the abstract? It's a joke. Phone surveys? OK. From your link:

"Only five judges, from three states, assessed the self defense gun incidents from the surveys;
they were a convenience rather than a random sample, and the sample is too small to be confident of the stability of the aggregate ratings we report here."

Study is full of holes. You usually do better.

I have read the entire study from front to back. The purpose of the study was not to exactly pinpoint the percentage of 'defensive' gun uses that are crimes in and of themselves, the purpose was to show that what people often claim is defensive gun use is in fact criminal activity.

And remember, this was with giving the gun owners every possible benefit of the doubt. Imagine how high the crime rate would be if they DIDN'T do that.

 

[Kwatt]

You clearly don’t know what hearsay is.

Enlighten me please.

All I have is :
hearsay evidence
: evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath

And
hearsay
: something heard from another person : something that you have been told

.

I have read the entire study from front to back. The purpose of the study was not to exactly pinpoint the percentage of 'defensive' gun uses that are crimes in and of themselves, the purpose was to show that what people often claim is defensive gun use is in fact criminal activity.

And remember, this was with giving the gun owners every possible benefit of the doubt. Imagine how high the crime rate would be if they DIDN'T do that.

the purpose was to show that what people often claim is defensive gun use is in fact criminal activity.

What kind of criminal activity are they talking about?

.

 

[IJTSSG]

I have read the entire study from front to back. The purpose of the study was not to exactly pinpoint the percentage of 'defensive' gun uses that are crimes in and of themselves, the purpose was to show that what people often claim is defensive gun use is in fact criminal activity.

And remember, this was with giving the gun owners every possible benefit of the doubt. Imagine how high the crime rate would be if they DIDN'T do that.

You would have to imagine since that study is woefully short of verifiable facts.

 

[fskimospy]

Enlighten me please.

All I have is :
hearsay evidence
: evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath

And
hearsay
: something heard from another person : something that you have been told

So you are agreeing that you don't know what hearsay is then? As listed in your definition hearsay is someone testifying to facts they did not witness themselves. In this case people were relating facts that they DID witness, which was then interpreted by a judge. It was not hearsay, it was eyewitness evidence.

the purpose was to show that what people often claim is defensive gun use is in fact criminal activity.

What kind of criminal activity are they talking about?

.

I'm sure that varied by the case. Regardless, it is very telling that when people claim they are defending themselves they are often committing crimes, no?

 

[fskimospy]

You would have to imagine since that study is woefully short of verifiable facts.

And in every case the lack of verifiable facts is biased in FAVOR of those claiming their gun use was defensive. Like I said, imagine the huge swath of criminal behavior that would likely be uncovered if the judges were basing their evaluation of conduct on what actually happened instead of the gun owner's interpretation.

Even when gun ownership is given every advantage it turns out to be a bad idea. It's just a really dumb decision for the average person to make. If you're smart, don't buy a gun, sell the ones you own, or store them someplace other than your house. That's the best way to protect yourself and your family.

 

[Muse]

Excellent. We need hundreds of thousands of protesters armed and headed to the WH. I support your position in their name.

Isn't that why we have the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Muse]

For every "good guy with a gun story" there are probably a 100 with not a good story.

Yeah, the former are a tough find, the latter, look out, one will find you every day and if your luck isn't so good one of the bullets too.

 

[IJTSSG]

And in every case the lack of verifiable facts is biased in FAVOR of those claiming their gun use was defensive. Like I said, imagine the huge swath of criminal behavior that would likely be uncovered if the judges were basing their evaluation of conduct on what actually happened instead of the gun owner's interpretation.

Even when gun ownership is given every advantage it turns out to be a bad idea. It's just a really dumb decision for the average person to make. If you're smart, don't buy a gun, sell the ones you own, or store them someplace other than your house. That's the best way to protect yourself and your family.

LOL. The study is shit, you're extrapolating data that doesn't exist and using your logic I should sell my cars as well. Increased exposure = Increased likelihood. Groundbreaking stuff.

 

[Kwatt]

So you are agreeing that you don't know what hearsay is then? As listed in your definition hearsay is someone testifying to facts they did not witness themselves. In this case people were relating facts that they DID witness, which was then interpreted by a judge. It was not hearsay, it was eyewitness evidence.

Someone calls a random number (pollsters) relays that information to a judge. The witness did not relate the facts to a judge. The pollsters (a third party) then gave the info to a judge. And unless the witness was sworn in they were not testifying.

I'm sure that varied by the case. Regardless, it is very telling that when people claim they are defending themselves they are often committing crimes, no?

They may have been committing a crime and defending themselves also. For instance a person could scare off an attacker by displaying a firearm and may be charged with "brandishing a firearm". Yes?


.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL. The study is shit, you're extrapolating data that doesn't exist and using your logic I should sell my cars as well. Increased exposure = Increased likelihood. Groundbreaking stuff.

Your car provides you with utility. If you own a gun for self protection it does not as it actually makes you less safe.

There is reams of data backing this up, it's not a controversial thing. Everyone with any knowledge of the issue knows that owning a gun makes the average person less safe.

 

[fskimospy]

Someone calls a random number (pollsters) relays that information to a judge. The witness did not relate the facts to a judge. The pollsters (a third party) then gave the info to a judge. And unless the witness was sworn in they were not testifying.

They gave the judges the statements made by the individuals they called, to attempt to discount this by calling it hearsay is absurd.

The study is methodologically sound and passed peer review. It's solid.

They may have been committing a crime and defending themselves also. For instance a person could scare off an attacker by displaying a firearm and may be charged with "brandishing a firearm". Yes?

No, if someone has a reasonable fear that they are at risk of bodily injury then brandishing a firearm is not a crime. So remember, these people were evaluated as engaging in criminal activity even after only their side was presented and any mitigating justifications evaluated. They were just committing tons and tons of crimes with their 'defensive' guns.

 

[IJTSSG]

Owning a gun is riskier than not owning a gun. Wow. That's a groundbreaking discovery. Groundbreaking. LOL.

 

[fskimospy]

Owning a gun is riskier than not owning a gun. Wow. That's a groundbreaking discovery. Groundbreaking. LOL.

Tons of people don't seem to realize that as the #1 reason given for gun ownership is personal safety. Considering owning a gun makes you less safe that's a pretty stupid decision to make, don't you agree? You're not only way more likely to die from suicide, you're more likely to die from homicide too.