• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Good Samaritan Gun Use

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Interesting how little we hear about when the use of a firearm saves a life, however we're sure to hear about how the use of a firearm takes a life....
Just proof positive that an armed society is a polite society.
I think everyone should go buy a pistol today. 🙂

Article

Good Samaritan Gun Use

Saturday, March 05, 2005

By John Lott, Jr.

A multiple victim public shooting last week outside the court house in Tyler, Texas, stemming from a custody dispute, resulted in the murder of two people and the wounding of four others.

Killings like this frequently make the news, and this story was carried by all the television networks and most major newspapers. ABC and NBC evening news coverage was fairly typical; they noted, respectively, that ?David Hernandez Arroyo fired off more than 50 rounds. He killed two people before police shot him dead? and ?A gunman killed his ex-wife and a bystander and wounded four others between--before being shot to death by police.?

Of the 71 unique news stories found by a computerized Nexis search of stories in the four days after the attack, 38 percent mention that an AK-47 or high-powered rifle was used by the attacker. As usual, gun control groups called for more gun control.

Eric Howard, with the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, said ?These are military-style weapons that pose a significant risk to civilians and the police officers trying to protect the public.?

Only two stories mentioned that the AK-47 was a semi-automatic, not a machine gun, and, while it is understandable, none of the articles provided context by explaining that Arroyo?s weapon functioned the same as deer hunting rifles, firing the same caliber bullets, at the same rapidity, and doing the same damage.

Seems like pretty standard media coverage. But what makes this case different is that 21 percent of the news stories actually mentioned that a citizen licensed to carry a concealed weapon used his gun to try and help stop the attack.

The citizen, 50 year old Mark Wilson, was one of the two people murdered. As CNN reported, ?Everyone here agrees, Wilson saved lives.? Fox News' website quoted the sheriff as saying "if it hadn't been for Mr. Wilson, [Arroyo's son] would be dead."

Wilson, a licensed concealed handgun permit holder, heard Arroyo?s shots and saw the commotion from his apartment window. He grabbed a handgun and headed toward the attacker. Arroyo had already wounded several police officers and there was no one left to prevent his rampage.

Arroyo had also shot his 22-year-old son and was about ready to shoot him again from very close range when Wilson fired his gun, hitting Arroyo several times in the chest. Arroyo was wearing a bullet resistant vest and flak jacket and Wilson's shots did not seriously wound him. Yet, Wilson?s shots forced Arroyo to come after him, and it used up a couple of minutes of his time. Unfortunately, in the exchange of gunfire, Arroyo eventually fatally shot Wilson. With police arriving, Arroyo fled the scene and was later shot to death by police as they pursued him.

Neighbors described Wilson as ?one of the nicest, sweetest guys I've ever known.? Others pointed out that ?He's not going to sit back and -- when he could do something about it, and just let it happen? and called him a hero.

It is not remarkable that someone such as Mark Wilson was there at the scene to stop the attack before police arrived. For example, in about 30 percent of the multiple victim public school shootings that have captivated Americans? attention starting in 1997, people used guns to stop the attacks before uniformed police were able to arrive on the scene. Few people know about these cases because only about one percent of the news stories on these cases mention how the attacks were stopped.

What is remarkable is that this heroism--an act of defensive gun use--did receive some national attention. Undoubtedly, much of the coverage came from the fact that Mark Wilson was killed by Arroyo, but it still doesn?t take away from the fact that many stories admitted that he had saved at least one life and a few stories quoted police saying that he had probably saved multiple lives.

Of course, gun control advocates draw their usual conclusion from all this. Kristen Rand, legislative director for the pro-gun control Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C., claims the Tyler shooting last Thursday shows that criminals are undeterred by people potentially carrying concealed weapons. But, in fact, more nearly the opposite is true. When Arroyo faced the choice of continuing to shoot others or defending himself, he was forced to defend himself. Making Arroyo's attacks more risky caused him to change his behavior.

More generally, though, it is strange that Rand points to one case as evidence that deterrence doesn't work. In the book, The Bias Against Guns, Bill Landes of the University of Chicago Law School and I examine multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 and find that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent.

Many people find it hard to believe that 18 national surveys by academics as well as national polling organizations show that there are 2 million defensive gun uses each year.
After all, if these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? Yet when was the last time you saw a story on the national evening news (or even the local news) about a citizen using a gun to stop a crime? ABC?s and NBC?s news coverage continued this pattern, but at least some CBS and CNN news reports provided some balance and Fox News? website also gave the full story.

This misreporting actually endangers people's lives. By selectively reporting the news and turning a defensive gun use story into one that merely says "police shot him dead," the media give misleading impressions of what actions saved the lives of people confronted by violence. As Wilson's case demonstrates, defensive gun use is not a guns-rights myth. Guns have been and are used by law abiding citizens to protect and save their own lives and the lives of others.
 
rose.gif
for Mr Wilson

A Citizen and Hero died while upholding the Right to Bear Arms :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Interesting how little we hear about when the use of a firearm saves a life, however we're sure to hear about how the use of a firearm takes a life....
Just proof positive that an armed society is a polite society.
I think everyone should go buy a pistol today. 🙂

Article

Many people find it hard to believe that 18 national surveys by academics as well as national polling organizations show that there are 2 million defensive gun uses each year.[/b] After all, if these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? Yet when was the last time you saw a story on the national evening news (or even the local news) about a citizen using a gun to stop a crime? .

Not only is this 2-million/year figure remarkable, it's literally unbelievable. Let's see now: There are approximately 200 million adults in the United States. Let's say that about half of them own guns. So there are 2 million gun-defenses for every 100-million gun-owner years, or about 2%. And these "gun defenses" can only occur in situations where a gun owner had a gun handy when the "crisis" arose. To generate the 2 million figuure, there had to be MANY more dangerous situations faced by the gun owners (when a gun wasn't handy). Let's be REALLY conservative here and say that in HALF of all dangerous situations faced by gun owners a gun was handy and was used. So, we get on average that there's a 4% chance that a "gun-year" will result in a "gun defensible situation".

Let us assume that gun owners do not intrisically lead more dangerous lives than non-gun-owners (if they do, that's already an argument against owning guns). That is, let us assume that people who do NOT own guns will on average face the same 4%/year risk that is faced by gun owners.

Now, if I look at my parents, my friends, my relatives and add up all those people (some of whom are indeed gun owners) and all those years, I get approximately 100 people and perhaps 3,000 adult years (given an average age of 50, or about 30 adult years for each person). Using the 4% number, I would expect that there should have been 120 gun-defensible situations that arose during those years (3000 x .04). Guess what? The actual number is 0. There is not a single relative or close friend that has EVER been in a risk situation where a gun would have useful for defense.

But if the 4% figure is accurate, the odds of 3000 years with 0 gun-defensible situations are:

(96/100)^3000 = 6.51x10^(-54)

Edit: To put this figure in terms non-mathematicians can comprehend, the odds are 1 in 153,568,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

In other words, either my family and friends are the luckiest people in the history of the universe, or this 2 million figure is absolute BS. Gee, I wonder which is true?
 
Ironically, if we didn't have guns, the shooting and killing and thus the subsequent need for one citizen to go down with his guns blazing would not have happened.

But hell, let's ignore this particular line of reasoning.

*I plan to be proficient with a handgun in the future..guns are sexy ^_~*
 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
The @sshole cops want to ban vest penetrating handguns and rounds like the Five-Seven. The stupidity behind this idea is that only cops have vests.

Yes ALL criminals where bulletproof vests.

Do you think that the typical burglar who breaks into houses wears a vest ?

My guess is that over 99% of all people who wear a vest on a regular basis is a cop.

 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Interesting how little we hear about when the use of a firearm saves a life, however we're sure to hear about how the use of a firearm takes a life....

i think you hear so little about them because it so rarely happens.

 
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: Dissipate
The @sshole cops want to ban vest penetrating handguns and rounds like the Five-Seven. The stupidity behind this idea is that only cops have vests.

Yes ALL criminals where bulletproof vests.

Do you think that the typical burglar who breaks into houses wears a vest ?

My guess is that over 99% of all people who wear a vest on a regular basis is a cop.

What does this have to do with a 'regular basis?' We are talking about crazy people with guns & vests.
 
Armed home invasions are out of control in the UK and Australia. WHY becuase the thugs know that law abiding home owners have turned in the guns and surrendered their right to protect themselves. It will happen here also
 
Originally posted by: WiseOldDude
Armed home invasions are out of control in the UK and Australia. WHY becuase the thugs know that law abiding home owners have turned in the guns and surrendered their right to protect themselves. It will happen here also


I found this when searching....
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/australiaguns.html

I wonder how many people were killed in Ausralia in violent crimes in a given year, compared to the USA (per capita of course)?
 
I'm really in the middle of the road on this issue. I'm polite to everyone and it has nothing to do with people being armed, it's respect. This being said I used to own a rifle to target shoot. I'm just for decent regulation of weapons.
 
Do guns really make you safer? or just feel safer?

I own a few guns and in the last few years I have been asking myself why do I own them. I use to say that I owned them for protection.

So what are the guns protecting me from?

I do not live in a community where people are shooting at each other every day outside of my doorstep. Doors of homes are not being kicked in my area neighborhood that only owning a gun to defend myself would make me safer.

How many people do I know where a gun has saved their life (excluding police, military, etc..)?

None. I do not know a single person in my life where this is true. I do not even know someone who knows someone whose life was saved by a gun.

So why is it that I use to believe that owning a gun would make me safer and I needed it for protection?

An illusion of safety is my best guess here. I think a combination of things had me convinced this, family, television, movies, the news, other people, the list goes on and on....
 
Interesting how little we hear about when the use of a firearm saves a life, however we're sure to hear about how the use of a firearm takes a life....
That's because 99% of the time if you introduce a gun into the situation the liklihood of losing a life increases.
An illusion of safety is my best guess here. I think a combination of things had me convinced this, family, television, movies, the news, other people, the list goes on and on....
Probably right. I've never in my life known anybody even to be the victim of a violent crime.
 
That "Preparedeness Center" website is one of the most funny things I've ever seen. I thought things like that were urban legends.... I would love to have a look to some regular clients... LOL
 
The local newspaper here actually publishes the first and last names off all concealed weapon permit holders and the counties they live in each year.

I still haven't figured out if that is a good or bad thing. I'm also somewhat skeptical of the numbers they use. But it's a statistic, and with all statistics should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Actually while we're on topic about home invasions I personally feel safer, and rightfully so, in Alabama than I did in Halifax, NS. Crime levels are overall similar between them; fatalities/murders are higher per capita in Birmingham than in Halifax, muggings are higher in Halifax than in Birmingham, but one thing I remember a lot of in Halifax was home invasions. You hear about them quite infrequently here because so many people do own guns, and I'm sure that's one of the reasons they are low.
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Interesting how little we hear about when the use of a firearm saves a life, however we're sure to hear about how the use of a firearm takes a life....
Just proof positive that an armed society is a polite society.
I think everyone should go buy a pistol today. 🙂

Then we can have shootouts in the local Wal Mart! Yeeeeeee hawwwwwwwwwww!
And your statement is incorrect. Firearms in fact TAKE lives. You do know what happens when a gun is fired in your direction don't you? 😛
 
This is the most ridonkulous pile of crap I've heard in a long time from a lot of different people.

Firearms don't take shit. People take lives. 1,000 years ago, people were killing each other with swords, knives, spears, pikes, halberds, and so on and so forth. Not a single thing has a changed since thing. 1,000 years ago we developed different types of armor to protect against different types of attacks (chain mail, plate mail, field plate, etc.). Fast forward to today and now we're just a little more efficient at one-on-one combat. We have better, smaller, more efficient ways to slay ourselves, and we've even developed newer forms of protection (flak jackets, kevlar armor).

Open your eyes people. Nothing has changed, nothing will change; if someone wants to kill you, they're going to try to kill you. What I recommend you do is learn to protect yourself using your body and improvised weapons, or if you really want to be a hardass then learn to shoot the core out of apple at 100 yards with your Beretta and its 15 shot clip, but for the sake of all things holy, don't delude yourself into thinking that some magical piece of legislation is going to prevent humans from killing each other, because it just isn't, it hasn't, and it won't.

I've been held up at knifepoint for my wallet, was stabbed anyway, and decided to stab the asshat back and beat him senseless until the cops arrived. I've also been shot, fortunately, a small caliber weapon, with the bullet entering my thigh and ended up being a relatively short stay in the hospital. I also do not feel any more afraid than I was before these incidents, and I'm certainly not so stupid as to lobby for more gun control or knife control, nor am I either pro-weapon. Weapons don't make people dangerous (as a general rule, like many people I have read many tragic stories of kids' finding their parent's gun or weapon, but this doesn't change human motivations or nature), knowledge (use of the weapon, or if they themselves are the weapon) and motives makes people dangerous and always has.

I know individuals that don't need weapons to kill anyone, and I also know individuals who can use a broomstick and end your life. Guns aren't the problem - people are.
 
Back
Top