Guns used for self-defense vs. acts of violence

[BainsBane]

[Jenoch]

1. The problem with

your contention in this post is that the vast majority of guns in the U.S. would fall into the category of 'none of the above'.

Why won't you respond to my post in answer to your post on this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3076139

[BainsBane]

2. This is an assessment of homicide

Your link has no relation to this OP.

[Jenoch]

3. YOU ARE the OP.

Of course it has a relationship with you.

An assessment of the use of guns used in homocides without a correlation of guns not used in homocides is a meaningless statistic when the statistics are used to promote gun control and/or the restrictions to the legal access to guns.

[Gravitycollapse]

5. False. Unused firearms are irrelevant to either side of the gun debate.

The only thing it teaches us is that the fear that most people use to justify gun ownership is generally unfounded.

[Jenoch]

99. Please provide

a link that proves most people justify gun ownership out of fear. I know a lot of people that own guns and none of them own guns out of fear.

[BainsBane]

7. Only for those who consider human life less important than guns

[Jenoch]

100. What about the lives

of the gun owners. Do they not count?

[BainsBane]

119. Everyone's life counts

[BainsBane]

8. If it's about me, why not link to this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3080115
Since you consider the subject irrelevant.

[Jenoch]

101. A thread about Brazil

is not relevant to this thread or your CCW threads.

[BainsBane]

124. This thread has zilch to do with CCW

[Jenoch]

125. Yes, but I thought

you might be willing to respond to my post on your other thread.

[BainsBane]

117. I'm the OP

and I also like Nutella. Feel free to post a thread with any information you like. You happen to think this is all about guns. Most of us care more about human life.

[Jenoch]

127. Are you saying this thread

and your CCW threads are not about guns?

Here is a reminder of the title you wrote for your thread:

"Guns used for self-defense vs. acts of violence"

[BainsBane]

129. So anything about guns relates to any other thing ever said about guns?

That's a lot to keep track of.

[Jenoch]

137. You don't have to keep track like you suggest

to respond to my post ON YOUR THREAD. I provided a link.

[GreenStormCloud]

153. I do care about human life, especially my own.

I carry to protect myself and my family if we should be threatened with violent crime.

[Lizzie Poppet]

98. That's not how it's labeled.

That pie chart may well be a representation of proportional use in homicide, but if so, it's grossly mis-labeled. Self-defense uses which result in homicide would be the distinct minority.

Useless...

[BainsBane]

118. It is mislabled, I agree

but it strikes me as obvious to any person with a functioning brain that it's about homicide. No one is forcing you to look at it if you don't want to.

[geckosfeet]

4. And in the spectrum of gun crime in general violence and homocide

are a small percentage. The biggest percentage is illegal possession.

[BainsBane]

6. Isn't it nice of the NRA and gun proponents

to make sure criminals have ready access to guns by opposing background checks.

[geckosfeet]

12. No. Not really. Kind of surprised you would think so.

[BainsBane]

20. Yet gungeoneers rally around expanding concealed carry

rather than background checks. Then when the background check amendment failed, they graved danced in DU. Since then many have made clear they oppose expanding background checks, which of course many of us suspected all along.

[geckosfeet]

28. So?

[BainsBane]

29. It shows little concern about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

[ManiacJoe]

39. Better no law than a bad law.

Most of us gunnies are for background checks. However, many of us thought that the implementation of the proposed legislation was bad enough that it deserved to fail.

[BainsBane]

44. again, more proof that you all oppose background checks

and that that whole story about supporting all of the president's reforms except the AWB was complete bullshit. Gotta keep those criminals armed.

[ManiacJoe]

48. You seem to have an odd sense of proof.

Or you misread something. I will let you choose.

[BainsBane]

49. saying they don't work

and the law is useless? It's pretty clear to me, as is the content of the gungeon posts.

[ManiacJoe]

52. Not useless but badly implemented.

As in, does more harm than good. Implement it a good way and watch it get lots of support.

[geckosfeet]

40. Or maybe it recognizes that the effort would be waste of time and money....

[BainsBane]

42. no, if it were a waste of time they wouldn't spend money opposing it

What they fear is its effectiveness and the resulting decline in profits.

Thanks for confirming that you with the far right 9% of the country who oppose background checks.

[geckosfeet]

59. Uhhh. You cannot even entertain the possibility?

You know, that people who actually know something about firearms may be correct?

This possibility does not even exist for you?

on edit - I have confirmed nothing. You have superimposed your personal bias.

[BainsBane]

61. When you say something is a waste of time

You make clear your opinion on it. Some things are obvious. The only reason to oppose background checks is that the gun lobby wants the profits from felons.

You may know some things about how to operate a gun, but I've read enough of your posts to be very glad I don't know you and never will. Your hero complex is just plain dangerous.

[geckosfeet]

85. And I feel much the same regarding you and your posts as well.

However as regards the issue of background checks, I don't think that simply "expanding background" checks is a panacea. I do think that background checks should be done at dealers shops (they are) and uniformly for gun show sales (sometimes they are, sometimes not - depends on state). However beyond that the manner of implementation is critical to it having any affect at all.

The arrogant and boisterous position that background checks will keep guns out the hands of criminals is simplistic and even erroneous. To actively propagate this as the solution to criminal gun violence is wrong headed. To actually believe and openly state the gun lobby, gun owners and gun manufacturers court criminal clients is beyond wrong headed - it is firmly rooted in the delusional.

[BainsBane]

111. nothing is a panacea

to use that as an excuse to do nothing is an endorsement of the status quo
It's a start, and it doesn't infringe on your Second Amendment rights one bit. It's only purpose is to keep guns away from dangerous people. It is supported by 91% of the American public.

[geckosfeet]

123. Ok. How is it to be implemented outside of dealer sales and gun shows?

[BainsBane]

158. The defeated amendment didn't include that

but it could be possible to create a modest fee based system where buyers would receive verification at gun shops, or possibly DMV offices. No one would have access to those records. The buyer would simply receive a yes or a no, like when you apply for credit. They would be notified by mail in the case of a no and have the opportunity to correct any errors.

[geckosfeet]

159. NICS checks as implemented now in guns stores are over the phone and

notification is immediate. That is, the dealer is notified at the time of the sale whether or not the buyer is a prohibited person or not.

I would expect similar access to the NICs system for private sales. Having to travel to a gun shop or dmv or police station or some place other than the point of sale would be a non starter in rural America. Maybe in densely poplulated areas, government offices would have a NICs office. This represents expanded infrastructure. Scaling the NICs system up and expanding infrastructure to support added background check call volumes would cost money. The US taxpayer would have to pay for it.

This is part of the problem. Everyone is pounding their fists on the table for expanded background checks, but no one has actually proposed a feasible way of doing it. I am not surprised it failed to pass even though it does have majority public support.

[ManiacJoe]

162. The defeated amendment DID include that.

It required all sales to be done at an FFL's place of business with the buyer and private seller both being present and with the gun being logged into and out of the FFL's possession and with no limit on the price charged by the FFL for this "service".

The problems here:
In reality the seller does not need to be present.
In reality the gun does not need to be present nor logged in and out.
The price charged by the FFL needs to be capped at something reasonable if they are required for doing the service.

A better method:
The buyer goes to an FFL, fills out the NICS form.
The FFL phones in the check, records the NICS result.
The FFL gives a copy of the result to the buyer.
The buyer pays a reasonable fee to the FFL.
The buyer takes the NICS result to the private seller to complete the sale.

[Pelican]

65. We have had the conversation twice...

... with specific points that you have yet to address regarding problems with the background check system that was suggested.

You promptly put on a pouty face and said "nuh uh" and never addressed it other than to say the equivalent of "It would work. I believe..."

Like it or not there are legitimate concerns about abuse, effectiveness and ethics that go along with it and to just pshaw and said "Whatever" doesn't really speak that well for you.

[BainsBane]

69. What specific problems?

There was a concrete amendment before congress. It didn't even cover private sales. That was the bill you and your friends in the gun lobby worked to defeat.

[Pelican]

84. Seriously....

Conversation with you is tedious enough without having to repeat for the third time and go to the effort of making a coherant rational argument... again.... just for you to go "lalalala" and stick you fingers in your ears.

[BainsBane]

109. if you refuse to be specific

You can hardly blame me for not answering your questions. I am swarmed on by dozens of gun folk. I can't read all of the posts. Somehow you find time to respond but can't be bothered to be specific about what you mean. That is no one's responsibility but your own.

[Jenoch]

102. How many criminals would

submit themselves to a background check. They aren't doing it now. We need to toughen the laws against straw purchases.

[BainsBane]

120. Obviously the gun lobby fears that criminals would not have access to guns

and the gun manufacturers's profits would decline. Ensuring illegal access to guns is the only reason to oppose background checks. Currently they don't even need to use straw purchases.

I don't see how anyone can live with themselves after opposing something so basic. 91% of the American public supports universal background checks, including the vast majority of Republicans and gun owners. It's something so basic that would in no way affect the rights of any legal gun owner, yet you gunners here oppose it. Truly disgraceful.

[Jenoch]

131. I don't oppose background checks. I have been on record on these threads

as someone in favor of universal background checks. I am in favor of universal background checks as long as they are implemented without costing too much for either the seller or the buyer. I am opposed to a system where it is illegal for me to loan a gun to my friend or BIL.

"Ensuring illegal access to guns" sounds like a VPC talking point.

I do not have a CCW. Members of my family do have CCWs. How many people with CCWs have gone into your neighborhood and put two .45ACP rounds into your car? I would bet it was criminal activity that caused those problems for you, not CCW holders.

[jmg257]

126. The best way to do that is UBC combined with registration, and harsher penalties for

violators as you mention.

[Jenoch]

132. I am opposed to gun registration.

The only reason for gun registration is for taxation and confiscation purposes.

[premium]

133. Firearms registration is a complete non starter for me also.

UBC I support wholeheartedly, but registration, uh uh, not now, not ever.
There is absolutely no reason for the govt. to know what firearms I own.

[jmg257]

139. Other then limiting straw purchases and better enforcing UBC. nt

[premium]

140. Sorry,

but I have a hard time trusting the govt. with knowing what firearms I own.
Straw purchases can be dealt with by other means, like making the penalties so severe that most people won't want to risk the vacation in Club Fed for someone else.
Registration would do absolutely nothing for UBC.

I am 100% opposed to firearms registration and nothing is going to change my mind, also, I'm just too much of an old codger and set in my ways.

[jmg257]

144. Understood - we'll disagree then. Registration seems THE best way to ensure UBC.

And find violators, along with the other plusses mentioned.

Agree with/understand the plusses of the harsher penalties aspect, and also the possible negatives of registration. Currently it is just too easy to avoid getting caught what with no trace available after original P.O.S.

[jmg257]

138. Other then ensuring background checks are much more likely to be carried out, ya mean.

and increasing deterent against straw purchases, thereby reducing them. Hence solving the problem you pointed out.


If there is no registration, how are we to know a background check was conducted at time of transfer(s)?

Knowing a gun can easily be traced back to original point of sale, and subsequent legal ones, would be quite a deterent for someone looking to deal it illegally along the way.

Every gun come across by law enforcement can easily be traced to see if it is lawfully possessed (registered) by the 'owner'. If not, the, gun and criminal can more easily be removed from the streets, and possibly the illegal supplier in many cases.

[Jenoch]

141. ...would be quite a deterent for someone looking to deal it

illegally along the way.." All that would do is to inconvenience gun owners who are not criminals. Criminals would not be legally required to register their guns, and they would not do so even if it were legally possible for them to do so.

[jmg257]

142. They would have to get them from somewhere. Quite a few do so from

straw purchases (40%??). Those that have guns illegally i.e not registered, would be subject to more charges, harsher sentences, etc. At the least the guns also would be reoved. Works well in NY actually.

A little inconvenience to deal in buy/sell guns privately would be worth limiting the flow of illegal arms.

[Jenoch]

143. I fully support

enforcement of our current laws against straw purchases. I would like to see the sentences be made harsher and enforced more strictly and I believe that would have more of an impact on crime than bans and other gun control laws proposed.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. Important, if unconditionally true.

On the other hand, the chart seems to be inconsistent with a Gallup poll.

For a Gun Usage poll that was last taken in 2005, 69% of registered Democrats who owned firearms said that did so for protection against crime.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/21496/gun-ownership-higher-among-republicans-than-democrats.aspx

Of course, for such usage, they generally mean that they own a firearm as a deterent or as an emergency piece of equipment like a fire extinguisher, and not that they regularly engage in shoot outs like Wyatt Earp or Bill Hickock.


Another Gallup poll indicates that gun ownership amongst Democrats is the highest that it has been since 1993.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

[BainsBane]

11. Proven false by Nate Silver

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/?_r=0

Gallup has been proved to be entirely reliable.

According to Gallup, Mitt Romney would be president now.
Naturally the right continues to rely on Gallup because reality is meaningless to them.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

15. If true, then more Democrats were elected to Congress in 1994 than Republicans,

and most Senators and Representatives in the Democratic Party now favor adopting another AWB.

[BainsBane]

23. More pro-gun myths proven false

Keep pretending it's 1994, or even better, 1794.

A Democrat congressperson that supports gun proliferation isn't worth shit. If they can't value human life over profits, they aren't worth holding office and are exactly the same as Republicans. They can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

35. If you perceived your points as valid, maybe you wouldn't be frustrated to the point where you

have to use obscenities, engage in ad hominum attacks, and say things which are not true.

You say,

"A Democrat congressperson that supports gun proliferation isn't worth shit."

I know of no Democratic Representative that supports gun proliferation. Not one. The fact that some are not overly impressed with banning cosmetic features which have not been shown to be related to reducing gun violence.

If you really want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, push for legislation to keep criminals that use firearms in prison longer. Locking up medical marijuana users and vendors, while adopting a revolving-door policy for violent criminals because there isn't sufficient prison space, makes no sense.

If you want to reduce the odds that some people will have such dispair that they will use a firearm in an unlawful manner, push for genuine economic reform. And also push for more money for mental health care for those who need it.

Do that, and I'll know that you are sincere. Otherwise, my perception is that you are just throwing out bait.

[BainsBane]

38. voting against background checks is supporting gun proliferation

and working to keep guns in the hands of criminals. But then you know that, and we know full well that is exactly why the gun lobby opposes expanding background checks because they reap profits from criminals and from others who fear crime.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

41. No, it is not. It is voting for the status quo.

It is not voting to proliferate anything.

[BainsBane]

45. it's voting to keep allowing guns to wind up in the hands of criminals

and kill people, which is nothing short of evil.

Working to expand concealed carry and overturn gun bans in Chicago is acting to further gun proliferation.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

91. Obviously, the gun bans in Chicago is a reason why gun violence is so low in Chicago.

And obviously, to protect the criminals that engage in break-ins, homeowners should not be allowed to own firearms in their homes for self defense.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[BainsBane]

113. as you well know there is no effective gun ban in Chicago

Unlike Japan where the homicide rate is 0.4%. Yet gunners simply couldn't bear a society where so few people people are murdered.

The homicide rate is down 40% this year (that's 2013). Though gun folks hundreds of miles away had to move fast to take care of that by making sure more guns flood into Chicago. God forbid children should live to age 10. Why the Second Amendment rights of someone in Wyoming or Texas depends on dead children in Chicago, I can't begin to imagine.

[mokawanis]

10. That's what I don't get about carrying a weapon around

Why carry a gun you'll probably not going to need? How many people who claim they need a gun for self-defense have actually used it for that purpose?

[pipoman]

13. Why keep a fire extinguisher?

A person is far more likely to be a victim of violent crime than their house burning down..it is better to have and not need than to need and not have..

BTW I don't carry a gun or have a ccw..just pointing out the obvious answer to your incredulity..

[mokawanis]

26. I think a fire extinguisher makes more sense

I think I'm much more likely to have a kitchen fire than I am to need to shoot someone. I've never been the victim of a violent crime, at least not anything involving deadly weapons or extreme violence, but I have started a few small fires in the kitchen in my time.

If I fuck up and accidentally discharge the extinguisher I'm not going to put holes in people. I get that people feel they need a gun in the house, but the odds are they're never going to have to use it for self-defense.

[Jenoch]

103. Few of the licensed

CCW holders actually carry on a daily basis.

[BainsBane]

31. a gun is designed to kill

a fire extinguisher is designed to put out fires. There is no parallel.

[ManiacJoe]

34. Each tool is designed to handle the appropriate emergency.

Some fires need to be extinguished for safety purposes.
Some people need to be shot for safety purposes (of other people).

[BainsBane]

47. Killed to protect property

or to take out a wife or partner, as the other chart posted in GD makes clear. And people wonder why the rest of the world considers Americans insane when it comes to guns.

[ManiacJoe]

50. Those uses would normally be defined as bad/illegal.

You will have a hard time finding many that support such things.

[BainsBane]

51. This graphic makes clear

that the instances in which a person is killed in an act of self defense are a small minority.

Here is a Sunseeker posted in another thread.

[ManiacJoe]

53. Yes, it does to, the small extent that it goes.

The vast majority of self-defense uses of a firearm do not result in people getting shot.
Most people shot by handguns do not die.

If you restrict any study to only the tiny population that dies due to gunshots, the study will have a restricted usability.

Having a gun, or other dangerous tool, creates a risk to the user and the people around him. One needs to manage that risk. Fortunately said management is not difficult. Unfortunately, people are lazy.

[BainsBane]

54. provide evidence for that point then

You assume yet provide no evidence. The graphic below makes clear that guns greatly increase the owner's chance of being killed or killing someone in his family.

[ManiacJoe]

56. Which point? That a study of limited scope as a limited use?

For improperly stored firearms, yes, their presence increases the odds of someone dying. Mostly by suicide. Proper storage cuts down that risk.

Properly stored firearms also increases the risk (by definition) but does so to a much lower degree. More good than harm.

[BainsBane]

60. That guns are mostly used for non-lethal self defense

and since you're on to storage, perhaps you can explain why the NRA and some members here oppose requirements for gun safes?

[ManiacJoe]

62. You misread my post.

I did not state that "guns are mostly used for non-lethal self defense".

I stated that most self-defense events involving a gun do not get to the state where a shot is fired. Since it involves a gun, it is still a lethal self-defense.

Using a gun (or any other lethal weapon) for a non-lethal self-defense is illegal.

perhaps you can explain why the NRA and some members here oppose requirements for gun safes?

I cannot speak for the NRA or other gun owners. However, a gun safe is just one of many means of safe storage. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of proper storage.

[BainsBane]

115. You continue to assert that. I would like to see some data to support that claim.

I agree about the laziness part. That is the best possible explanation for people who leave loaded guns around their kids. The others are less generous.

[ManiacJoe]

151. You need to be more specific about "that".

My post has three paragraphs of text.
Which part do you want more data on?

[BainsBane]

157. this

The vast majority of self-defense uses of a firearm do not result in people getting shot.

[ManiacJoe]

160. There have been multiple studies done.

Some by pro-gun groups (higher estimates), some by anti-gun groups (lower estimates). The true numbers probably lie in the middle. There are no true numbers, just estimates. The only ones capable of getting any truer numbers would be the cops; they don't do so because those numbers do not help them do their job.

[GreenStormCloud]

92. That cartoon only proves that the cartoonist is anti-gun. N/T

[pipoman]

94. The conflation of such things as

'x is 5 times more likely than y' is not stats, therefore are meaningless...notice how there isn't a single stat in your "graphic" (Cartoon)?

how about we look at some stats, eh?

Crime and Self-Defense



* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]



* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]



* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]



* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]



* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]



* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]



* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]



• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

No the use of 'x is 5 times more likely than y' is a method of avoiding actual statistics.

[BainsBane]

116. 7x more likely is a statistic

Not going with random sites gunners dig up. If you have a DOJ or CDC report, I'd be interested in seeing that.

[pipoman]

155. Hmm...interesting..

didn't you just start an OP with a 15 year old graphic by a debunked author who you failed to name and even without a link to the source?

[Pelican]

43. That is probably the main difference...

You can't imagine a situation where you would ever have to kill someone.

The rest of the rational world can. We all assign various probabilities to it but yours appears to be zero.

[BainsBane]

46. The rational world thinks about killing people?

Normal people do not consider fantasies about killing people rational.

[Pelican]

55. First...

The only one referring to them as fantasies is you...

Secondly, any rational person when you ask will assess the possibility. For some the possibility that they might have to take a life is relatively high and for others it is relatively low. They can then make a choice as to what level of risk they are willing to accept.

Only the blind or the ignorant would state that it is an absolute zero though...

[BainsBane]

57. On one hand you all claim only 1% of gunowners commit a homicide

and on the other you assume there is a high risk that you will kill someone.

Self defense takes many forms, and most of it starts long before any confrontation. Those carrying guns are far more likely to involve themselves in altercations and use their weapon. So yes, if you carry a gun you have a much greater chance of killing someone than I do. Of course, that someone is far more likely to be someone in your own home, which is why 65% of women killed with guns are killed by their partners.

[ManiacJoe]

58. You need a site for this

if you want to use it as fact:

Those carrying guns are far more likely to involve themselves in altercations and use their weapon.

My experience is exactly the opposite when referring to the group of "gun carriers". Yes, there are exceptions; that is why they are notable.

[BainsBane]

64. Your experience is not born out by the data

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

[ManiacJoe]

68. As accurate as these facts might be,

they do not support (or refute) your claim that "those carrying guns are far more likely to involve themselves in altercations and use their weapon" in that they do not address your claim.

[BainsBane]

70. Missed that one

Here it is

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

[ManiacJoe]

72. That one does not support your claim either.

[BainsBane]

73. try reading it

Those are altercations and homicides.

[ManiacJoe]

74. Yes, they are.

However, what they address and what you claimed are two different things.

[BainsBane]

77. those who carry guns are more likely to involve themselves in altercations and homicides

the Mother Jones data makes that clear.

[ManiacJoe]

80. Only if you misread it.

That the MJ article says is that those who like to "involve themselves in altercations and homicides" tend to have a gun. Not the same thing as you are claiming.

[BainsBane]

81. Statistically the point is the same

[ManiacJoe]

82. There is the unlikely possibility you might be right.

However, you still need a site for it since it goes against the experience of lots of people.

[BainsBane]

105. You're dissecting the text

the statistic will be the same. Who buys guns influences the overall statistic of shootings by gun owenrs. All of that data from Mother Jones shows that, as well as that same link that shows the greater density of guns in a population, the higher the rate of gun deaths.

[ManiacJoe]

110. No, I just understand what is, and is not, being said in your sited stats.

Feel free to find and show some supporting data that "the statistic will be the same".

[BainsBane]

147. OMG

Say there are 100 gun owners in a given area. 15 buy guns because they have a tendency to be violent (though it's quite possible the number is higher, but this is hypothetical). That 15 affects the statistics for all gun owners, including the 85 that might not be quite so attracted to conflict. Therefore statistically those guns owners are more likely to be involved in altercations and homicides than non-gun owners.

Then there is the obvious fact that without a gun it is much, much harder to kill someone, and that around 70% of all homicides in the US are committed with guns.

[ManiacJoe]

150. It is a nice hypothetical and all.

However, your original claim as a fact has the 15 and 85 swapped.

[BainsBane]

156. It's irrelevant

It still equals 100

[ManiacJoe]

161. Irrelevant to you maybe.

To those of us who can distinguish between law-abiding folks and those who aren't, it is very relevant.

[GreenStormCloud]

89. That statement about Texas is a LIE.

You can look at the conviction rates here: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

People with Concealed Handgun Licenses are much less likely to commit a violent crime than is the general population.

Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
That one is impossible to measure. You don't know which cars have armed drivers and which don't. In Texas, you don't need a license to have a gun in the car.


In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.
Not all homicides are bad. The increase has been in justified homicides. IOW - More people are able to defend themselves against violent criminals. Bad for criminals, good for the populace.

[ManiacJoe]

108. MJ was hoping you would not notice that.

[BainsBane]

112. Well, the issue is in Texas they aren't convincted

They get off with murdering people and often aren't even subject to prosecution. In Texas it's legal to kill someone in defense of property.

Stand your ground laws are racist. They are invoked by whites who fear and kill blacks. They are good for racist murderers.

[GreenStormCloud]

122. In Texas every shooting has to go before a grand jury.

They can't be summarily dismissed. You don't recognize the difference between justifiable homicide and murder.

If the Texas data is strongly different from that of any other state, show the evidence.

[BainsBane]

149. Stand your ground

Last edited Mon Jun 24, 2013, 10:41 PM - Edit history (1)

the ability to kill someone to protect property, like the case we already discussed of the man whose attorney argued the sex worker's refusal to provide sex constituted a theft and he was therefore acquitted of killing her. Or the guy who shot a man of color running away from his neighbor's house with a television. Jesus. Murder is the state sport in Texas. They execute more people than most of the other countries on earth combined.

Hey alerter and juror number 5: I'm talking about the death penalty in the latter part of that post. It's a point of fact that Texas executes more people than any country on the planet.

[Pelican]

63. Who said there is a high risk?

Maybe for some, but that number in the US is relatively low.

As for method of violence, maybe you would prefer they were beaten to death or stabbed perhaps? Would you feel better if they were run over maybe?

Oh, you mean to say that the only method that you actually care about is this specific one?

Got it...

Self defense does take many forms and I am incredibly glad that someone like you does not get to dictate what forms I get to choose from.

Lastly, I don't think anyone is claiming that 1% of gun owners commit a homicide. That would be statistically significant.

Out of about 100,000,000 guns in America there are around about 10,000 homicides every year. So that would be more like .0001 or 1 out of 10,000.

[BainsBane]

67. The most common method for homicide

is guns. It's not a question of what I prefer. It's simply what people use to kill, and they do so because guns are the most efficient method for killing oneself or others.

There are 38,000 homicides a year according to DOJ. That you would like to pretend some lives don't count doesn't make it so. The US has the highest murder rate in the First World. You think that acceptable. I do not. I consider human life important.

I don't dictate how you defend yourself, but you are determined to make sure those of us in cities die from gun violence. Gungeoneers are determined to take down gun restrictions in cities far away from where they live. Those restrictions in no way affect their lives, but they insist on imposing gun proliferation on communities that don't have it.

As for who said there was a high likelihood you would kill another person: You did, and you went so far as to say any rational person knew they were likely to kill. For some reason rational and homicidal are synonyms to you. Most people would not agree.

[Pelican]

83. It's like you are reading entirely different posts and then responding to mine...

I'll start you off with this though.

Possible ? Likely

Rational ? Homicidal

Choice ? force

That should get you going. Get back to me when you've checked who you are even replying to.

[GreenStormCloud]

93. Thinking does NOT equate to fantasizing.

I carry for self-defense, and that is a serious responsibility. It is entirely correct that I should think about killing someone as that is a possibility. I should know the laws on self-defense. I should know what happens in real life (NOT movies and TV) when someone is shot. I should know what happens, legally, emotionally, and socially, afterwards if I should shoot someone. Damned right I think about it, and learn about it. That is part of the responsibility of owning, and of carrying, a gun.

But thinking about it does NOT mean that I fantasize about it.

[BainsBane]

114. I refer you to this thread

for examples of people who do. I thought you were among them, but I could be wrong. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023031723

[GreenStormCloud]

121. Where, in that thread, is any gungeoner fantasizing about killing someone? N/T

[BainsBane]

148. the most graphic

is poster who begins at post number 3, where not only does he describe how he would kill but accuses others of having police "do their dirty work" (the job for which they are professionally trained.) He evidently feels perfectly fine acting as a vigilante, which is illegal.
You also, if I recall correctly, describe a scenario in which you imagine killing someone. When I queried you on it, you clarified that you were talking about a potential robbery rather than an attempted murder against you.

From dictionary.com
fan·ta·sy [fan-tuh-see, -zee] Show IPA noun, plural fan·ta·sies, verb, fan·ta·sied,
the forming of mental images, especially wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing.
Psychology . an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream.

[GreenStormCloud]

152. Not fantasize, but consider.

If a person is going to have a gun they need to think about when they would and would not use it. Indeed, there are situations in which I would shoot another person. But that does not mean that I desire for those situations to happen.


Post number 3 is accusing you of hypocracy, of hiding behind someone else's gun while you pat yourself on the back for being self-righteous. He does not describe how he would kill, but rather situations in which it could be necessary.

[ManiacJoe]

14. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

The point of being prepared for bad events is to be able to successfully handle the bad event, if that bad event happens, even though you hope the bad event never occurs. Preparation tends to take little time and few resources, but not zero of both. Preparation is not about the odds of need. It is about the need when the odds fail you.

I have fire extinguishers in my house that I hope to never need. I have a spare tire in my car that I hope to never need. I have a pistol in my holster that I hope to never need. (I have needed the spare tire before.)

If you decide that dangerous tools have a use in your life, you have a responsibility to properly store these tools.

[geckosfeet]

17. This is an interesting question.

Most popular reasons for firearm ownership are

Hunting
Self defense
Recreation/target
Collecting

I would say self defense and target and recreation are the top reasons.

And to your point, the number of times a firearm is used in self defense miniscule compared to the numher of times it is used to practice with at a range. Can't say it's zero because it's not.

That said, I'd rather have it and not need it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

19. Many automobile manufacturers equip their cars with spare tires. How many car owners actually

need them?

If you don't need yours and want to get more miles-per-gallon by reducing the weight in your car, just leave your spare tire in your garage.

[GreenStormCloud]

88. Complete the probability equation.

The consequences of not have having a gun when you really need one can be drastic.

Consider that you are about to take a drive. Why bother to buckle your seatbelt? Why have a working air bag in your car? The probabilities are that you will not need it.

[Recursion]

16. Woah there. This is deaths by firearm. A minority of self-defense uses kill anyone

A gun can be used in self defense by just being present, by being drawn, by being loaded, by being fired without hitting anyone, by hitting someone non-lethally, or by killing someone (just to use the same escalation categories the military does). This chart represents one of those six categories as "self defense".

[BainsBane]

18. Yes, it is about homicide

What's the problem? Most self defense protects property. I'm sure there are a sizable number of television sets saved by guns.

[Recursion]

22. So what's the distribution of those six categories? Are non-lethal self defense uses more or less...

... common than lethal ones? AFAIK nobody knows, but that's the only context that would make that chart mean much to me, at least.

This says a given firearm death is most likely to be suicide, then homicide, then accident, then self-defense. What we should be looking for is "is a given gun more likely to be used in suicide, homicide, accident, or self-defense?"

[BainsBane]

25. I don't know

If you have evidence to that effect, provide it.

As for your second paragraph: Yes, that is what the chart says. It charts lethal uses of guns.

[BainsBane]

145. the chart is of gun homicides

It's a breakdown of the circumstances in which people are killing using guns. I find the idea that it should quantify guns rather than lost lives bizarre. If you have evidence about non-lethal self defense use of guns, I'd like to see it. You might find some in the new report released by the CDC today.

[Recursion]

146. Evidence of non-lethal self defense use of guns is and has always been the missing piece

On the one side, the NRA claims absurdly high numbers (any time someone reported feeling threatened, had a gun present, and wasn't harmed). On the other side, the CDC simply denies that such things exist. Surely there's a middle ground here.

[galileoreloaded]

107. "Most self defense protects property" is an interesting statement

and I'd love to hear more. Don't quote Texas law please, because its pretty clear: movable property at night in one state. I'm curious as hell as to what you are speaking about past that very narrow lens.

i'd like to understand your mind, i find your thought process and how you arrive at conclusions like these facinating.

[flvegan]

21. Can't help myself. Define "acts of violence" if you would please.

Be specific.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

24. In your world, self-defense does not involve violence? How does that work?

[BainsBane]

27. My world?

The source of the chart is clearly labeled. All you need do is read it.

[ManiacJoe]

32. The article is not available to the public.

At least as far as I can find.

[BainsBane]

33. You could access it from a university library

[ManiacJoe]

36. Lucky me that I have one of those within an hour of my house.

[BainsBane]

37. some public libraries as well

depending which databases they subscribe to. Regardless, the other poster's calling it "my world" is ridiculous.

[ManiacJoe]

30. The chart seems to come from this article:

http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/1998/08000/Injuries_and_Deaths_Due_to_Firearms_in_the_Home.10.aspx

The fact that Kellermann is one of the authors does not help the article any, but this abstract suggests that this article might be a bit better than Kellermann's "43 times" article.

[madville]

66. And everything on that chart

Is caused by 0.001% of all the firearms in the US. 99.999% of total firearms weren't involved in any violent acts.

[BainsBane]

71. guns don't kill, people do

The percentage of gun owners involved in homicides is exponentially higher than that.

[ManiacJoe]

75. True, but a small number is exponentially higher

than a minuscule number. Probably not the point you were trying to make.

[BainsBane]

76. nonetheless true

the decimal point moves over a few zeros.

[ManiacJoe]

78. OK, that really was your point?

[madville]

79. Probably around 0.0004%

If you say 100 million gun owners and 40,000 firearm deaths a year. So 99.9996% of gun owners did not kill someone or themselves in the last year.

[BainsBane]

104. hmm, other gungenoneers have claimed it is one percent

[pintobean]

86. An image pulled from Facebook

with no reference to its origin or the study/stats it came from is completely useless. One would think that DUers would know this.

[ileus]

87. Thanks anyway but I'll take my chances.

Better to be an unwilling victim...

[tammywammy]

90. That graphic is from 1998, do you have anything more recent? n/t

[pipoman]

97. Of coarse not..

Kellerman has been discredited for over a decade now...he's the only one who could perform such gymnastics..

[rrneck]

95. So

what sort of firearms policy do you recommend for someone who is clinically depressed and a resident in a high crime neighborhood who is being stalked by a violent former spouse?

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

96. It's a body count distribution, a chart of deaths

Not of acts of self-defense vs. acts of violence.

[sarisataka]

106. I am a bit confused

If this chart is homicide, why is the grey area labeled assault or homicide?

[former9thward]

128. Typical flawed anti rights study.

In their 'statistics' they only looked at times when guns were fired. Most of the time guns are used in self defense they are never fired. The mere sight of a gun stops the offender. Keep digging with the B.S.

[BainsBane]

130. anti rights, as though guns are the only rights that matter

Yes, we know you all believe that. I happen to believe a right to live is also important.

Provide evidence to indicate the mere sight of a gun stops the offender. The above is a compilation of stats from gun homicides. Naturally you would consider that BS. Those are only human lives.

[former9thward]

134. If I have to provide evidence that me holding a gun will stop you from attacking

there is no point. You have no common sense. But I'm sure that is not the case as you are just being purposely obtuse. Or is your purpose just to start flame wars?

[GreenStormCloud]

154. Common sense should be enough evidence.

Provide evidence to indicate the mere sight of a gun stops the offender. Criminals don't want to get shot. So when they're up against an armed citizen they take off running.

Watch five armed robbers run away from one 65 year old woman with a gun.

Watch these four armed invaders run away from one armed citizen.

[Eleanors38]

135. From my vantage, you're doing a fine job, Bains. nt

[1-Old-Man]

136. Them main use of guns is not for either Suicide, Self-defense, or acts of violence

That pie-graph you have there is no doubt accurate but it, quite properly for the "Journal of Trauma", is that it only addressed the use of guns that result in physical trauma. That is a subset of the uses of guns. Once you come to understand what the main use of guns is some things make more sense. The main use of guns, at least when one is being actively used, is intimidation. From idiots waving a gun around to the police with their sidearms always present, the main reason for the gun is simply to intimidate all who see it.