The Armed Citizen - November 2003

[udet]

ok, I got the point, guns are good for more than rednecks. but I don't care about that magazine.

[Dune]

Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't know how many.  I know that if you have any other weapon than a firearm in the US, statistics show that you can protect you property and prevent injuries to yourself.

So if people were really concerned about protecting thier families and/or property, they would use a bat.

 

It was a rhetorical question.  The answer is in my post.  The US Dept. of Justice gave an estimate of 1.5 million.

jeeezz.

[Dago]

So if people were really concerned about protecting thier families and/or property, they would use a bat.

Never take a bat to a gunfight. Ever.

If someone could guarantee me that I would never meet a criminal who was armed with a firearm, I would be a happy person.  Failing that, the bat suggestion is unrealistic.

Firearms are a fact of life in the USA, and they always will be.  Our criminals are all to often armed, and pass all the laws you want, that will NOT change.  Some of us just choose to keep the chances of survival even.

As some have pointed out, any new gun laws only effect the law abiding honest citizen.  You have to be a deluded California liberal to think that passing some new gun law will disarm the criminals.  All another unrealistic gun law would do would be to help make the decent honest people more defenseless and better target/victims.

Oh, by the way, if you shoot a criminal and kill him in defense of your family or life, it will end there in most cases.  Hit him with a bat, and you will soon be in court defending yourself from the inevitable lawsuit he will file against you.  Result: he is free to continue his life of crime, and you are screwed.   Better he is dead, and you get to keep your home.


dago
Armed and Dangerous!  

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't know how many.  I know that if you have any other weapon than a firearm in the US, statistics show that you can protect you property and prevent injuries to yourself.

So if people were really concerned about protecting thier families and/or property, they would use a bat.

Typical response from someone that refuses to look at the facts and form his opinion, but is more than willing to use flawed statistics to promote his agenda/ideology.


Bleh:(

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Lazerus
Typical response from someone that refuses to look at the facts and form his opinion, but is more than willing to use flawed statistics to promote his agenda/ideology.


Bleh:(

What?  Compared to the way funked is using inductively biased anecdotal evidence to promote his agenda/ideology?

I changed my stance on US gun law ages ago (yes, I know, I'm sure you will sleep more peacefully at night ).  It's cultural, Americans want their guns for a varity of reasons and have a right to them, cool.

The thing that I worry about is that want firearms in there house because they believe it's the best all around home defense system.  Apparently it isn't, and I want people consider that.  That's my agenda.  Dune and I had this debate a few months ago.  The guys who's statistics he was using said that the statistics show that weapons, other than firearms where best for protecting against injury and loss of property.

I'll try and search for the thread.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Thrawn
What?  Compared to the way funked is using inductively biased anecdotal evidence to promote his agenda/ideology?

He gives it as anecdotal evidence, not as study gathered fact.

I changed my stance on US gun law ages ago (yes, I know, I'm sure you will sleep more peacefully at night ).  It's cultural, Americans want their guns for a varity of reasons and have a right to them, cool. [/B]

No offense, but I don't care what someone that lives outside the US thinks about our laws. Again, nothing personal.

The thing that I worry about is that want firearms in there house because they believe it's the best all around home defense system.  Apparently it isn't, and I want people consider that.  That's my agenda.  Dune and I had this debate a few months ago.  The guys who's statistics he was using said that the statistics show that weapons, other than firearms where best for protecting against injury and loss of property.

I'll try and search for the thread. [/B]

What's apparent, is that the study that you cited is flawed by it's exclusionary method.

I don't disagree or agree with you on your stance, just the evidence you presented.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Lazerus
No offense, but I don't care what someone that lives outside the US thinks about our laws. Again, nothing personal.

None taken.

 

What's apparent, is that the study that you cited is flawed by it's exclusionary method.

Fair enough.

I don't disagree or agree with you on your stance, just the evidence you presented.

Again, fair enough, I'll try to find the other study.

[Lazerus]

Man, you're quick. LOL

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Lazerus
Man, you're quick. LOL

I have no life outside of my BBSes.  

[midnight Target]

re: "For every person killed by a firearm in the home as an act of self-protection, 1 unintentional death, 5 homicides, and 37 suicides by firearm occur. "

Originally posted by Dune
Interesting numbers.  But didya notice they only mention the times the defensive gun use caused the death of the assailant?  And how many times are guns used to protect the life of the gunowner and no one is killed?

 

True enough, but that little point has 2 ends. It also doesn't count the number of times a gun is used for a crime without causing a death, or accidently wounds someone in the house, or just goes off by accident without any injuries,  or is used for a suicide without fatal results.

[Thrawn]

Found it, the discussion actually took place on another BBS.


Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, analyzed data from the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-1998). Describing his findings on defensive gun use, in Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, New York:Prometheus Books (2001), Kleck writes:

"In general, self-protection measures of all types are effective, in the sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and confrontational burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender. The most effective form of self-protection is use of a gun. For robbery the self-protection meaures with the lowest loss rates were among victims attacking the offender with a gun, and victims threatenting the offender with a gun. For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon." (p. 291)

"[W]hile defensive gun use is generally safe, it does not appear to be uniquely safe among self-protection methods as data from earlier NCVS data suggested. Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any increase in injury risk due to defensive gun use that counterbalances its greater effectiveness in avoiding property loss." (p. 292)

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
When you go to register to vote, you should not be allowed to vote unless you own a firearm.

No stupid hanging chads if you shoot that card through with your gun, eh?

Hell that might even bring me to the polls!

[lazs2]

thrawn... I will bet that if you and I had a fight with baseball bats.... I would smash you to a pulp... it doesn't matter if I am right only that I think that way... that is how criminals would think.... how they think in england.   that is why they break into homes when people are home.   firearms are why they don't do it here.

I would love to see the study that showed 80 year olds defending their home with a baseball bat against 1 or more armed thugs...  I would love to see the study that showed women defending themselves with a bat.  

What is funny about this is that we allways knew that defending yourself was the best policy... the liberals used to say that the best policy was to just give in and do whatever you were told..  still do mostly.  Now you are saying we need baseball bats?  

The facts don't bear out that guys study.   apparently guns were the most effective method in 3/4 to 3 millon incidents a year.  

also.. even the kleck guy admits that resisting with a firearm is the most effective method... imagine how poorly the other methods would do if we had no guns at all in this country... it would then be.... whoever is the strongest and swiftest... like england say.

How many times per year were crimes prevented by.... by .... baseball bat wielders?   what was that number again?
lazs

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by lazs2
that is why they break into homes when people are home.   firearms are why they don't do it here.

That's a very good point, and indeed I could see it being valid.  Has anyone done a study on it?

I would love to see the study that showed 80 year olds defending their home with a baseball bat against 1 or more armed thugs

I wouldn't need to though for me to believe that a 80 would probably be better servered defending themselves with a firearm.  But generally you aren't.

Now you are saying we need baseball bats?

Nah, Kleck is saying that the statistic prove it.

   

The facts don't bear out that guys study.   apparently guns were the most effective method in 3/4 to 3 millon incidents a year.

Kleck took that into account in his study.

also.. even the kleck guy admits that resisting with a firearm is the most effective method

That's not what I read.

"For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon."

So, statistics show that you can best protect your property is with a non-firearm weapon, and the second best way is to attack the burglar with a firearm.


Here's some info that supports your "prevention because of the possible presence of firearms" hypothesis.  Thanks Dune for posting this info elsewhere.

"If defensive gun use is common then many criminals should certainly have encountered armed resistance. Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." (James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994])."

However, it should be noted that the possible presence of firearms didn't deter the criminals polled.  I'll look for futher info.

[DmdNexus]

Originally posted by lazs2
tazers are unreliable and clumsy... they require too much skill and luck.   Not the best tool for the job.  They also give people a sense of power that is false and make people think that they are ok since they are "non leathal"   fact is... they have been known to be fatal.
lazs

How about free handgrenades... that'll get those perps!