Guns Used.....cont

[Blind groper]

Seth

You stated that 800,000 to 2.5 million successfully used their guns for self defense. Since only a third of Americans own guns, that means there must have been 1.6 million to 5 million who needed a gun for self defense, but did not have one, so ended up shot or murdered, or otherwise seriously maimed.

There are no statistics to show any such thing, and it would be so bloody drastic and obvious that such statistics would be shouted from the roof tops.

Let me add to that, for the British case. With 20% of the American population, but 100% not having guns, that would mean about 300,000 people each year needing a gun to prevent themselves being shot, murdered or maimed. Guess what, Seth. It does not happen. Full bloody stop!

Face it, Seth, your "data" is bullshit.

[Blind groper]

Let me add one more point.

Seth's "results" come from surveys (or in Lott's case, an imaginary survey). In other words, a bunch of people were asked : "Have you ever successfully used a gun in self defense?"

Well, for a large number of gun nutters, that is like asking 16 year old boys : "When did you lose your virginity?" There is absolutely no way that a hell of a lot of male 16 year olds will admit still being a virgin, and a hell of a lot of gun nutters, for exactly the same reason, are not going to admit that they have never used their gun for real.

End result : bullshit!

[aspire1670]

Post your address online together with an open invitation to take your guns, Seth.

That would be bad tactical and strategic planning. I see no reason to make it easy for you or anyone else. The whole point of CONCEALED handguns is that the bad guys don't know who has them and who doesn't until they are looking down the muzzle at the flash. That uncertainty for criminals is precisely why widespread lawful concealed carry reduces violent crime in every place it's lawful.

*Gasp* You've dodged the question. You promised to face up to anyone who came to your home and tried to take your guns away. And now nobody can call you out because you refuse to post your address. Why it's almost as if you're scared of having to back up your mouth.

[aspire1670]

Nope. You're wrong. This is because neither the absolute numbers nor the per capita figures have any relevance at all. You see, owning a gun is a civil right under our law, and the right of each and every individual person to be armed for self defense trumps any and all statistical arguments. To amend a hackneyed old anti-gun phrase, "If guns in the hands of law abiding citizens saves JUST ONE LIFE it's worth it for society to be well-armed."

Neither you nor anyone else is permitted to reduce my right to life and my right to self defense to a cold-hearted calculation by some bureaucrat that it's "worth it" in terms of public safety that I be disarmed. My life is not a statistic, nor is anyone else's, and our right to armed self defense is both natural and fundamental and will not be infringed.

Society does not revolve around you, the universe does not revolve around you. You are a cog in the machine , damage the machine you damage everyone

Sucks to be them I guess. They should be more independent and personally responsible. As I said, my right to effective armed self-defense will not be infringed, because I will not allow it to be infringed.

Sucks to ge someone like you who blows hard on the internet but then backs away from being put to the test by refusing to post his address online. Why it's almost as if you're afraid to have to back up your independant and responsible right to effective armed defence.

[Seth]

Seth

You stated that 800,000 to 2.5 million successfully used their guns for self defense. Since only a third of Americans own guns, that means there must have been 1.6 million to 5 million who needed a gun for self defense, but did not have one, so ended up shot or murdered, or otherwise seriously maimed.

There are no statistics to show any such thing, and it would be so bloody drastic and obvious that such statistics would be shouted from the roof tops.

Wrong. You falsely assume that all violent crimes that would be deterred or defended against by the use of a lawfully-carried firearm result in the victim being "shot or murdered, or otherwise seriously maimed." This is not the case. Firearms are useful in thwarting all sorts of crimes, including burglary, robbery, rape, and assault, among others. You stupidly assume that any incident of armed defense must involve some sort of force parity with the attacker and that the attacker will always attack anyway, even when faced with an armed victim. This is not the case. It's estimated by professionals (not you) that 60 percent of defensive gun uses involve only the display or threat of display of a firearm with no shots being fired. Such incidents are rarely reported because the crime was prevented from occurring in the first place through deterrence, and thus there is nothing to report to the police. Indeed, in many jurisdictions a potential victim who uses his lawfully possessed firearm would be acting against his own liberty interest by reporting a non-discharge defensive gun use...or in some cases even a lawful discharge in self defense, particularly if there is no injury involved.

For example, a citizen in Colorado Springs saw a theft of metal in progress from a property next door. He responded with his shotgun and challenged the thieves, as is within his authority under Colorado law. They attempted to run him over with their van, so he blew out a rear tire on the van as (in my view) a legitimate act of both self defense and a lawful attempt to use reasonable and appropriate physical force to effect an arrest of felony suspects who had attempted vehicular assault/homicide. He didn't shoot at the driver, which ANY POLICE OFFICER would have done in the same situation (and many HAVE done, killing the driver under the claim that they felt their life was in peril, which the DA has always accepted), he fired to disable the vehicle.

Yet he was arrested for felony menacing and unlawful discharge of a firearm.

Now, he'll probably get off, and likely the charges will be dismissed, but he should not have been honest, he should have just blown the tire and then gone home and admitted NOTHING to the police if they came around. But because he was honest, thinking (correctly in my opinion) that he had done nothing unlawful when facing thieves who attempted to run him down, now he's in jail and it will cost him many thousands of dollars to defend himself.

So, unless you kill or injure someone during a defensive gun use, if you only use the firearm as a threat to deter the crime, you're far better of NOT reporting it to police, which you are NOT required to do because you have NOT COMMITTED A CRIME, on the assumption that some anti-armed-citizen cop (and there are MANY of them) will decide to charge you anyway.

That's why the vast majority of DGU's cannot be documented and why there is a large margin of uncertainty in the estimates.

But this uncertainty does not mean, or support the notion that such unreported defensive gun uses do not occur. I can state with certainty that they DO occur, because I myself have had occasion to use my weapon as a deterrent in such situations and I've never reported it either.

So, once again you're full of crap and don't know what you're talking about.

Let me add to that, for the British case. With 20% of the American population, but 100% not having guns, that would mean about 300,000 people each year needing a gun to prevent themselves being shot, murdered or maimed. Guess what, Seth. It does not happen. Full bloody stop!

Go to the UK figures and tell us how many violent crimes occurred in the UK last year. Then ponder on this for a bit: if 100 percent of those victims had been armed, how many of the violent crimes would have deterred or thwarted. You see, it's not just those who are "shot, murdered or maimed" who have a right to use effective tools of self defense. It's EVERYONE, including the poor sod who is threatened with a random beating on a public street in London for no better reason than that the roving gang of thugs wants to engage in a little of the "old ultra-violence" and he happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Time for you to go watch "A Clockwork Orange" numbnuts)

In the UK, the poor sod gets a beat-down because his government has denied him EVERY tool of self defense, from guns to something as simple and effective as OC spray or tear gas.

In the US, the thugs just might end up with a bullet or two each inserted at high velocity to a critical life-supporting organ, which most thugs are aware of, so they tend to be less interested in random violence because they never know who's going to shoot them dead when they try.

If you approach me in a belligerent fashion while armed with ANY weapon, from a gun to a knife to a baseball bat or stick, you are going to be looking down the muzzle of my pistol before you get close enough to harm me, and if that doesn't deter you and you continue to threaten me with violence that reasonably leads me to believe that my life, or the life of another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and I believe that a lesser degree of force would be inadequate to terminate the threat, I'm going to shoot you. It's just that simple. Hopefully you will be smart enough to drop your weapon and run away the instant you see my handgun. That way I won't have to shoot you and do all that paperwork, and you get to live another day.

Face it, Seth, your "data" is bullshit.

No, it's not. Your analysis however, is.

[Seth]

Nope. You're wrong. This is because neither the absolute numbers nor the per capita figures have any relevance at all. You see, owning a gun is a civil right under our law, and the right of each and every individual person to be armed for self defense trumps any and all statistical arguments. To amend a hackneyed old anti-gun phrase, "If guns in the hands of law abiding citizens saves JUST ONE LIFE it's worth it for society to be well-armed."

Neither you nor anyone else is permitted to reduce my right to life and my right to self defense to a cold-hearted calculation by some bureaucrat that it's "worth it" in terms of public safety that I be disarmed. My life is not a statistic, nor is anyone else's, and our right to armed self defense is both natural and fundamental and will not be infringed.

Society does not revolve around you, the universe does not revolve around you. You are a cog in the machine , damage the machine you damage everyone

Sucks to be them I guess. They should be more independent and personally responsible. As I said, my right to effective armed self-defense will not be infringed, because I will not allow it to be infringed.

Sucks to ge someone like you who blows hard on the internet but then backs away from being put to the test by refusing to post his address online. Why it's almost as if you're afraid to have to back up your independant and responsible right to effective armed defence.

Lame. Not even a good try. I have no need to prove anything to you because I don't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else thinks about me. I simply point out that if you care to take the trouble to track me down, and you present me with the use of force justifying a response with deadly physical force, I will exercise my natural right to self defense and respond as the law allows, and nobody's ever going to deny me the ability to do so, most especially not the government.

So, if you have something to prove, come get some. But you won't, because you're the coward here.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Puck-kaw!

[Blind groper]

Wrong. You falsely assume that all violent crimes that would be deterred or defended against by the use of a lawfully-carried firearm result in the victim being "shot or murdered, or otherwise seriously maimed."

Seth

Your claim was "successful self defense". So you go on a long anecdote about someone using a shotgun to stop a crime that had nothing to do with self defense.

If you stick to your claim of successful self defense at 800,000 to 2.5 million cases per year, the story is very different. That inevitably means twice that number without guns who do not defend themselves and suffer the consequences. That does not happen. This has nothing to do with stopping robberies, or anything else. It has to do with failing to defend themselves. 1.6 million to 5 million people each year who fail to defend themselves. Failure to defend yourself means getting hurt or killed. If it did not mean that, then there was no self defense issue (which is what I claim).

And we do not see 1.6 million to 5 million people maimed or killed each year because they cannot defend themselves. So your claim is bullshit.

What we get instead is a whole bunch of gun nutters who are total wankers who claim to have used a gun to successfully defend themselves, when it was probably a pussy cat next door miaowing at the wrong time! "Run away, pussy cat, or I will shoot you."

[Jason]

Groper,

It seems you are using a very strict definition of self-defence while Seth is using it very loosely.

[Seth]

Wrong. You falsely assume that all violent crimes that would be deterred or defended against by the use of a lawfully-carried firearm result in the victim being "shot or murdered, or otherwise seriously maimed."

Seth

Your claim was "successful self defense". So you go on a long anecdote about someone using a shotgun to stop a crime that had nothing to do with self defense.

What part of "they tried to run him down" do you fail to understand? He'd likely have been justified in blowing the driver's head off. Cops do it all the time in EXACTLY those same circumstances, and a citizen has no LESS authority to do so than the cops. And, arresting criminals committing crimes in your presence is both lawful and an act of self defense because if allowed to escape, they may come back to victimize YOU next time.

If you stick to your claim of successful self defense at 800,000 to 2.5 million cases per year, the story is very different. That inevitably means twice that number without guns who do not defend themselves and suffer the consequences. That does not happen.

Wrong.

This has nothing to do with stopping robberies, or anything else.

Of course it does.

It has to do with failing to defend themselves. 1.6 million to 5 million people each year who fail to defend themselves. Failure to defend yourself means getting hurt or killed. If it did not mean that, then there was no self defense issue (which is what I claim)

As is well stated elsewhere, you are fallaciously, deliberately and mendaciously restricting the definition of "self defense" only to those instances where injury is inevitable if you fail. That's just stupidity on your part.]

If I rack my shotgun and tell the burglar trying to steal my TV that I'll blow him in half if he doesn't put it down and leave, I've just engaged in lawful self-defense. Valid self defense (at least in the US) does not REQUIRE the actual use of deadly force, nor does it require the presentation of deadly force against the victim before being a valid and lawful act. The law specifies that one may use "reasonable and appropriate physical force" against a criminal, including a burglar or even a trespasser, and the threat of the use of deadly force is a lesser application of force than the use of any actual physical force in the force continuum. Used as a threat under circumstances where the intentions and armament of the suspect is unknown, the purpose of presenting potentially lethal force is to overwhelm and subdue the criminal with a superior display of force precisely so that gunplay will not be necessary. That's why SWAT teams wear all black and break in to houses with great suddenness and violence in the wee small hours of the morning. The display of overwhelming force instills fear in the occupants and reduces the likelihood that they will offer resistance.

So long as the dynamics of the event lead to a reasonable fear that the criminal might be armed or might violently resist attempts to arrest him or simply persuade him to run away, display of potentially lethal force in the form of a firearm is entirely lawful and appropriate as a defensive tactic. Therefore, such a display qualifies as a valid defensive gun use.

You falsely assume that the victim must first allow the criminal to attack them before being permitted to act in self defense. This is both legally and intellectually incorrect. The law recognizes the right of a victim to act first upon reasonable inference of danger given the totality of the circumstances presented. So long as his actions are within the bounds of the "reasonable man test" he will not have committed a crime merely by menacing someone or, for example, firing a warning shot...although all experts (including myself) STRONGLY advise against warning shots because of the danger of hitting an innocent bystander.

And we do not see 1.6 million to 5 million people maimed or killed each year because they cannot defend themselves. So your claim is bullshit.

Nope, just your reasoning ability.

What we get instead is a whole bunch of gun nutters who are total wankers who claim to have used a gun to successfully defend themselves, when it was probably a pussy cat next door miaowing at the wrong time! "Run away, pussy cat, or I will shoot you."

Well, as we see with the documentary evidence provided in this thread (which is but a miniscule example of what happens every day all across the US), you're full of shit.

[Seth]

Groper,

It seems you are using a very strict definition of self-defence while Seth is using it very loosely.

I would say "appropriately." Any event where the presence of a firearm in the hands of a victim or witness to a crime, or potential crime, that prevents or thwarts the crime or which is used to apprehend a criminal after the crime has occurred, whether or not a shot is fired, is ipso facto a valid instance of a defensive gun use. That's the metric used by Lott et. al. in their studies.

[Blind groper]

What part of "they tried to run him down" do you fail to understand?

Seth

If someone tries to run me down, appropriate self defense consists of me stepping to the side - not shooting out a tire. The latter action would increase, not decrease the probability of me being harmed. If I just step to the side, the vehicle will probably, under the circumstances you described, keep right on going since the criminals were trying to get away. If I shoot out a tire and stop them escaping, they will likely turn on me. So that action is exactly the opposite of self defense.

Self defense is action taken to prevent myself being harmed, not to increase the chances of myself being harmed. The term 'self defense' is self explanatory. It is action to defend one self. It is not action to stop a robbery, or to defend others (though defending others is also a good thing).

You clearly used the term "successful self defense". That is not any of the other red herrings you are now throwing up to disguise the fact that you engaged in a piece of logical bullshit.

And if (say) a million people each year use a gun in successful self defense, and only 1 in 3 people have guns, that means another 2 million needed a gun for self defense and did not have one. There is no way you can argue your way out of that requirement. By your logic, 2 million people each year needed a gun, did not have one, and suffered the consequences. That has never been reported, and it is such a drastic consequence that it would most definitely have been reported.

The idea of a gun for self defense is simply a gun lovers rationalisation, to cover up the fact that they like playing with lethal toys, with the horrible consequence of 100,000 people every year getting shot. 20% of them fatally.

[Seth]

What part of "they tried to run him down" do you fail to understand?

Seth

If someone tries to run me down, appropriate self defense consists of me stepping to the side - not shooting out a tire.

Okay by me, but if someone tries to kill me with a vehicular deadly weapon I'm going to exercise my right to defend myself using deadly force. You see, around here I'm under no obligation to "retreat to the wall" to avoid a deadly confrontation. The classic cop response here is to shoot the driver and THEN step out of the way.

The latter action would increase, not decrease the probability of me being harmed. If I just step to the side, the vehicle will probably, under the circumstances you described, keep right on going since the criminals were trying to get away.

Or not, in which case you're soggy moggie and they drive off.

If I shoot out a tire and stop them escaping, they will likely turn on me. So that action is exactly the opposite of self defense.

That's why you have a shotgun, dear. If they don't like having their tire shot out and "turn" on me, I will use the rest of the rounds to deal with that situation if and when it arises. Remember, it is THEY who are initiating the attack, and if they stop and get out it is THEY who are escalating the conflict. Since I'm not required to allow them to do so with impunity, nor am I compelled to retreat, I'll deal with whatever happens as I see fit while making a valid arrest.

Self defense is action taken to prevent myself being harmed, not to increase the chances of myself being harmed.

No, self-defense is action taken to keep others from harming you. You have a right to place yourself in danger of harm if you believe doing so is a necessity for your own, or society's good. But you standing your ground and attempting to make a lawful "citizen's arrest" does NOT authorize the criminal to use force against you even in the slightest degree, and you are authorized to use reasonable and appropriate physical force to effect an arrest of a person who has committed a crime in your presence. You may only use deadly physical force if you reasonably believe that your life, or the life of another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that a lesser degree of force would be inadequate. Thus, if in attempting to effect the arrest of the metal thieves they initiate force that gives rise to a reasonable belief that my life is in imminent danger (which trying to run me down with a van absolutely does) then I may use deadly force and I am NOT required to cease my efforts to lawfully arrest the perpetrators merely because they are resisting or attacking me.

The term 'self defense' is self explanatory. It is action to defend one self. It is not action to stop a robbery, or to defend others (though defending others is also a good thing).

Yes, self defense is to defend one's self, but one is permitted to defend one's self while lawfully acting to stop a robbery or to defend others. That's why the law says "use of force in defense of another person," and gives the same authority to use force to defend someone else as one has to defend one's self.

You clearly used the term "successful self defense". That is not any of the other red herrings you are now throwing up to disguise the fact that you engaged in a piece of logical bullshit.

Nope. I know precisely what the law says and how it's interpreted by the courts, and it is false to state (at least in most of the US) that one is compelled to retreat as a method of self defense before using physical force to prevent someone from injuring you OR MAKING YOU THE VICTIM OF A CRIME, which includes robbery or burglary or whatever. The law considers "harm" to be much more than direct physical harm and includes economic harm as well as justification for using force. The degrees of force one may use in protecting property vary from state to state, but they generally (except in Texas) do not include the right to use deadly physical force in defense of property alone. In Colorado you can't shoot someone for merely trying to steal your car. But you can shoot them if they are inside your house trying to steal your TV and they offer even the slightest degree of physical force against any occupant, right down to pushing someone aside to escape. That's our Castle Doctrine law.

And if (say) a million people each year use a gun in successful self defense, and only 1 in 3 people have guns, that means another 2 million needed a gun for self defense and did not have one.

Yup. Those are all the people listed on the police reports as "victims." The people with guns who thwart crime with them may or may not report the incident to police, but whether they do or do not does not mean that they have not successfully defended themselves with a firearm, it just means it's hard to quantify with official reports, which is why there is a wide spread between the DOJ numbers and the estimates by the experts (which doesn't include you). You're certainly free to dispute the precise numbers, but your assertion that firearms are "rarely" used in self defense is demonstrably false, as demonstrated by the tiny number of incidences of DGU's I've posted here, which are but a fraction of what's reported in the press each year based on actual police reports. All the "I've got a gun, don't come in" events that frighten off the burglar that aren't necessarily reported which qualify as DGU's cannot simply be discounted except by a brainless hoplophobe.

There is no way you can argue your way out of that requirement. By your logic, 2 million people each year needed a gun, did not have one, and suffered the consequences. That has never been reported, and it is such a drastic consequence that it would most definitely have been reported.

Wrong. You falsely assume that everyone who has a gun uses it to thwart a crime. You also falsely assume that just because some percentage of people who own guns use them defensively, that a like proportion of those who don't have guns are also the victims of crimes.

The fact is that many more people than you estimate have guns, and they use them very often to thwart crimes in DGU's that are never reported and thus do not contribute to the known crime statistics. The known crime statistics are based on police reports about people who DID NOT successfully prevent a crime in the first place, and thus that number cannot be used as a basis for comparison.

If two million people a year thwart a crime with a gun but do not bother to report it because no crime actually occurred, and 160,000 people a year DO NOT thwart a crime and are therefore victimized, it's fallacy to try to apply an estimate of gun owners versus non gun owners and predict how many people SHOULD HAVE been victimized (and reported) in a given year. That's just an ignorant attempt to bolster a weak argument.

The idea of a gun for self defense is simply a gun lovers rationalisation, to cover up the fact that they like playing with lethal toys, with the horrible consequence of 100,000 people every year getting shot. 20% of them fatally.

Quack, quack, quack little duckling.

[Blind groper]

To Seth.

First, I am not arguing with you about American gun law. After the mass of posts on this topic, and the research I have done, I have a pretty good feel for American gun law. The point is not whether what you are suggesting is legal or illegal. The point is that the law is an ass. Specifically, American gun law is as asinine as it comes. Some aspects, like the 'stand your ground' provisions are stupid beyond belief.

This is demonstrated by the fact that the USA, out of the 24 richest nations, has 85% of all gun homicides put together. If you cannot see that as a problem, you are just plain nuts. You cannot blame it on gangs, or ethnic violence either, since many of those other 23 nations have higher rates of violent crime than the USA, and have their full share of gang violence and ethnic violence. They just do not have the guns, and so that violence does not translate into deaths, as it does in the USA.

[Blind groper]

That's why you have a shotgun, dear. If they don't like having their tire shot out and "turn" on me, I will use the rest of the rounds to deal with that situation if and when it arises. Remember, it is THEY who are initiating the attack, and if they stop and get out it is THEY who are escalating the conflict. Since I'm not required to allow them to do so with impunity, nor am I compelled to retreat, I'll deal with whatever happens as I see fit while making a valid arrest.

Which is total idiocy.

The guys driving that vehicle could be armed with anything from a hand gun to a bazooka. After all, that is the USA, and gun control is a joke.

The smart defensive move is to get out of their way, and keep your shotgun to yourself.

On the business of the non gun owners and their lack of self defense.

You appear to be trying to shift the goalposts, by saying that they were truly victims of crime, but only minor crime so it is OK. If that is true, then all those people you claim to use guns in successful self defense were not at much risk either, and that removes your entire argument.

If you want to justify carrying a gun as being needed for self defense, then there has to be something serious to defend against. If there is something serious to defend against, then all those non gun owners who cannot defend themselves are going to end up in dire straits. This clearly is not happening, with the murder rate at 16,000 per year (which is still four times most western nations). But if you were correct about 2 million successful self defense with a gun cases each year, then there are 4 million non gun owners who are in dire straits. Yet only 16,000 die in murders.

So inevitable logic shows that the 'successful self defense' cases were defending against something quite minor, or else the figure is bullshit.