Guns used for lawful self-defense Pt. 5

[Seth]

Data, data everywhere:

Crime
Putting a Gun to the Head of a Man’s Wife Could Be the Last Thing You Ever Do – Here’s Proof
Jun. 19, 2013 11:30pm Jason Howerton

57
21
0
1
0

FOX Carolina 21

WELLFORD, S.C. (TheBlaze/AP) – Authorities say a Spartanburg homeowner shot and killed an alleged intruder using a gun he grabbed from one of the two would-be robbers.

Deputies responded to a reported home invasion in Wellford just after 11:30 p.m. Tuesday. They found a dead man lying in front of a nearby home, wearing plastic gloves.

A woman living at the home told deputies she was sitting on the couch listening to music on her iPad and watching TV when she felt something cold and metallic against her head. When she turned to see what it was, she saw a man holding a gun to her head.

She yelled for her husband, who came in and heroically fought with the intruder.

The woman said the suspect dropped the gun, which her husband picked up and shot him in the head.

Deputies say a second suspect returned fire and fled the home.
South Carolina Man Shoots, Kills Home Intruder Who Put Gun to Wifes Head

Deputies investigate a shooting in Wellford (June 19, 2013/FOX Carolina)

Though one of the suspects is still at large, the other was found in the man’s driveway with a gunshot to the face. Coroner Rusty Clevenger identified the deceased intruder as 21-year-old Delano Anthony Turner, of Wellford, S.C.

“Deputies said Tuesday that Turner did have active warrants against him when he was shot,” WHNS-TV reports.

In a stunning twist, Turner’s uncle, Fred Turner, said the suspect was actually the cousin of the homeowner who shot him. The uncle told WHNS-TV that the homeowner didn’t recognize his Turner because he had a bandana over his face.

[Seth]

Data, data, data, data:

Robber Threatens to Kill Shop Owner’s Family During Stickup – He Was Later Pronounced Dead From Single Gunshot Wound
Jun. 18, 2013 10:30pm Jason Howerton

NJ Shop Owner Shoots, Kills Armed Robber

shutterstock.com

NEWARK, N.J. (TheBlaze/AP) — A Newark shop owner shot and killed an armed robbery suspect.

Authorities say 28-year-old Mustafa Sheffield of Newark entered the store Monday afternoon and ordered the owner to fill a backpack with money and gold while threatening to shoot the owner’s family.

Authorities say the shop owner, whose name was not disclosed, brandished his own gun and shot the suspect, who died at a hospital from a single gunshot wound.

No other injuries were reported in the robbery.

“No charges have been filed so far, but authorities say it’s likely that the matter will be reviewed by an Essex County grand jury,” according to the Associated Press.

Unless there is additional evidence not reported by the AP, the incident appears to be a clear-cut case of self-defense.

[Blind groper]

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Seth,
Anecdotes are not data.

[Jason]

Individual data points are anecdotes?

[Seth]

Individual data points are anecdotes?

According to BG they are. In other words, you could assemble 2.5 million individual, verified "anecdotes" of successful and lawful DGU's and present them as proof that DGU's are not uncommon and he would deny facts unless some academic writes a "peer reviewed" paper on the subject...which of course has already been done by Lott, Kleck and others...which of course he denies because of a single countervailing "study" from a well-known anti-gun biased researcher at an arch-liberal institution: Harvard.

He's impenetrable to facts is what it boils down to, and he's utterly incapable of actually arguing his position with anything other than an appeal to authority. For example, he never once addresses any of the distinct events reported, he just ignores them and calls them "anecdotes." But the people whose lives were protected and saved by their guns are neither statistics nor anecdotes. They are real, live people who are alive and unharmed because they had a firearm with which to defend themselves...many of them being handguns.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

Of course I am not going to individually address anecdotes, because they are worthless. Certainly, if you search, you will find stories of people who used guns to shoot criminals. FBI studies show that over 11 years, there are 2500 cases of citizens shooting felons. Of course, over the same period there were around 40,000 cases of a person being murdered with a hand gun as the result of an impassioned argument.

Your anecdotes do not put these situations into context. 2500 DGU shootings versus 40,000 argument based murders. That is perspective.

The kind of numbers Lott and Kleck come up with are ridiculous, as a number of other researchers have pointed out - not just David Hemenway from Harvard. However, it is worth remembering the following about the Lott, Kleck so-called survey results.

1. As the basis for two books written to suck up to the gun nutter market, those figures were part of a success story making Lott at least into a multi millionnaire.
2. When other researchers decided to look into the exaggerated survey 'results' from Lott and Kleck, they found the following three things.
I. There was no raw data for them to evaluate.
II. Lott's research assistants knew nothing of the so-called survey.
III. Lott's superors knew nothing of the so-called survey.

Bearing in mind that Lott had some millions of reasons to lie, and no independent verification of any real survey work could be found, and that Lott's figures were orders of magnitrude higher than those obtained by real researchers, there is only one realistic conclusion. Do I need to spell it out?

[MrJonno]

UK civilian use of defensive firearms quite possibly zero last year I don't see lots of bodies

[JimC]

UK civilian use of defensive firearms quite possibly zero last year I don't see lots of bodies

They've been taken away by the black helicopters...

[Clinton Huxley]

UK civilian use of defensive firearms quite possibly zero last year I don't see lots of bodies

They've been taken away by the black helicopters...

The black helicopters were scrapped in the last round of austerity measures. It's black tandems now....

[MrJonno]

Even more interesting is the police use of firearms defensively I doubt if that even gets to triple figures and yes we have had a bad year for police with 2 dead. Normally its about 1 every 2 years.

So basically an unarmed British policeman whose job is to look for trouble is far safer than an armed to the teeth American civilian whose job is to avoid it

[Seth]

To Seth

Of course I am not going to individually address anecdotes, because they are worthless.

Not to the people whose lives were saved or protected they aren't, which is rather the point.

Certainly, if you search, you will find stories of people who used guns to shoot criminals.

Strawman...again.

FBI studies show that over 11 years, there are 2500 cases of citizens shooting felons. Of course, over the same period there were around 40,000 cases of a person being murdered with a hand gun as the result of an impassioned argument.

Cherry-picking...again.

Your anecdotes do not put these situations into context. 2500 DGU shootings versus 40,000 argument based murders. That is perspective.

You deliberately elide non-"shooting of felons" DGUs which happen far more often than "citizens shooting felons," which is a very narrow and specific sub-set of all DGUs...and you know it. This is the typical nature of your mendacious pettifoggery.

The kind of numbers Lott and Kleck come up with are ridiculous,

You'd like to think so, but you've never challenged any of the examples provided, not once. And they didn't cherry-pick and fudge the numbers and definitions like you do constantly. You're a liar, it's as simple as that.

as a number of other researchers have pointed out - not just David Hemenway from Harvard. However, it is worth remembering the following about the Lott, Kleck so-called survey results.

1. As the basis for two books written to suck up to the gun nutter market, those figures were part of a success story making Lott at least into a multi millionnaire.

You are aware that Lott (who is not the only one who has done such research) was anti-gun when he started his research aren't you? It was his research that convinced him of the truth of the phrase "more guns, less crime."

2. When other researchers decided to look into the exaggerated survey 'results' from Lott and Kleck, they found the following three things.
I. There was no raw data for them to evaluate.

No, there was no "raw data" that they cared to or were able to get access to. Just because they couldn't find the data doesn't mean the data doesn't exist, it just means that they didn't look hard enough for it, made a cursory inquiry that was rebuffed by Lott for obvious reasons, and then came to the pre-determined and false conclusion that the data does not exist. They could, of course, have simply done the same research THEMSELVES, with appropriate scientific controls to prevent bias, and formed their own conclusions, but they were too fucking lazy and biased to bother...likely because they knew that if they took an honest and scientific look at the subject they would discover what Lott discovered, which would utterly destroy their specific anti-gun political agenda.

II. Lott's research assistants knew nothing of the so-called survey.

So they say. Then again why should I believe them? They have a known bias and well-known anti-gun agenda, so they cannot be trusted to be objective.

III. Lott's superors knew nothing of the so-called survey.

Ibid.

Bearing in mind that Lott had some millions of reasons to lie, and no independent verification of any real survey work could be found, and that Lott's figures were orders of magnitrude higher than those obtained by real researchers, there is only one realistic conclusion. Do I need to spell it out?

No more than I have to spell out the obvious bias in the "research" you cite.

The most credible and unbiased source for documentation on DGUs is the FBI and the DOJ, which have stated that at least 80,000 DGUs occur every year, which is ten times the number of "handgun murders" that you tout.

And yet you insist that such DGUs are rare and irrelevant, dismissing the fact that at least ten times more people are NOT victimized by criminals BECAUSE they have firearms than are murdered by criminals...BECAUSE THEY DON'T (by and large).

Your claims are and have always been deliberately mendacious bullshit and your style of argumentation is equally mendacious pettifoggery.

[Seth]

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Seth,
Anecdotes are not data.

They aren't anecdotes, they are press reports of actual events. Therefore, they qualify as "data" evidencing the occurrence of a DGU.

[Seth]

UK civilian use of defensive firearms quite possibly zero last year I don't see lots of bodies

And yet the UK has a positive firearm murder rate, doesn't it?

It's no wonder that law-abiding citizens abide by the law...particularly given how abusive the legal system is to anyone who has the temerity to defend themselves with a weapon.

Doesn't prove a thing except that law-abiding people obey the law...even when it costs them their lives and property.

Silly buggers.

[Rum]

UK civilian use of defensive firearms quite possibly zero last year I don't see lots of bodies

And yet the UK has a positive firearm murder rate, doesn't it?

It's no wonder that law-abiding citizens abide by the law...particularly given how abusive the legal system is to anyone who has the temerity to defend themselves with a weapon.

Doesn't prove a thing except that law-abiding people obey the law...even when it costs them their lives and property.

Silly buggers.

You read too many headlines. You are also a huge arse.

[Blind groper]

You are aware that Lott (who is not the only one who has done such research) was anti-gun when he started his research aren't you? It was his research that convinced him of the truth of the phrase "more guns, less crime."


They could have simply done the same research THEMSELVES, with appropriate scientific controls to prevent bias, and formed their own conclusions,



dismissing the fact that at least ten times more people are NOT victimized by criminals BECAUSE they have firearms than are murdered

Point 1. Lott being anti-gun when he started. It would not be the first time someone was converted to an opposite view when he found there was big, big money to be made.

Point 2. About the other researchers, when you say they could have done the research themselves. The short answer is that they did. In fact, they carried out extensive surveys of possible DGU's well before they looked into Lott's work. It was the major, major discrepancy between his results and theirs that led to them closely examining Lott's work, and discovering that there was no objective evidence that the surveys Lott quotes were ever done.

Point 3. The claim that there were ten times more DGU's than hand gun murders. There is certainly no major increase in crime victims among non gun owners compared to gun owners. If DGU's were as prevalent and important as you suggest, then the non gun owners (and there are twice as many as gun owners) would be massively over-represented among crime victims, which is just not true. So the idea that DGU's are important in preventing crime is just so much hot air.