Guns bad...case closed

[Seth]

Well, I suppose 2.5 million DGUs per year might be considered "rare" as compared to 300 million citizens, but to the ones who are attacked, as rare as it might be, it's a good thing they had a gun.

NRA number. Real number is 70 000.

It's not an "NRA number" it's a number that has been estimated by those credentialed professionals who research such things. The FBI acknowledges that at least 80,000 defensive gun uses can be documented through police reports each year. But most of those defensive gun uses never get reported to the police because the mere presence of the gun in the hands of a potential victim thwarts the crime and so no report is made.

But that's beside the point. Be it 70,000, 80,000 or 2.5 million or any number greater than zero, the fact remains that to a victim or potential victim of violent crime, a gun available to be used defensively by a victim to prevent, thwart or defend against a crime causes no public harm to the non-criminal and supports that individual's sovereign and absolute right to complete and total safety against criminal predation, a right that cannot be infringed upon by anyone, particularly on the specious notion that if victims are allowed to be effectively armed for self defense, and this leads to criminals having better access to firearms than if all potential victims were debarred the use of defensive firearms, that the rational solution to violent crime requires that victims be disarmed. That's just idiocy.

[Seth]

Well, I suppose 2.5 million DGUs per year might be considered "rare" as compared to 300 million citizens, but to the ones who are attacked, as rare as it might be, it's a good thing they had a gun.

NRA number. Real number is 70 000.

And I wonder how many of those situations could have been resolved by means other than pointing a gun at someone.

You can go right on wondering because it's not relevant. If the crime was prevented or thwarted and the victim was not victimized, or escaped with lesser injuries as a result of a defensive gun use it's an entirely successful and legal defensive gun use.

You don't get to armchair quarterback the decisions someone makes to protect their life in the instants they have to do so. Only a jury has that authority and if a gun owner is accused of improperly using his gun defensively then a prosecutor and a jury will examine the evidence and take appropriate action. Which is one reason why armed citizens are, by FBI reckoning, at least eleven times less likely to actually shoot someone in a violent self defense situation than a professional police officer is.

What this means is that in circumstances where the use of deadly force is authorized, armed citizens are very reluctant to exercise this authority and almost always do so lawfully.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

I, on the other hand, approach the problem pragmatically. We know that criminals can and will get guns if they want them and that no amount of "gun control" will prevent them from doing so if they are determined to do so, as proven by the fact that every nation on earth, including the ones with the most draconian gun control schemes ever devised, still suffer from gun related crime.

How about much more severe penalties for using a firearm illegally?

Depends on what you mean by "illegally." The use of a firearm in the commission of a felony carries an automatic 5 year federal prison sentence already...if the feds would ever bother to prosecute such cases, which they don't.

"Illegal" firearms use is a vague term that covers a lot of ground. As it stands, the penalties for "illegal" use that is even potentially harmful are pretty well balanced in terms of severity. Certainly I feel that the mere possession with intent to use a firearm in the commission of any crime against a person should be harshly punished, and it is supposed to be and that has been the case for decades. If you burglarize a home or business and you're in possession of a firearm, then yes, the penalty should be very harsh indeed because the fact that you illegally possessed a firearm during the commission of a felony shows an intent to use that firearm should you get caught in the act. And that is in fact why most burglaries in the US are "cold burglaries" which occur when the home is unoccupied or the business is closed, and most such burglars do not carry firearms because they know that a simple property crime (burglary) that might get you a year in the county jail turns into a major felony with a federal sentence in addition to severe state enhancements.

On the other hand, if one "illegally" takes too many ducks on a hunting trip it doesn't seem appropriate to impose a five-year federal prison sentence since the crime is neither a felony nor did it involve violence or potential violence against a person.

Legislators spend a lot of time on a state by state basis crafting laws with respect to the illegal use of firearms. It's not like there aren't already appropriate penalties in place. That's what those 50,000 gun control laws are about; dealing with the illegal, improper or unsafe possession and use of firearms.

Fair points...

[Tero]

[Seth]

Which is why we law-abiding citizens need to carry guns, so we can protect ourselves.

[Tero]

And about 10 000 of the shooters were law abiding citizens until one day....

[Seth]

And about 10 000 of the shooters were law abiding citizens until one day....

No they weren't, they were criminals the instant they manifested the intent to commit a crime by picking up a gun. However, the fact that some people who never committed a crime before pick up a gun and commit a crime is not a reason to disarm everyone else, in fact it's a solid argument to arm everybody else precisely so that they will be ready and able to respond with adequate force should such a thing happen.

[Jason]

Guns are very sexual, very penetrative, thrusting.. very masculine. Wouldn't you agree?

[JimC]

[Tero]

Once again only one dead because the man did not have a gun
NEW ORLEANS -- Authorities say a man faces charges in Louisiana accusing him of killing his father and stabbing his mother because they ordered fast food and didn't get any for him.
Ronald Pritchett, 32, of Purvis, Mississippi, faces charges of second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder and auto theft in the New Orleans suburb of Jefferson Parish, said Col. John Fortunato, spokesman for the sheriff there.
Fortunato Percival Pritchett, 58, and his wife, Renitta Pritchett, 57, were stabbed Wednesday at their home in unincorporated Gretna. Renitta Pritchett was treated and released.
Fortunato said in a news release that Pritchett became enraged about food. Asked by email for more details, he replied, "They ordered food from a fast food restaurant and didn't include him."

[Seth]

Once again only one dead because the man did not have a gun
NEW ORLEANS -- Authorities say a man faces charges in Louisiana accusing him of killing his father and stabbing his mother because they ordered fast food and didn't get any for him.
Ronald Pritchett, 32, of Purvis, Mississippi, faces charges of second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder and auto theft in the New Orleans suburb of Jefferson Parish, said Col. John Fortunato, spokesman for the sheriff there.
Fortunato Percival Pritchett, 58, and his wife, Renitta Pritchett, 57, were stabbed Wednesday at their home in unincorporated Gretna. Renitta Pritchett was treated and released.
Fortunato said in a news release that Pritchett became enraged about food. Asked by email for more details, he replied, "They ordered food from a fast food restaurant and didn't include him."

Actually, it's "one innocent dead and one innocent injured because the VICTIMS did not have a gun."

[NineBerry]

The guns wouldn't have helped them. Must have had greasy fingers from the fast food they were munching.

[Seth]

The guns wouldn't have helped them. Must have had greasy fingers from the fast food they were munching.

That's not something you can rationally evaluate. What we DO know, for a fact, is that they did not defend themselves with a gun. What we may infer is that if they had possessed a gun, their chances of not being killed or injured would have been better.

[Seth]

Crime
Police: Men Lure Couple to Vehicle Buy, Pull Out Weapons, Demand Money. Then One Victim Pulls Out a Gun of Her Own.
Nov. 27, 2015 1:25pm Dave Urbanski
123
Shares

The trouble began after a couple responding to a Craigslist ad arrived at a meetup spot in Aiken, South Carolina, to purchase a vehicle, police told WJBF-TV.

Then the two black men who met the couple Wednesday afternoon pulled out weapons and demanded money, Aiken County Sheriff Captain Eric Abdullah told WJBF.

But one of the victims, a woman, pulled out her own gun and fatally shot one of the men, later identified as 23-year-old Frank Frazier Jr., police told the station, who died at the scene.
Image source: WJBF-TV

Image source: WJBF-TV

Witnesses said a black male with a grey hoodie fled from the road where the meeting took place, WJBF added, and police are still looking for him.

While authorities were investigating the scene, a couple admitted to the shooting and said it was in self defense, WJBF reported.

The couple said after the shooting, the other man ran off and they got in their car, called 911 and met with deputies at a nearby gas station, WRDW-TV said.

Abdullah told the station the investigation is ongoing but no charges have been filed.

[Hermit]

And now for a light interlude.

These clips could have gone into almost any of the threads in this section. I clicked on this one because it was the most recent one with unread posts.