The difference between a Canadian and a trump supporter
Canadians are the ones with the shit on the outside of their boots.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ElwoodBlues · M
@soar2newhighs says [quote]having immediate and unobstructed, not time delaying actions, to get to that firearm and protect you, your family and home IS DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR YOUR FAMILY.![/quote]
It seems that way, doesn't it? But it doesn't work out very well in practice.
[sep][sep][sep]
* Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
* Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal
* Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense
* Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
[sep][sep][sep]
Are there "1 to 3 million" defensive gun uses per year in the US?
The "1 to 3 million" figure comes from one "random-digit-dialed telephone survey of 4,977 adults conducted from February through April of 1993" and reported by Kleck & Gertz in 1995. Kleck says the random sampling error of his survey is less than 1%, but if so, that would produce far smaller error bars than 1 to 3 million.
Others have tried to replicate Kleck's data; here's a survey of polling
[quote]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/[/quote]
Needless to say, they produce much smaller numbers and likely have their own biases. But here's a useful quote:
[quote]We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.[/quote]
What they're saying, in not so many words, is that guns are often used to intimidate. The guy who draws the gun may think he's preventing a crime. But putting another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm is the crime of assault (battery is when you make contact with the other person). So they're running these stories by judges, who say that many reported "defensive" gun uses are actually the offensive crime of assault, unknown to the gun user.
They also say "8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime; 9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens." i.e. they say it's almost impossible to find a criminal with a gun wound who was shot by a law abiding citizen.
And finally,
[quote]Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.[/quote]
I'm not saying this Harvard data is perfect, but it asks a lot of specific questions about defensive gun use; and the results do tend to completely undermine the Kleck 1993 polling result.
[sep][sep][sep][sep]
Here's the peer reviewed report from the two Harvard surveys:
[b]https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263[/b]
Same author, an analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey from 2007-2011 covering 14,000 incidents
[b]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743515001188[/b]
[quote]Results
Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.
Conclusions
Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that SDGU is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.[/quote]
SDGU = self-defense gun use
It seems that way, doesn't it? But it doesn't work out very well in practice.
[sep][sep][sep]
* Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
* Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal
* Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense
* Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
[sep][sep][sep]
Are there "1 to 3 million" defensive gun uses per year in the US?
The "1 to 3 million" figure comes from one "random-digit-dialed telephone survey of 4,977 adults conducted from February through April of 1993" and reported by Kleck & Gertz in 1995. Kleck says the random sampling error of his survey is less than 1%, but if so, that would produce far smaller error bars than 1 to 3 million.
Others have tried to replicate Kleck's data; here's a survey of polling
[quote]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/[/quote]
Needless to say, they produce much smaller numbers and likely have their own biases. But here's a useful quote:
[quote]We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.[/quote]
What they're saying, in not so many words, is that guns are often used to intimidate. The guy who draws the gun may think he's preventing a crime. But putting another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm is the crime of assault (battery is when you make contact with the other person). So they're running these stories by judges, who say that many reported "defensive" gun uses are actually the offensive crime of assault, unknown to the gun user.
They also say "8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime; 9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens." i.e. they say it's almost impossible to find a criminal with a gun wound who was shot by a law abiding citizen.
And finally,
[quote]Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.[/quote]
I'm not saying this Harvard data is perfect, but it asks a lot of specific questions about defensive gun use; and the results do tend to completely undermine the Kleck 1993 polling result.
[sep][sep][sep][sep]
Here's the peer reviewed report from the two Harvard surveys:
[b]https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263[/b]
Same author, an analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey from 2007-2011 covering 14,000 incidents
[b]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743515001188[/b]
[quote]Results
Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.
Conclusions
Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that SDGU is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.[/quote]
SDGU = self-defense gun use
@ElwoodBlues I’d want to have immediate access to a firearm to protect myself, my family and property.
Statistics are nice but don’t intimidate or stop a home invasion.
Statistics are nice but don’t intimidate or stop a home invasion.
@Ryderbike If you believe it will, fine for you.
ElwoodBlues · M
@soar2newhighs [quote]Statistics are nice but don’t intimidate or stop a home invasion.[/quote]
Since you didn't read it, what the statistics tell you is that guns are much more often used in disagreements and arguments, and that the dangers of ready access greatly outweigh the advantages.
A rough analogy would be that sometimes you need to escape your car quickly, and some people are thrown clear of car accidents. But those cases are a poor argument against wearing seatbelts. Seatbelts SAVE far more people than they harm. Likewise, gun safes SAVE far more people than they harm, which contributes to Canada's FAR lower per capita gun death rate.
Since you didn't read it, what the statistics tell you is that guns are much more often used in disagreements and arguments, and that the dangers of ready access greatly outweigh the advantages.
A rough analogy would be that sometimes you need to escape your car quickly, and some people are thrown clear of car accidents. But those cases are a poor argument against wearing seatbelts. Seatbelts SAVE far more people than they harm. Likewise, gun safes SAVE far more people than they harm, which contributes to Canada's FAR lower per capita gun death rate.
@soar2newhighs you think killing someone is easy to live with? A 15 year old kid ..messed up on drugs breaks into your home and you take his head off?
Your children seeing a kid with his face taken off kid will Traumatize them for the rest of their lives,
That is if your kids don’t shoot you like happens in so many homes.
Your children seeing a kid with his face taken off kid will Traumatize them for the rest of their lives,
That is if your kids don’t shoot you like happens in so many homes.
@Ryderbike You’re making and laying out a scenario to push your argument. What you have done is stated something that might or might not happen as you laid it out.
ElwoodBlues · M
@soar2newhighs Unfortunately, it happens all the time.
[quote]SUMTER COUNTY, Fla. – Deputies responded to a Webster home Saturday evening after a father mistakenly shot and killed his son whom he mistook for a burglar, according to the Sumter County Sheriff’s Office.[/quote]
[quote] An Ohio father shot and killed his teenage son early Tuesday morning, apparently mistaking him for an intruder, Cincinnati Police said...
“I just shot my son by accident,” Mack’s father told a 911 operator. “He scared me. I thought he was in school. I heard noise and then I went downstairs looking. [/quote]
[quote]Mother Charged With Manslaughter After 2-Year-Old Fatally Shoots Father
It is unclear how the boy managed to get the Glock 19, but his mother acknowledged that “any child in the room could have figured out how to get the gun out of the bag,” the authorities said.[/quote]
[quote]MOBILE, Ala. (WALA) - Police say they are at a loss to explain why a mother fatally shot her teenage son in the back late Monday.
The shooting happened just before 11 p.m. in the 2000 block of Jones Lane in Mobile’s Plateau community. An ambulance rushed the 13-year-old boy to the University of South Alabama University Hospital, but he did not make it.[/quote]
[quote]SUMTER COUNTY, Fla. – Deputies responded to a Webster home Saturday evening after a father mistakenly shot and killed his son whom he mistook for a burglar, according to the Sumter County Sheriff’s Office.[/quote]
[quote] An Ohio father shot and killed his teenage son early Tuesday morning, apparently mistaking him for an intruder, Cincinnati Police said...
“I just shot my son by accident,” Mack’s father told a 911 operator. “He scared me. I thought he was in school. I heard noise and then I went downstairs looking. [/quote]
[quote]Mother Charged With Manslaughter After 2-Year-Old Fatally Shoots Father
It is unclear how the boy managed to get the Glock 19, but his mother acknowledged that “any child in the room could have figured out how to get the gun out of the bag,” the authorities said.[/quote]
[quote]MOBILE, Ala. (WALA) - Police say they are at a loss to explain why a mother fatally shot her teenage son in the back late Monday.
The shooting happened just before 11 p.m. in the 2000 block of Jones Lane in Mobile’s Plateau community. An ambulance rushed the 13-year-old boy to the University of South Alabama University Hospital, but he did not make it.[/quote]
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@soar2newhighs @ElwoodBlues My eight-year old son pulled a loaded weapon on his six-year old sister. He found it under his grandfather's bed when we were visiting. Thank God he didn't pull the trigger. I never even thought to ask if he had loaded weapons ready to fire at intruders during our visit. It just never crossed my mind. I think about that scenario, which end up very fortunate for us, when I read of the many accidental killings.
@ElwoodBlues I don’t disagree, and these incidents are terrible and as you say, it happens all the time. I will cede this: some people need to realize the power they possess owing a firearm. These situations that you cited tell a part of the tragedies , not all of what may have actually taken place.
@windinhishair Not knowing the circumstances, I ask. where did this occur? Were you aware the grandfather had a weapon? I’d think if you didn’t know, and there was no reason to ask, you could not be blamed. Or did you have any inkling that a firearm might be in the house? If you did, were you able to ask the owner if the weapon was in an area where the children could not get to it? How was it your son found it under the bed? Had he prior knowledge from his grandfather, of a weapon and where it was, or was it a fluke that he located it under the bed?
Yes, thank God nothing tragic happened.
Yes, thank God nothing tragic happened.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@soar2newhighs It happened in TN, and I had no idea he had a weapon for protection he kept armed and ready to fire in case someone broke in while he was sleeping. My son also had no idea there was a weapon on the premises, but kids are always exploring, and he found it by pure chance. It was only happenstance that he didn't pull the trigger and kill his sister.
@windinhishair Thanks for your reply. Thank God a tragedy did not happen.