Did we forget that guns aren't the only means of defending one's self? Tasers are pretty effective, so are certain sprays. Hell, a big ass stick or baseball bat will work in some cases too. It's common sense that violence stops violence. Only those who live in the world of theory think that violence doesn't stop violence.
Tell us why so many of the regions of the USA with the highest concentration of firearm ownership, have the least crime.
Sigh - and these were supposed to be the "good guys" - you know "law abiding citizens: I would bloody well hope that you have fewer people committing crimes in a selected group - but the point stands that you still have these "good guys with a gun" committing crimes and NO proof that the crime they are supposed to prevent has indeed been prevented
No so self defence use is highly speculative and when examined closely found in many cases to be threatening rather than defensive http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
AH! So instead of addressing my post, and believe me I have a LOT of graphs like this showing a correlation between high gun ownership and murder rates, you have launched a personal attack You know when I see these forms of Ad Hominems I know I have won
Don't take my quote and turn it into a talking point opportunity. In my quote---I said that police did not collect data about how, why and when guns are used in self defense. I said in my post that this information would be useful in acertaining the full picture of gun use. And then you say the above----as if you or those researchers in the bias studies you show--- have true data to back it up! WE DON'T COLLECT THAT DATA. You have no data and no viable argument. Surely you would agree....that if we DID collect that data and it was put in a data-base with all the other gun, crime, victim etc info...., then we would have a more complete picture of the situation..
I can find crimes committed by any profession or demographic. Priests? Politicians? Social workers? Environmentalists? I pointed out that the crime rate amongst CHL holders is over 10 times less than the average Texan and you want to concentrate on the 2.4% of the population that commits .1897% of the crime. What about the other 97.6% committing 99.8003% of the crime? Maybe we should take all guns away from policemen using your logic. http://www.jailbirdsonline.com/crim...for-drug-trafficking-firearms-convictions.htm Your fear of law abiding citizens is irrational.
I am not "afraid" of them but for them, I am merely pointing out that although you have purportedly taken a sampling from those people with no background of criminality - there is still a degree of crimes committed by these people - the fact that it is so much lower shows back ground checks do work - but it also shows they are not infallible And there is still no evidence of cost versus benefit How many of these people stopped crime?
How many crimes are prevented by police? I want evidence of cost versus benefit. As far as I can see, police only respond to a crime after it is committed.
Look at the research - based on surveys But there SHOULD be a way to collect that data. If you use a gun to stop a robbery on the street then surely as a good citizen you have to go to the police to describe the encounter - then the data can be collected
You would be surprised to find that there is evidence of this - it is called statistics and the police forces throughout the world have to show they are being effective. Since the mid 90's crime rates have started to fall - mostly because of police action in preventing crime
When incidences happen, police are called. When a robber breaks in a door and the home owner shoots at him---the homeowner calls the police. It happens...all the time. Who doesn't call the police when their car, or home is broke into? Or when a person attempts an assault and runs off. Victims want them caught---they call the police. Geeze........ Surveys mean nothing against large statistical data from actual incidences...
You can't assume that police action caused crime rates to fall. Maybe it was CHL carriers. Maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses came in and caused the people to turn from their lives of crime. Maybe criminals died and the next generation of criminals hasn't grown up yet. Crime rates have gone down in TX since CHLs were introduced in 1996, yet you won't agree that CHLs have prevented anything.
This is from the Texas Department of Public Safety website with crime statistics for 2012. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/12/citCh3.pdf Justifiable Homicide Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and victim/offender relationships on the next page include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty or the killing (during the commission of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In 2012, there were 103 justifiable homicides, of which, 53 were felons killed by private citizens, and 50 were felons killed by police. By definition, the justifiable homicides by police may have happened long after the crime happened. More criminals were killed by private citizens than police in 2012. All the while, you count Justifiable Homicide the same as premeditated murder in your "gun death" statistics. Private citizens are just as much a deterrent of crime as police. At least they are in places where people are allowed to defend themselves.
Justified homicide is the only data recorded into the database having to do with defense with guns. Two lawful gun owners whose story is below--- deterred a crime with a gun---and its not recorded in any data base. The police were called as they nearly always are in situations like these...but no record was placed in the police report that this was a gun deterred crime. Could be very useful data if people are interested in actual truth. http://www.news9.com/story/19805180/broken-arrow-homeowner-opens-fire-on-burglary-suspects http://www.ktul.com/story/21727673/homeowner-scares-off-intruder-with-gunshot
BB: Its a DOJ study. If you'd read it, it'd be fairly obvious that it was a DOJ study. Its been peer reviewed, and since the originators of the study started with the opposite hypothesis it is considered still more compelling. Can you refute the studies themselves? You know... with data? I was exposed to guns as a kid. I could shoot by age 7. I'm 25 now. Never shot anyone. Never brought a gun to school. Never waved it about to threaten anyone. Never had to pull it on anyone. Same with my knife> And I carry that thing when I'm drunk too. Carried it going on 6 years now (just this one, I've carried a knife since 16) and I once had a serious drinking proclivity and an inability to regulate my consumption. Never pulled that out either. As to violence begetting violence: You go ahead and be a pacifist. I respect that. (Actually I don't, but I won't force you to do anything is what I mean). Likewise respect my choice to defend myself with extreme prejudice. An amusing anecdote: If someone claims that violence is never the solution, tell them to lick the ground in the toilets. When they refuse, punch them in the face until they either do what you say, or respond by defending themselves with violence. Either proves your point. NOTE: If they depend upon the police to administer the violence for them, they are still proving your point.
Hang on - those criminals were they shot by "good guys" or other criminals - shooting someone who is breaking in to steal your stash in a drug related crime does not make them a good guy but it could get you off a murder rap Oh! And BTW the police are trained NOT to shoot to kill or to use other than lethal force - when you look at those statistics in the light of lost lives then what it is really saying is that Americans would rather kill someone than disable them
