This fucking scares me...

[Geebs]

Note that they used the same logic as I did to point out that the estimates of defensive gun uses are vastly inflated. Sorry, I win.

Oh boy, not a lot of subjective interpretation there, no sir. I guess if contradicting your own arguments, selectively ignoring data, drawing blatantly false inferences from disparate data sets, and generally not making much sense at all is 'winning', then yes, you win.

What, so pointing out that calculated defensive gun use is actually higher than reported violent crime, and that this might cast doubt on the validity of the figure, is self-contradictory?

Seriously, it's like someone does a study which proves that the average person has three legs, and the National Sock Association (a consortium of sock manufacturers) uses that information to lobby for sock deregulation.

[Nightshade]

There are a lot of assumptions in that last quote you posted, and a lot of subjective interpretation. Again, it's funny how you'll take stats that support your case at face value, but if they don't, they're 'biased' or 'easily skewed'.
You're pointing to ONE study and saying that it calculates more defensive gun use than reported violent crime. I'll concede that that's possible, as human beings make these calculations. So, where is your number of total reported violent crimes, and for what year? Also, how do you address the very legitimate point I made regarding under-reporting of DGU due to the fact that it's not a crime? Every statistic we've looked at has been about violent or gun CRIME.

[Geebs]

There are a lot of assumptions in that last quote you posted, and a lot of subjective interpretation. Again, it's funny how you'll take stats that support your case at face value, but if they don't, they're 'biased' or 'easily skewed'.
You're pointing to ONE study and saying that it calculates more defensive gun use than reported violent crime. I'll concede that that's possible, as human beings make these calculations. So, where is your number of total reported violent crimes, and for what year? Also, how do you address the very legitimate point I made regarding under-reporting of DGU due to the fact that it's not a crime? Every statistic we've looked at has been about violent or gun CRIME.

The studies into numbers of "defensive" gun uses are mostly from 'phone polls, not crime stats, so it's irrelevant whether it's a crime or not. Using these methods, if two gangbangers had an armed standoff and were both polled, you'd have two "DGUs" for one event with no victim, so the problem is just as likely to be a false positive. It's not a case of nitpicking about a few thousand with the "DGU higher than total violent crime" figures, it's more like an order of magnitude off what would be a reasonable figure. Finally, the ONE study is the ONE study which the NRA quotes, so that's why I'm picking on it.

Basically, it's damaging for the gun proliferation argument either way. Either the figures are falsely high and the defensive gun use argument loses because there aren't enough legitimate uses to justify risks from the large number of loaded and unlocked weapons in homes, or the figures are either correct or falsely low and hence people are using guns indiscriminately to "defend" themselves from crimes which do not warrant that degree of force.

[Nightshade]

Oh, gee, more subjective interpretations, what a surprise. First, where is your evidence that the surveys are done by phone and not gathered from crime stats. The stats I originally cited are from FBI statistics from 1992, a tidbit you conveniently ignored.
If you want to talk about flawed studies, look at the NCVS.

"was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."

Of course, the only thing you'll pick out of that quote is "possibly illegal things".

I'm not saying you were nitpicking, I was asking you to do something statistically valid, which was throw out the highest and lowest numbers given from the 13 surveys referenced on the GunCite page. That yields about 1 million legit DGUs per year. Do you disagree?
And your statement about appropriate degree of force is hugely subjective and a big assumption. And I've seen numerous other studies the NRA has referenced, not just Kleck's.

And another thing, why is less than 10%(assuming the 2.5 million figure is accurate) of the US population defending themselves with firearms so unbelieveable? That leaves more than 295 million Americans NOT using guns to defend themselves.

[Nightshade]

Addressing your "unwarranted use of force" point, I wonder what you'll say about this anecdote:
A friend of mine was in a road rage incident wherein someone very aggressively cut him off in traffic, honking and gesturing ensued, and the guy that cut my friend off got out of his truck and picked up a large metal pipe from the bed of the truck and started advancing on my friend's car. Now what is this? My friend has his wife and child in the car, and this asshole in the truck is now threatening him with deadly force. My friend got his legal handgun from his glove compartment and jacked a round into the chamber. The asshole with the pipe immediately put the pipe back and drove away.
Think that that's unwarranted use of force?

[Geebs]

And another thing, why is less than 10%(assuming the 2.5 million figure is accurate) of the US population defending themselves with firearms so unbelieveable? That leaves more than 295 million Americans NOT using guns to defend themselves.

Just to wear out the phrase "subjective interpretation" some more (I take it any attempt to interpret statistics is subjective, so why bother saying it?), that's subjective. There's evidence that some individual members of the population do an awful lot of "defending" themselves (anecdotally, like the woman who defended herself 54 times in a year with a gun) - I guess you'd need figures on what proportion of respondents only reported one incident - so the actual proportion of the population is always going to be lower. I just find it rather implausible that all of these people happened to have a gun on them at the time at which the crime was committed.

Would you like to address the figures on the number of licensed firearms stolen every year (in the hundreds of thousands - tbh, any numbers beyond orders of magnitude are, I think we've established, pretty useless)? After all, they make something of a mockery of your contention that "most firearms used in crime are unlicensed", don't they? 'cos if they were licensed at some point, that means that the free availability of legal firearms is contributing massively to the easy availability of illegal frearms? Especially in the climate of very readily available ammunition.

[Geebs]

Addressing your "unwarranted use of force" point, I wonder what you'll say about this anecdote:
A friend of mine was in a road rage incident wherein someone very aggressively cut him off in traffic, honking and gesturing ensued, and the guy that cut my friend off got out of his truck and picked up a large metal pipe from the bed of the truck and started advancing on my friend's car. Now what is this? My friend has his wife and child in the car, and this asshole in the truck is now threatening him with deadly force. My friend got his legal handgun from his glove compartment and jacked a round into the chamber. The asshole with the pipe immediately put the pipe back and drove away.
Think that that's unwarranted use of force?

How about this anecdote: I had a man in his early twenties in my department in the other day, and he'd been shot through the heart. He died.

[Nightshade]

And another thing, why is less than 10%(assuming the 2.5 million figure is accurate) of the US population defending themselves with firearms so unbelieveable? That leaves more than 295 million Americans NOT using guns to defend themselves.

Just to wear out the phrase "subjective interpretation" some more (I take it any attempt to interpret statistics is subjective, so why bother saying it?), that's subjective.

I take it you don't know what objective means, then

There's evidence that some individual members of the population do an awful lot of "defending" themselves (anecdotally, like the woman who defended herself 54 times in a year with a gun) - I guess you'd need figures on what proportion of respondents only reported one incident - so the actual proportion of the population is always going to be lower. I just find it rather implausible that all of these people happened to have a gun on them at the time at which the crime was committed.

I would say that the woman that stated 52 DGUs was either crazy, lying, or living in South Central LA. I'd discard her case as a flier.
You're assuming that the reported DGU invovled a person carrying a weapon? How do you know these weren't in their homes, or in a place of work where they're legally permitted to carry a gun?

Would you like to address the figures on the number of licensed firearms stolen every year (in the hundreds of thousands - tbh, any numbers beyond orders of magnitude are, I think we've established, pretty useless)? After all, they make something of a mockery of your contention that "most firearms used in crime are unlicensed", don't they? 'cos if they were licensed at some point, that means that the free availability of legal firearms is contributing massively to the easy availability of illegal frearms? Especially in the climate of very readily available ammunition.

I agree that large numbers of weapons are stolen each year. Are you trying to tell me that because say 200,000 (for example only) weapons are stolen each year, no more than 200,000 crimes with illicitly obtained guns can be committed? Do you think criminals treat guns as fashion accessories and steal new ones each season?
And again, why should law-abiding citizens have their constitutional right to bear arms infringed because of criminals? That argument is bunk, buddy. How about we address the reasons why criminals commit crimes in the first place? You solve that and the violent crime problem goes away. This brings me back to one of my main points, the guns are not the problem, the people are. Any attempts made to remove the guns are treating the symptoms, not the disease.
I'm not violent, and I don't own guns at the moment. All I want is a common sense approach to solving the REAL problem.

[Nightshade]

Addressing your "unwarranted use of force" point, I wonder what you'll say about this anecdote:
A friend of mine was in a road rage incident wherein someone very aggressively cut him off in traffic, honking and gesturing ensued, and the guy that cut my friend off got out of his truck and picked up a large metal pipe from the bed of the truck and started advancing on my friend's car. Now what is this? My friend has his wife and child in the car, and this asshole in the truck is now threatening him with deadly force. My friend got his legal handgun from his glove compartment and jacked a round into the chamber. The asshole with the pipe immediately put the pipe back and drove away.
Think that that's unwarranted use of force?

How about this anecdote: I had a man in his early twenties in my department in the other day, and he'd been shot through the heart. He died.

Way to dodge the question. In response I guess I'll just say that since he died, you must be a crappy doctor.

[Geebs]

I take it you don't know what objective means, then

Coming from Mr. Anecdotal, that doesn't mean much.

I agree that large numbers of weapons are stolen each year. Are you trying to tell me that because say 200,000 (for example only) weapons are stolen each year, no more than 200,000 crimes with illicitly obtained guns can be committed? Do you think criminals treat guns as fashion accessories and steal new ones each season?

Not at all. I'm saying that arguing that "most crimes are committed with illegal guns" is irrelevant if most guns have been legal at some point - i.e. a) if your citizenry are so irresponsible that they leave their firearms unlocked, they should not have the right to bear arms and b) the proliferation of firearms, even for legal use, increases the potential for more serious forms of crime (and bear in mind, America is a net exporter of illegal weapons, so you're also being internationally irresponsible)

And again, why should law-abiding citizens have their constitutional right to bear arms infringed because of criminals?

being a criminal does not veto a person's citizenship. You're making a slightly false division here.

Way to dodge the question. In response I guess I'll just say that since he died, you must be a crappy doctor.

I think I may have been a bit too subtle with the answer here. As for the last part, I really hope it's satire because otherwise you obviously didn't learn much in the military.

[MKJ]

As for the last part, I really hope it's satire because otherwise you obviously didn't learn much in the military.

i think you can give NS more credit than that sir

[Nightshade]

I think he can, too.

Geebs, I'm not making a false division, no matter how slight. Enacting legislation that would only affect law-abiding citizens because of the actions of criminals is ridiculous. The onus does not fall on the victim of burglary to prevent a criminal from being a criminal. Should people keep their weapons secured? Absolutely. Should I have a right to feel reasonably safe that I'm not going to be burglarized? Hell yes. THIS is the diversionary argument, taking attention away from the larger issues of what causes violent crime in the first place.
Another anecdote, (hey, at what point do a collection of anecdotes become citable statstics, Geebs?) a friend of mine some guns stolen. He bought a gun vault, put his sole, newly purchased rifle in it. Croks stole his gun vault.
He was single at the time, no kids, didn't know anyone with kids. I'd say that he took more than reasonable precautions to secure his weapon, and some scumbag stole it. Whose fault is that?

[Tormentius]

Not at all. I'm saying that arguing that "most crimes are committed with illegal guns" is irrelevant if most guns have been legal at some point - i.e. a) if your citizenry are so irresponsible that they leave their firearms unlocked, they should not have the right to bear arms and b) the proliferation of firearms, even for legal use, increases the potential for more serious forms of crime (and bear in mind, America is a net exporter of illegal weapons, so you're also being internationally irresponsible)

Um, its called the black market. Its the same type of system that enables criminals in England to obtain handguns too :icon6:

Even if guns were completely illegal, criminals would still have them. Do you honestly think the inability for thieves to steal guns would somehow put arms dealers out of business? On the contrary, it would simply allow them to expand their client base even further. IMO you're ignoring the causes of violence (people) and trying to suggest that outlawing guns will somehow fix the problem (even though it proved ineffective in your own country).

[seremtan]

i expect geebs will be lobbying parliament to stop them approving export licenses for UK arms dealers selling arms to oppressive regimes any day now

[Hannibal]

Does anyone here agree that the Federal Assault Weapons Act should have been renewed in 2004? It wasn't (big surprise) but I'm just trying to get a sense of what people in this thread would see as the upper limit of 'reasonable gun control' legislation.

[Tormentius]

Does anyone here agree that the Federal Assault Weapons Act should have been renewed in 2004? It wasn't (big surprise) but I'm just trying to get a sense of what people in this thread would see as the upper limit of 'reasonable gun control' legislation.

IMO assault weapons are over the top .

[+JuggerNaut+]

ffs 10 pages.

i agree with Torm. there's no need for any bastard outside of the military to own a damn assault weapon. handguns are bad enough.

[Nightshade]

I agree that no one NEEDS an AK, SKS, or anything like that, but given the extremely low numbers of crimes committed with these types of weapons and the intent of the Second Amendment, why prohibit them?

[Ryoki]

I agree that no one NEEDS an AK, SKS, or anything like that, but given the extremely low numbers of crimes committed with these types of weapons and the intent of the Second Amendment, why prohibit them?

Why drawn the line there?
I'm sure noone really NEEDS a tank or a bunch of cruise missiles either, but given the extremely low numbers of crimes committed with these types of weapons and the intent of the Second Amendment, why prohibit them?

[Nightshade]

Well, that's brilliant logic there, Ryoki. But the fact of the matter is that firearms are a constitutionally protected right, whereas tanks and rocket lauchers are not. Looking at the intent of the Second Amendment, however, they should be.

[r3t]

In that case, every man should have a right to have a nuclear weapon in his back garden. You know, so that you can defend your home from the terrorists.

[shaft]

*bump*

[Nightshade]

In that case, every man should have a right to have a nuclear weapon in his back garden. You know, so that you can defend your home from the terrorists.

More brilliant logic from the European contingent.

HEY! LOOK OVER THERE! IS THAT GERMANY BEHIND THAT TREE?!?!

[shadd_]

this is all you need to defend your home.



http://www.winchesterguns.com/prodinfo/ ... 4&cat=012C

[+JuggerNaut+]

I agree that no one NEEDS an AK, SKS, or anything like that, but given the extremely low numbers of crimes committed with these types of weapons and the intent of the Second Amendment, why prohibit them?

there are just way too many stupid people running around. plain and simple. the second amendment is crap as far as i'm concerned and was written when society was VERY different than it is now. i'm sure our forefathers would say "oh sh1t, dude re-write that!" if they were alive today and could see how people have abused this "right".