Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Seth]

Also, a comment from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... ted_States

"A quarter of robberies of commercial premises in the United States are committed with guns.[63] Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used,[63][64][65] with similar patterns in cases of family violence.[66] Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons.[67] He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates."

The number of robberies in the USA is unexceptional, and similar in rate to many other OECD countries. However, the number carried out with guns is way higher than in other OECD countries, and the use of those guns is far more likely to result in massive trauma or death than if they had less lethal weapons.

All the more reason for shop owners and citizens to be armed, so that when some gun-toting thug tries to stick up the joint suddenly and violently, they get suddenly and violently dead. More dead thugs, less crime, lower police, judicial and incarceration costs.
Also worth noting from the same reference :

"Between 1987 and 1990, McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period).[83] This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all.[83] For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense.[83] Of the times that guns were used in self-defense, 71% of the crimes were committed by strangers, with the rest of the incidents evenly divided between offenders that were acquaintances or persons well known to the victim.[83] In 28% of incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims fired the gun at the offender.[83] In 20% of the self-defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers.[83] During this same period, 1987 to 1990, there were 46,319 gun homicides,[84] and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns occurred."

So, even if true, (which it's not because he didn't look at or even consider DGUs that were not reported to police, which comprise the bulk of DGUs) that's 64,615 people who were NOT criminally victimized whom you wouldn't mind seeing victimized just to suit your personal biases.

Note that the number of self defense cases is massively less than what that charlaton, John Lott, tries to claim. Compared to total number of times people were harmed by criminals, the times a gun helped is laughably minor.

That only militates for more guns in the hands of civilians. The vast majority of crimes where the victim is disarmed get reported precisely because the victim was disarmed and the crime was completed. The notion that criminals will be less likely to victimize people who are unarmed is blatantly false, as proven by the fact that the highest violent crime rates in the US occur in precisely those places where the laws most harshly forbid law-abiding citizens from carrying defensive firearms, e.g. Chicago.

But your statistical argument remains bullshit because if a handgun lawfully carried by a law-abiding citizen protected even ONE life or prevented even ONE crime, it's worth it for every law abiding citizen who chooses to carry one to be legally empowered to do so. As your statistics show (bogus as they are), 258,460 individual law-abiding citizens thwarted 258,460 individual crimes in three years. That's 258,460 fewer victims BECAUSE they possessed firearms and used them successfully. The other 2,628,532 victims were most likely deliberately disarmed by their governments and so they were helpless to thwart those crimes. And who knows how many of the 46,319 homicide victims would be alive today if they had been lawfully armed.

Note also the more than 600,000 gun crimes annually in the USA. This does not happen anywhere else in the OECD, and is a direct and harmful outcome of the ridiculously easy acquisition of guns by anyone in the USA, and especially criminals.

All of which merely proves how valuable and necessary it is for law-abiding citizens to be armed for self defense. Where that's lawful, even though the average percentage of armed citizens is around 5 percent, violent crime drops 15 or more percent in the first year and continues to decline, whereas where guns are forbidden to law-abiding citizens, violent crime continues to rise.

[Seth]

A further thought about DGU's.

Quoting from : http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."


Since only a third of all American households have a gun, if 162,000 incidents occurred in which a person "almost certainly" would have been killed if no gun was present, then logically, in the two thirds of people with no gun, over 320,000 incidents occurred, in which someone "almost certainly" was killed.

In fact, total murders were about 16,000. This alone shows that these surveys are total crap.

Nah, it just shows that your ability to interpret or understand statistics is crap.

[Blind groper]

Seth

I trust you do realise that a large part of all your arguments consist of denying data. We get this accusation of lies, or misunderstanding statistics, or denying maths, all the time from you.

That is so like a fundamentalist Christian, who refuses to accept data that might go against his irrational beliefs. You are exactly the same. A gundamentalist who refuses to accept any data that opposes your irrational beliefs.

Saying something is a lie is not an argument. It says more about how weak your arguments are than anything else.

Just another point, on the idea of DGU's (defensive gun usage). I have done a bit of skipping about the internet on this, and found there are literally dozens of estimates on this, mostly from surveys. The numbers range from one at less than 50,000 per year, to the massively high 2,500,000 coming from the charlaton Lott, and his sidekick Kleck.

This is a range of more than 50 fold. Any person who can think in a rational manner who looks at survey results that vary by a 50 fold amount, will go all cynical. It is obvious that those results are meaningless. It is also pretty damn certain that the extreme estimates are total bullshit. Meaning Lott and Kleck are talking bullshit.

That kind of survey will not work, anyway. It is exactly like surveying 16 year old males and asking them about when they had their first sex. Obviously most of them will lie. To a gun lover, having a DGU is like a teenage boy having sex. They fantasize about it, and will not tell the truth, especially not in a survey. The end result is that we are talking something quite different. It is not a DGU. It is a Dodgu (delusion of defensive gun usage).

So Lott comes up with 2,500,000 Dodgu's per year. In those terms it makes sense.

[tattuchu]

I think I'm in love witrh Blind Groper. BG, will,you marry me?

[Gallstones]

I love guns and I am inclined to be infatuated with those who have and know guns well.
That means my shooting buddy who knows guns very well (and shares ) and who is better than any medicine that comes in a bottle.

All the anti-gun rights rhetoric has made me even more extreme, and more politically active.
I also fortuitously live in one of the best States for gun rights.

[Seth]

Seth

I trust you do realise that a large part of all your arguments consist of denying data. We get this accusation of lies, or misunderstanding statistics, or denying maths, all the time from you.

Your. Data. Is. Falsified. It's just that simple. The sources you use are lying, and so are you. I'm not bothering to explain why because I don't give a fuck what you think. I've cited credible peer-reviewed sources and valid statistics and that's all I'm interested in doing in response to your predictable horseshit claims and refutable logic.

That is so like a fundamentalist Christian, who refuses to accept data that might go against his irrational beliefs. You are exactly the same. A gundamentalist who refuses to accept any data that opposes your irrational beliefs.

Fuck you asshole.

Saying something is a lie is not an argument. It says more about how weak your arguments are than anything else.

Sure it is, because the bogus statistics you use are exactly that, a lie.

Just another point, on the idea of DGU's (defensive gun usage). I have done a bit of skipping about the internet on this, and found there are literally dozens of estimates on this, mostly from surveys. The numbers range from one at less than 50,000 per year, to the massively high 2,500,000 coming from the charlaton Lott, and his sidekick Kleck.

Ad hom fallacy.

This is a range of more than 50 fold. Any person who can think in a rational manner who looks at survey results that vary by a 50 fold amount, will go all cynical. It is obvious that those results are meaningless. It is also pretty damn certain that the extreme estimates are total bullshit. Meaning Lott and Kleck are talking bullshit.

That's because most DGUs are not reported, and therefore it's difficult to get valid numbers, but Lott and Kleck have done so, despite your bullshit Harvard calumny.

That kind of survey will not work, anyway.

And you know this because you are an expert in surveys and statistical analysis how, exactly?

It is exactly like surveying 16 year old males and asking them about when they had their first sex. Obviously most of them will lie. To a gun lover, having a DGU is like a teenage boy having sex. They fantasize about it, and will not tell the truth, especially not in a survey. The end result is that we are talking something quite different. It is not a DGU. It is a Dodgu (delusion of defensive gun usage).

Strawman, red herring fallacy. You are making assumptions about the validity of the data with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that supports your claim other than your baldfaced assertion. In other words, as you've demonstrated SO many times, you haven't a fucking clue about guns, handguns, self defense, DGUs or anything else on the subject, and you think that perusing the Web makes you an expert on the subject, which clearly and provably it does not.

So Lott comes up with 2,500,000 Dodgu's per year. In those terms it makes sense.

Strawman ad hom fallacy.

[Seth]

I love guns and I am inclined to be infatuated with those who have and know guns well.
That means my shooting buddy who knows guns very well (and shares ) and who is better than any medicine that comes in a bottle.

All the anti-gun rights rhetoric has made me even more extreme, and more politically active.
I also fortuitously live in one of the best States for gun rights.

Now is the time to wallpaper your Senator's office with demands that he (a democrat) vote against all the bills. We only need three Democrats to cross over on this, and yours is vulnerable.

[Gallstones]

I love guns and I am inclined to be infatuated with those who have and know guns well.
That means my shooting buddy who knows guns very well (and shares ) and who is better than any medicine that comes in a bottle.

All the anti-gun rights rhetoric has made me even more extreme, and more politically active.
I also fortuitously live in one of the best States for gun rights.

Now is the time to wallpaper your Senator's office with demands that he (a democrat) vote against all the bills. We only need three Democrats to cross over on this, and yours is vulnerable.

Baucus got an A+ from the NRA.
Tester seems a bit soft, but he barely won re-election so pressure might be effective on him. He's not a stupid man.
Montana Democrats are not your typical Democrats.
Our Rep is a pro-gun Republican.

I have been in contact with all three a few times now.

There are bills (Montana) in process that loosen up current gun laws and have passed the house by a large margin. They are with the senate now, some will go to the voters.

We are going to remain a pro Second sanctuary.

[Woodbutcher]

Seth, you're arguments are shit.

[Seth]

Seth, you're arguments are shit.

When all I'm presented with is shit, why bother to put anything into a response? I could present 2.5 million sworn affidavits from people who used their guns in self defense and the fuckwitted hoplophobes would just ignore them and claim they mean nothing because they are "anecdotes."

The truth is out there, but you could pound it into the eyeballs of someone like you or BG with a sledge hammer until it pops out the backside of your skull, along with your brains, and you still would hold fuckwitted, ignorant, illogical and unreasoning opinions on the subject.

I'm not going to waste time refuting horseshit hoplophobe lies. I've done it before and I'm tired of presenting verifiable evidence to fuckwits.

So when I get something other than a shit proclamation of bullshit ideological mendacity perhaps I'll put some more thought into it.

[Blind groper]

Your. Data. Is. Falsified. It's just that simple. The sources you use are lying, and so are you.

No.

My data is good. However, it opposes your Church of the Gun religious beliefs.
This is why your arguments are not rational. Simply saying data is wrong because you do not like it is fallacious.

That's because most DGUs are not reported, and therefore it's difficult to get valid numbers, but Lott and Kleck have done so, despite your bullshit Harvard calumny.

Lott and Kleck claim to have carried out a survey,and that is the source of all the other data. You prefer to accept the Lott/Kleck survey results because they fit your prejudices better, not because they have any greater merit. Indeed, with the work of other academics, it appears probable that the Lott/Kleck results are simply invented.

And you know this because you are an expert in surveys and statistical analysis how, exactly?

i have never claimed to be an expert. However, I do have a science degree, with courses in statistics. I have also spent a long career in science, which includes interpretation of results, and experimental design - both of which require an understanding of statistics.

You are making assumptions about the validity of the data with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that supports your claim other than your baldfaced assertion.

Actually, my arguments with you and Gallstones is giving me a strong insight into the weird psychology of the rednecked, extreme right wing, gun loving, paranoid survivalist. I am rapidly becoming an 'expert'.

[Gallstones]

Seth, you're arguments are shit.

• 

[Gallstones]

Actually, my arguments with you and Gallstones is giving me a strong insight into the weird psychology of the rednecked, extreme right wing, gun loving, paranoid survivalist. I am rapidly becoming an 'expert'.

Really?

Well, you must come visit for a practicum.
What you will discover is that the only thing you are an expert in is your own biased ignorance.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/11/h ... nsylvania/

A man with at least four weapons — including a military-style M4 assault rifle — is in police custody after he allegedly killed at least one while shooting up a bar in North Fayette, Pennsylvania.

Allegheny County police said that the shooter may have been talking on the phone to his girlfriend at the Fort Pitt Inn before briefly leaving. He later returned to the bar with three weapons and opened fire, according to KDKA.

The station reported that one of the two men who were shot in the neck and head died from his injuries. The other man was at a local hospital in critical condition.

<SNIP>

Let's hear it for responsible gun ownership, huh?

Facts are that every time something like this happens we are treated to a No True Scotsman campaign of epic proportions. This guy was a responsible gun owner until he suddenly wasn't. Like all these killers are former responsible gun owners. But somehow the responsible gun owner is supposed to be a bulwark against anarchy? How's that supposed to work?

[Woodbutcher]

Seth, you're arguments are shit.

When all I'm presented with is shit, why bother to put anything into a response? I could present 2.5 million sworn affidavits from people who used their guns in self defense and the fuckwitted hoplophobes would just ignore them and claim they mean nothing because they are "anecdotes."

The truth is out there, but you could pound it into the eyeballs of someone like you or BG with a sledge hammer until it pops out the backside of your skull, along with your brains, and you still would hold fuckwitted, ignorant, illogical and unreasoning opinions on the subject.

I'm not going to waste time refuting horseshit hoplophobe lies. I've done it before and I'm tired of presenting verifiable evidence to fuckwits.

So when I get something other than a shit proclamation of bullshit ideological mendacity perhaps I'll put some more thought into it.

You have nothing but fucking Lott et al. You associate with fucking low IQ fuckwits because you can be their king. You do not care about other people on this forum, or their views. I'm a gun owner. I'm not anti gun. I'm against fuckwits owning guns, you know, like conspiracy theorists who think that American dictatorship is just around the corner, and you will have your penisguns taken away by the bad people. Remember, in your country the unstable elements arm first. Just like you did. That's why you are the typical Ugly American. And you can't even see how chained you are. You can't even leave the country because Seth without a gun is just a fearful geek.