What did this family not have that it needed?

[Seth]

It is true that the insane attitude to guns in the USA prevents proper data being gathered. My suspicion is that this is at the instigation of the gun manufacturers, who have the NRA well and truly bribed, in order to make sure that the true damage of all those guns goes unreported.

Now you're accusing the NRA of committing a criminal offense. You are aware that what you just wrote is libelous and actionable, right? And since I know you cannot substantiate this lie, because you made it up, I might forward this to the NRA and let them think about suing you.

However, survey methods are well established, even though there is a large error factor involved. Those surveys show that only a third of Americans own guns, but gun owners tend to own more than one gun. The exact figure may be a little different to that, but not enough to alter my argument.

Bullshit. There are no accurate surveys of gun ownership in the US. The best proxy is the annual NICS numbers, and that doesn't tell us what percentage of Americans possess firearms, so your conclusions are crap.

There are 10,000 firearms murders in the USA each year, plus or minus annual variation. If there are 80,000 DGUs each year carried out by the one third who own guns, then the two thirds who do not would experience a desperately high murder rate. A lot more than 10,000.

Again, this falsely presumes that criminal actions resulting in murder are evenly distributed across the entire population, and your analysis is crap because DGUs do not only apply to attempts at murder. A DGU occurs when a firearm is used to prevent or thwart any kind of crime, not just murder. And if you add in the overall violent crime numbers to your "calculation" there is plenty of room for 2.5 million DGUs per year.

Also note the incredible variation in results for DGUs. From 80,000 to 500,000. That variation must tell you something about the lack of reliability in the methods used to gather DGU data.

[/quote]

It's actually 80,000 to 2.5 million or more. But the point is that even the lowest and most credible number is ten times the number of people murdered by handguns, and represents 72,000 people who were not successfully victimized by a criminal because they were lawfully armed.

[Blind groper]

You still do not get it Seth.

It is physically impossible for there to be a genuine 80,000 DGUs, much less 2.5 million, because most Americans most of the time do not carry guns. Thus, the number of cases in which an American fails to defend himself/herself would be 3 times the DGUs. And that many damaging violent crimes and/or murders just does not happen.

The DGUs that are reported are the subjective opinions of gun lovers, who are seriously biased in favor of wanting to have used their guns that way. Human perception and human memory are both massively malleable and variable. If you want something (like having used your guns defensively) then that is what you will believe happened.

In other words, those massive estimates of DGUs are pure crap.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Is funny looking at wall of word erect by gropey and Seth, exchange many word for nothing.

Still Avtomat have many handgun and many rifle, even if million words about evils of gun is typed.

[laklak]

BG, since the percentage of gun owners is based on voluntary surveys, do you think criminals and/or gangbangers are part of that survey, and if they are, that they tell the truth about the number of guns they possess? Are the survey takers going into the inner city ghetto and asking their questions?

[Blind groper]

Laklak

Those surveys are carried out by professionals who are more aware than you and I are, of what needs to be surveyed to get a half way accurate result. I would agree that there is a big error factor in any such survey. So if I say that one third of Americans own guns, based on surveys, that is one third plus or minus the error factor. But it is close enough to give us a point to debate on.

One of the things that immediately identifies a debater who talks bullshit is that he/she refuses to accept data. This characterises Seth who has frequently told me when I post data that I am a liar. No need for that since that data is freely available on the internet.

Of course, it is OK to challenge the interpretation of data, as I do over how many reported DGUs actually correspond to a threat averted. I have been physically threatened three times in my life, and I have avoided the threat each time using tactics other than a gun. However, if a person has a gun, guess what he will use to avert that threat? And then he will falsely describe that action as a DGU. There are many times people get threatened. However, the number of times you need a gun to avert the threat is insignificant. A little smart action is quite sufficient in 99.999% of the time.

[Seth]

You still do not get it Seth.

It is physically impossible for there to be a genuine 80,000 DGUs, much less 2.5 million, because most Americans most of the time do not carry guns.

It's not impossible at all. Even if, as you suggest, only 33 percent of households have guns in them (it's very likely more like 50%) that's still more than 100 million households with guns. While concealed carry DGUs are on the rise precisely because all 50 states now have some sort of mechanism for issuing such permits, you forget that not every DGU is associated with public concealed carry. Most are DGUs that take place in a home or place of business where a firearm is kept for defensive use, such as a shotgun or rifle or handgun not carried in public.

Thus, the number of cases in which an American fails to defend himself/herself would be 3 times the DGUs. And that many damaging violent crimes and/or murders just does not happen.

You're wrong.

The DGUs that are reported are the subjective opinions of gun lovers, who are seriously biased in favor of wanting to have used their guns that way.

Again, you assert this as an opinion that is not based in anything other than your imagination, and so it is rejected as biased and irrelevant.

Human perception and human memory are both massively malleable and variable. If you want something (like having used your guns defensively) then that is what you will believe happened.

I think a solid statement to the police of "Some guys started kicking in my door so I got my shotgun and when they stepped inside I racked it and told them I'd shoot them if they moved one more step, and so they turned and ran" is not something particularly "malleable and variable" when combined with forensic evidence that a couple of guys actually did kick in the front door. Better yet is when the homeowner has to shoot and one or more dead bodies are found and/or wounded thugs turn up at local hospitals. That's not something subject to "malleable and variable" memory, it's something that is documented by the police after an investigation, which takes place any time someone discharges a firearm at another person.

So, again, you're full of crap and you don't know what you're talking about.

In other words, those massive estimates of DGUs are pure crap.

No they aren't, particularly the first 80,000 of them, which are carefully documented and were examined by the FBI before being listed as a legitimate DGU.

[Seth]

Is funny looking at wall of word erect by gropey and Seth, exchange many word for nothing.

Still Avtomat have many handgun and many rifle, even if million words about evils of gun is typed.

Is true. Is reason for wall of words. Is important not to let idiots who are ignorant have last word on subject because false information might be thought to be true by credulous lurkers on website.

Is important to refute such lies each and every time, lest they become the perceived truth. This you should know well is the purpose of Marxist "big lie" propaganda tactics which can be effective if not sternly challenged at every turn.

[Seth]

BG, since the percentage of gun owners is based on voluntary surveys, do you think criminals and/or gangbangers are part of that survey, and if they are, that they tell the truth about the number of guns they possess? Are the survey takers going into the inner city ghetto and asking their questions?

Actually a number of surveys of incarcerated criminals have been performed to try to discern where and how criminals get their guns. One place they very rarely get them is gun shows.

As for gun ownership, if anything a survey of gun owners is likely to vastly underestimate the number of households with guns because many gun owners are like me, they don't respond to such surveys, ever, because they are wary of giving out information that might be used against them either by criminals or by the government.

When asked by some random individual if I have a gun, I smile and tell them that's none of their damned business.

Plus, there are a lot of people who live in places like DC and Chicago who have been denied their 2nd Amendment rights for nearly a century who own guns anyway on the principle that they would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six, and the penalties for possessing an "illegal" unregistered gun in the home for self defense are worth taking the risk of having a gun that might save one's life.

A good many otherwise law-abiding citizens have, in the past, and I'm sure still do carry concealed handguns for self-protection in violation of the laws against doing so, which in many places are merely misdemeanors. They don't use their guns to commit crimes and they are quite careful not to let anyone know they carry one, but they do so on the above principle.

Fortunately, the number of states that have "shall issue" concealed carry permits is more than 40 now, which has made millions of people who might have chosen to become technical criminals as a matter of a choice of evils into fully law-abiding citizens.

Hopefully Congress will one day pass a federal reciprocity law that will make a permit from one state valid in all 50 states, as should be the case under the Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Constitution.

[Seth]

Laklak

Those surveys are carried out by professionals who are more aware than you and I are, of what needs to be surveyed to get a half way accurate result. I would agree that there is a big error factor in any such survey. So if I say that one third of Americans own guns, based on surveys, that is one third plus or minus the error factor. But it is close enough to give us a point to debate on.

Yes, it is. And as I just explained, your faulty use of logic and statistics doesn't support your claim.

One of the things that immediately identifies a debater who talks bullshit is that he/she refuses to accept data. This characterises Seth who has frequently told me when I post data that I am a liar. No need for that since that data is freely available on the internet.

BG, it's not the data that is important, it's how you interpret the data. You interpret it wrongly, and to benefit your argument in every case, even when a rational interpretation of the data produces a conclusion opposite to your thesis. This is the case with your ridiculous assertion that it's mathematically impossible for so many DGUs to have occurred based on your (questionable) estimates of gun ownership. As I said before, the reason for this error is obvious to anyone with a lick of sense: You cherry-pick your statistics and you create strawman arguments and red herrings to suit your bias. In this case, you ignore the fact that not every DGU takes place outside the home, in a public place, involving a citizen carrying a concealed handgun, which results in a killing.

You perpetually ignore the fact that the majority of DGUs do not involve any shots being fired as the presence of the weapon alone is sufficient to deter the criminal act, and they involve every type of firearm, not just handguns.

Of course, it is OK to challenge the interpretation of data, as I do over how many reported DGUs actually correspond to a threat averted.

This is pettifoggery. If a crime was occurring or about to occur, and a firearm was produced by the potential or actual victim, and the criminal did not succeed in completing the crime as a result, that's a DGU that corresponds to "a threat averted." That some other degree of force not involving a firearm might possibly have been effective in a particular situation is utterly irrelevant and your dishonest niggling about it is just smoke and mirrors intended to try to evade the truth of the matter, which is that people use their firearms fairly frequently (thousands of times a day nationwide) to prevent or thwart crime.

I have been physically threatened three times in my life, and I have avoided the threat each time using tactics other than a gun.

Good for you, but entirely and utterly irrelevant.

However, if a person has a gun, guess what he will use to avert that threat?

Depends on the nature of the threat. Using a firearm as a threat against another threat is not always legally authorized, but if it is, then so what? You are moving the goalposts again by changing the argument from whether or not DGUs occur to whether or not you deem them to be appropriate or not, which is an entirely different, and entirely irrelevant, claim.

And then he will falsely describe that action as a DGU.

If you use a gun defensively, it's a DGU. Sheesh.

There are many times people get threatened. However, the number of times you need a gun to avert the threat is insignificant.

That may or may not be true, but again it's entirely irrelevant to the issue or the OP because it's not up to you to decide which DGUs were appropriate and which were unnecessary, since you weren't there and you're not the police, who ARE the ones who make such decisions initially...because it's a crime to improperly use a firearm as a threat where lesser measures would be appropriate. In fact, it's a felony called "felony menacing" to wave your gun about to stop some drunk at a bar from threatening to kick your ass. It might or might not be legal to USE your gun to stop him from actually kicking your ass, depending on how serious the attack is and whether you reasonably believe your life, or another person's life is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and that a lesser degree of force would be inadequate to prevent the injury.

An example might be a loud argument in a bar to which I am not a part that results in one person attacking the other using a broken beer bottle as a deadly weapon which threatens to kill or permanently disfigure the victim. In such a case I might well use my pistol as a threat to stop the assault, and if the perp refuse to stop and I reasonably believe the victim is in imminent jeopardy, I'd likely shoot the perp, and I'd be legally justified in doing so.

But I'm not going to jump out of my seat and start waving my pistol around just because a couple of drunks are arguing with one another or are shoving each other around...although I'd be in high-alert mode at the time.

A little smart action is quite sufficient in 99.999% of the time.

So you say. But then again you're anything but a self-defense expert, much less a use-of-force expert, much less a qualified firearms operator, so your opinion is worth exactly what I paid for it, which is nothing.

[Blind groper]

Seth

My point is that in most cases where a person states he/she perpetrated a DGU, the gun was not needed. That is shown clearly by the 23 out of the 24 wealthiest nations, apart from the USA, where people do not have guns at home or carry them, for self defense. In all of those countries, there are no large numbers of murders or violent assaults due to a lack of guns. In fact, 85% of all gun murders out of those 24 nations occur in the USA. So much for lots of guns making you safer. Duh!

If you look at the one with the least number of guns, Japan, it is also the one with the lowest rate of violent assault. Basically, this shows that guns are not needed for self defense.

The self defense idea is a marketing tool foisted upon idiot Americans (meaning one third of them) by the gun manufacturing industry via its puppets such as the NRA. And yes, the NRA is definitely bribed. The multiple millions of dollars given to the NRA by the gun makers is a matter of public knowledge and is on the internet.

[Blind groper]

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/gun-i ... nra-2013-1

The above reference is one of the accounts of how the gun makers bribe the NRA. Many more such accounts exist. The NRA is described as a subsidiary of the gun manufacturing industry.

[Seth]

Seth

My point is that in most cases where a person states he/she perpetrated a DGU, the gun was not needed.

Not only can you not say that with any sort of authority, it's completely irrelevant. Whether a gun is "needed" is not part of the question "are guns used defensively with regularity?"

That is shown clearly by the 23 out of the 24 wealthiest nations, apart from the USA, where people do not have guns at home or carry them, for self defense. In all of those countries, there are no large numbers of murders or violent assaults due to a lack of guns. In fact, 85% of all gun murders out of those 24 nations occur in the USA. So much for lots of guns making you safer. Duh!

Actually, taking the UK as an example, it's far more likely that you will be violently assaulted there than here. And the point of the OP is that the family involved DID need a gun, but did not have one. It is far better to have a gun and leave it in the holster because you never "need" it than it is to need a gun and not have one. And since there is precious little documented evidence that a licensed person carrying a gun is any sort of danger to society, there's no rational reason to prohibit them from doing so.

If you look at the one with the least number of guns, Japan, it is also the one with the lowest rate of violent assault. Basically, this shows that guns are not needed for self defense.

No it doesn't. It shows that the Japanese have a different culture, specifically one which keeps quite secret the statistics and evidence of violent crimes committed against citizens because Japan wants you to believe it's a peaceful nation. But it's not markedly more peaceful than any other in reality, and yes, assaults do happen in Japan, particularly sexual assaults, which are all but commonplace. They have bank robberies and street crime too.

But again, this isn't about "need" it's about facts. And the fact is that armed US citizens use their arms to defend against criminality thousands of times each day. Stop trying to derail the issue before us. It's not your job to decide when or whether a firearm is "needed" by someone else, you only get to make that decision for yourself.

The self defense idea is a marketing tool foisted upon idiot Americans (meaning one third of them) by the gun manufacturing industry via its puppets such as the NRA.

Your (idiotic, unsubstantiated) opinion is noted. And rejected.

And yes, the NRA is definitely bribed. The multiple millions of dollars given to the NRA by the gun makers is a matter of public knowledge and is on the internet.

Er, that's not "bribery," that's "Trade Association PR Work Compensation." It's what the NRA is chartered to do, among other things.

The NRA is a firearms-rights and trade association organization whose ambit includes lobbying for the interests of gun manufacturers as a part of its mission to preserve, protect and defend the 2nd Amendment rights of its members and all citizens.

The NRA does nothing illegal, it merely represents it's members in the political and social arenas, which happens to include many if not most gunmakers, among other firearms related businesses.

Your claim is like saying that the Sierra Club is "bribed" by its members to defend the environment, which is of course ridiculous.

[Seth]

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/gun-i ... nra-2013-1

The above reference is one of the accounts of how the gun makers bribe the NRA. Many more such accounts exist. The NRA is described as a subsidiary of the gun manufacturing industry.

Um, you don't have to bribe someone to do something that's perfectly legal and aboveboard.

“Today’s NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry,” said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy centre. “While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the ‘freedom’ of individual gun owners, it’s actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory.”

Yes, the NRA is indeed an advocate for the gun industry. So what? The gun industry is perfectly entitled to have an advocacy arm and the NRA fits the bill perfectly. It also happens to mesh nicely with the interests of its members with respect to protecting their right to keep and bear arms. It should be obvious even to you that if the gun industry is driven out of business by bogus lawsuits and political pandering, the right to keep and bear arms means little because one cannot acquire them.

Sugarmann and his ilk (like you) know this perfectly well and indeed with the recent losses before the Supreme Court and in the state legislatures for the anti-gun lobby, which are devastating and substantial, they are trying to change tactics by changing the focus to the gun makers rather than the gun owners, presumably on the theory that they have a better chance at misusing the Commerce Clause to inhibit the ability of gun makers to market their wares than they do getting the 2nd Amendment repealed.

So yeah, you're damned right the NRA defends the rights of gun makers as well as citizens, and that's why I am an Endowment Life Member.

So what? You're trying to make it sound like neither gun manufacturers nor the NRA have a right to lobby on their own behalf. Well, they do, so fuck you.

[Seth]

WaPo: Guns May Serve Defensive Purpose, but CDC Must Confirm

REUTERS/TAMI CHAPPELL

by AWR Hawkins

21 Jan 2015
On January 16, The Washington Post (WaPo) reported that guns may serve a defensive purpose—that defensive gun uses may be slightly higher than 3 million each year—but we will not know until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) begin their research into guns as a public health issue.

WaPo quoted a New American Magazine article which said, “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

WaPo says this “may be true,” but it cannot be verified until the CDC undertakes an in-depth study of gun violence.

It should be noted that the CDC did request a study on gun violence in 2013, but the results of that study “didn’t fit the narrative that guns are dangerous.” Those supportive of turning guns into a healthcare issue see it differently—saying the study simply proved that more study is needed.

And that’s what the WaPo, Michael Bloomberg, and an unnamed criminologist at the University of Pennsylvania are calling for. They point to the authors of the 2013 CDC-requested study who claimed “gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership.”

Politco Magazine recently reported that the “idea of defensive gun ownership” is a “tragic myth.”

[Blind groper]

If the above post is correct, and that is the number of offensive uses by guns each year, it is time they were seriously restricted. Why you Americans put up with your situation is beyond me. Most Americans are intelligent people, but this is lunacy.