Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

djones520 wrote:
Well, how many hijackings have been attempted since then D?

One could say that the terrorists now knowing there are weapons on board has acted as a deterent.

Of course that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at that, and obviously there are other factors, but the simple truth of the matter is you can't say the program is a failure.

Firearms are not simple a means to stop a crime. They also act as a strong deterrent.

I feel pretty confident saying that program is a waste and has not been effective. There have been quite a few instances of people charging the door to the flight deck, so that has not been a deterrent. There have been multiple attempts at blowing up planes since then, even with knowing that pilots are armed, so that is clearly not a deterrent.

Besides, we already created new targets for terrorist besides planes. Why go through all the hassle of trying to hijack or blow up a plane when we make sure that the terrorists have a juice target right in the airport and present them with 500 people lined up like cattle in front of the security checkpoint. Just open fire or blow yourself up and you have instant carnage. Take one target away and they simply move on to the next.

In my opinion the two most effective changes post 9/11 was securing the flight deck with reinforced doors, and that the people on airplanes know that they should take actions. Every incidence of an actual terrorist (or just plain crazy person) trying to do anything inside an airplane have been stopped by passengers and flight crew in the back of the plane, not by pilots and not by air marshalls.

The negatives to giving guns to pilots are pretty easy to see though:

There have been multiple instance of guns being left in the airport and negligent discharges (including the cockpit), so that is indicative of a failure in the program. Compare the instances of "pilots with guns screwed up" with "pilots who stopped terrorists with guns and/or terrorists who still tried to bring the plane down even though they know that pilots are armed now" and you get a pretty good picture.

I am shocked, shocked to the very core of my being, that when I provide the study that shows clearly how pants on the head crazy the 2.5 million crimes prevented figure is, as Seaward requested, he ignore it. Shocked I tell you.

djones520 wrote:
I say if you remove the places where these murderers will be safe, you will see a drop in their occurance.

Which is why so few mass shootings occur in the US, and instead almost entirely occur in parts of the world where guns are rare. Oh wait, the opposite is true.

Seriously, banning some or all guns won't solve the problem. But nor will more guns solve it. Stop fixating on guns all the fething time and maybe you'll move somewhere towards a solution, though.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Personally I hate the concept of using firearms in a major conflict in the United States. My guns ARE a fun hobby, as well as my profession and an enjoyable way to get meat "on the hoof" shall we say. I'm a historian, target shooter, hunter, tactical shooter (not competitive, I can't afford the toys you need, much less the match entry fees), and CCW holder. I'll leave the heroism to other people.

Which is a really healthy way to look at guns. If there were more folks like you then we wouldn't need to keep having this fething debate

My next buy for the curious:


*drool* can't wait to have that in my safe <3

That is such a beautiful thing.
.

I certainly think so, I just need to save up... looking at selling one of my pistols, I have my 1911 now so I figure my least favorite handgun (S&W M&P 40c, nothing wrong with it, just not a huge fan of striker fired pistols) and go towards the cause. Still nice to know I can have that rifle and 400 rounds of .30-06 for it delivered to my door by the United States federal government for south of $1000. That said I couldn't order right now even if I had the money to hand, I need my Marine Corps League membership card for next year.

I also believe, if I read my Aussie gun laws right, that that particular number can go with me should I decide to make the great migration, and I want as many of my firearms to fit that category as possible... just in case. I do believe importing/exporting it is an extra pain in the arse since it counts as "war materials" or something to that effect.

Back on our DGU conversation, seems we have no actual information. We know they happen. We know they've happened this year. We know that even a twelve year old girl can perform a DGU successfully* but other then that no reliable numbers either way.

*Which reinforces my favorite thing about defensive pistol use, it's a 100% level playing field. It doesn't matter how big you are, if you put in the time at the range you can defend yourself.

From memory I want to say that there were 3 or 4 burglary attempts in Oklahoma this year that ended with the intruder getting shot.

 d-usa wrote:
From memory I want to say that there were 3 or 4 burglary attempts in Oklahoma this year that ended with the intruder getting shot.

I know there were a couple here too.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I also believe, if I read my Aussie gun laws right, that that particular number can go with me should I decide to make the great migration, and I want as many of my firearms to fit that category as possible... just in case. I do believe importing/exporting it is an extra pain in the arse since it counts as "war materials" or something to that effect.

Interesting. I'm not surprised bringing them in is a big pain in the arse, I'm actually surprised they're legal. I would have thought semi-auto rifles at that calibre weren't okay, but then I know very little about the specifics of gun laws over here.

Back on our DGU conversation, seems we have no actual information. We know they happen. We know they've happened this year. http://abcnews.go.com/US/kendra-st-clair-oklahoma-girl-12-shoots-intruder/story?id=17524438 but other then that no reliable numbers either way.

Sure, we don't have an absolute, definitive answer. But we do know that 2.5 million instances a year works out at about in every 120 people. Which means, each year, that 1 in every 120 people are stopping a crime with a gun. Which is just plain screwy straight off the bat. And then we've got the break down of the figures, with more rapes stopped by guns than actual rapes or attempted rapes.

Whereas with the other figure, we know given the methodology it's likely to understate, but not by any massive amount. And given we hardly need an exact figure, just a ballpark, then we can even round up. We could say 150,000 or even 200,000, and be pretty confident we were about the mark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
From memory I want to say that there were 3 or 4 burglary attempts in Oklahoma this year that ended with the intruder getting shot.

I know there were a couple here too.

Well that'd be six all up. Not quite getting up to 2.5 million, though, is it?

Seems the elephant in the room's gonna weigh in shortly.

http://home.nra.org/pdf/StatementAdvisory.pdf

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I also believe, if I read my Aussie gun laws right, that that particular number can go with me should I decide to make the great migration, and I want as many of my firearms to fit that category as possible... just in case. I do believe importing/exporting it is an extra pain in the arse since it counts as "war materials" or something to that effect.

Interesting. I'm not surprised bringing them in is a big pain in the arse, I'm actually surprised they're legal. I would have thought semi-auto rifles at that calibre weren't okay, but then I know very little about the specifics of gun laws over here.

Belay my last. They are legal under a "Class D" permit (per SAPOL's website) which requires you to be a professional varmiter. (Tells you something about Aussie pests don't it?) but I was thinking of the custom .308 bolt action I'm working on for school next year, I expected it to be an issue because it's mag fed, but I've scoured the gun laws down under and it seems like there's nothing past having to get your Class B permit.

I do find it highly amusing that paintball guns and air guns are controlled under a Class A firearms permit.

Sebster

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2000-06-12/news/0006120170_1_crimes-citizens-gun

A 1976 study by the state of California showed 3,052,717 crimes stopped by armed citizens in that year alone. A U.S. Gallup survey showed 1,621,377 crimes halted by armed citizens in 1993. A Los Angeles Times study found that 3,609,682 crimes were stopped in the United States in 1994 by armed homeowners and ordinary citizens. A Police Foundation study found 2,730,000.

Also from your own link. Page 8 at the bottom of the page. The study found (in it's conservative estimate) that in 1994 there was 1.5 million people who used a gun, and 4.7 million uses, defensively. And honestly, reading through that thing, it seemed like they were fishing for every means possible to make that number as small as possible.

djones520 wrote:
Sebster

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2000-06-12/news/0006120170_1_crimes-citizens-gun

A 1976 study by the state of California showed 3,052,717 crimes stopped by armed citizens in that year alone. A U.S. Gallup survey showed 1,621,377 crimes halted by armed citizens in 1993. A Los Angeles Times study found that 3,609,682 crimes were stopped in the United States in 1994 by armed homeowners and ordinary citizens. A Police Foundation study found 2,730,000.

Also from your own link. Page 8 at the bottom of the page. The study found (in it's conservative estimate) that in 1994 there was 1.5 million people who used a gun, and 4.7 million uses, defensively.

If you guys are going to ask for cites at least fething read them. Yeah, it mentions the survey showing those numbers. And then it points out why those numbers are complete nonsense. My quotes were pointing out why those numbers were obviously miles from reality, and why they're miles from reality.

That's the whole point - the article is saying 'yeah these cold call surveys exist, but they've got real problems, and the answer isn't more cold call surveys on gun use.' And the article you provide list numbers, but without any detail we're left to assume the same dodgy methodology producing similarly dodgy figures.

And honestly, reading through that thing, it seemed like they were fishing for every means possible to make that number as small as possible.

No, absolutely not. That's just not sensible thinking. I mean, remove guns from this and then think about the statement 'in a cold call survey with a very low rate of expected positive response is going to be significantly impacted by false positives'. You can't argue against it, it's just fething obviously true.

And then think about the survey. Think about the results - that when phoned about 1 in a 100 people said they used a gun in the last year to stop a crime. That's almost as high as the actual rate of crime victimisation. That there were more rapes stopped with guns than there were rapes or attempted rapes committed in the whole of the country.

Obviously the false positives are overwhelming the true positives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I do find it highly amusing that paintball guns and air guns are controlled under a Class A firearms permit.

It wasn't until the last decade that paintballing was actually legal in my homestate. It was one of those nonsense pieces of law, where paintball weapons were of sufficient calibre and semi-auto that they fell into existing gun law legislation and became illegal, even though they fired you know, plastic balls with paint in them and not bullets.

Western Australia working the way it does, people just got on with ignoring the law and waiting the decade or so for the law to change. Parliament was finally prompted in to action when the WA Paintball final was a police team vs another police team

http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

I'd say this table was also relevant from Dr. Kleck's body of work, his own 2.5 million number was an average of thirteen different surveys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I do find it highly amusing that paintball guns and air guns are controlled under a Class A firearms permit.

It wasn't until the last decade that paintballing was actually legal in my homestate. It was one of those nonsense pieces of law, where paintball weapons were of sufficient calibre and semi-auto that they fell into existing gun law legislation and became illegal, even though they fired you know, plastic balls with paint in them and not bullets.

Western Australia working the way it does, people just got on with ignoring the law and waiting the decade or so for the law to change. Parliament was finally prompted in to action when the WA Paintball final was a police team vs another police team

*snicker* still seems bloody silly in the first place. Paintball's clearly ridiculous "Gimme your wallet or I'll bruise you!" and while I can see an airgun being a bit dangerous... well I got my first rifle when I was twelve and I had a bb gun or two before that. So it's mind blowing that one would legislate a child's learning tool. I am convinced there is no better way to learn about firearms and firearm safety then having one's own BB gun. Not only is it yours, so you have the pride of ownership thing, at that age knocking down cans and harassing the neighborhood long tailed minibears (squirrels) is still awesome assuming you haven't been exposed to Duty of the Call Eleventy Billion: We Still Haven't Hired a Decent Writing Team.

Jumping on to another tack, a couple people else where have asked why gun owners are so sensitive about technical terms and the labeling tactics used by the media. I think this image sums it up nicely:


Now you can say that's ridiculous, but the Brady campaign already tried it with scoped bolt action rifles back in the 80s and early 90s. Not that having an Accuracy International with all the bells and whistles on it makes any one more or less a sniper if they aren't one already but regardless. The word games employed by the ban/control lobby only serve to inspire fear and spread disinformation, I think that should rightfully get everyone ticked off no matter what side of the issue you're on.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The IRA/Provos are a good example. Very strict gun control there and they still managed to get AK-47s, M-16s, RPGs, Dragunovs and other things to make the RUC and British Army's lives a living hell. That's in a country smaller then Rhode Island too. A resistance of any decent size in the United States would be a nightmare... never mind the nightmare that would have to happen to cause a resistance movement in the first place.

You've made a slightly logical boo-boo there. The first major piece of gun control legislation in Ireland was the gun control act of 1925, however that was implemented around 2 years after the end of a civil war in Ireland that left 2000-4000 casualties.
This war included the IRA, which later split to form the Provisional and Official IRA, whom were largely the ones to make the British' lives hell.
They were able to hassle the British so much because of two things:
1) They still had weapons left over from the civil war
2) During the Troubles, they had other countries sending over shipments of weapons and actively working to help them get armed (Libya, because Gaddafi was Gaddafi).

Of course a paramilitary group that is actively being hunted by the government, and having weapons shipped to them secretly by another country is going to be able to get new weapons despite gun control laws. To think that this means gun control as a whole doesn't work would be rather silly.

Sources:
1.
2.
3.

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Yet, bizarrely, folks like that trust cops, the majority of whom shoot to qualify and then don't touch the weapon...until they need to shoot to qualify again.

A guy that has to shoot to qualify once still has to shoot to qualify, which extends beyond what Teacher X must do absent some kind of gun trial for school carriage.

Much as a degree makes you more employable regardless of competence, a badge makes you more trustworthy regardless of firearm skill. Its a farce, but it is what it is.

You have to shoot to qualify as a CHL as well. Most cops couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

Just bear in mind they're coming for the violent murder trainers like Halo and Black Ops 2, too. Even the Fox idiots won't shut up about gaming.

The gun debate is a smokescreen for the real issue blighting the USA: knives.

According to the BBC, more people were killed by knives last year in America than guns. A total knife ban could work, and people could adapt by learning to cut their bread/cheese/meat with a karate chop.

Of course, the NBA (National Blade Association) would probably take any attempts to ban knives to SCOTUS.

I heard an interest stat on the radio, so I can't be 100% on its accuracy.

The US has 150,000 licensed federal gun dealers. The US also has 144,000 registered gas stations.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I have no illusions of shooting there but it's not the only game in town. I'm hoping to get into rifle first and then pistol. Once I get the distinguished I'll probably give it up. I prefer clay games in the long term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I already shoot in long range matches, but its just for fun. There's no national body unless you count F/TR

Yeah there's a decent amount of competition here... lot of .22 mostly. The bonus to living near the US Olympic training center.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
From memory I want to say that there were 3 or 4 burglary attempts in Oklahoma this year that ended with the intruder getting shot.

I know there were a couple here too.

Seaward wrote:Seems the elephant in the room's gonna weigh in shortly.

http://home.nra.org/pdf/StatementAdvisory.pdf

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The gun debate is a smokescreen for the real issue blighting the USA: knives.

According to the BBC, more people were killed by knives last year in America than guns. A total knife ban could work, and people could adapt by learning to cut their bread/cheese/meat with a karate chop.

Of course, the NBA (National Blade Association) would probably take any attempts to ban knives to SCOTUS.

Sounds like bull gak to me. Knives account for an average of 15% of homicides according to the UCR.
Put you keep leaping from the dark with statistics and your knife and we'll see what happens.

 Frazzled wrote:

You have to shoot to qualify as a CHL as well. Most cops couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

Nor can most CHLs.

 Easy E wrote:
I heard an interest stat on the radio, so I can't be 100% on its accuracy.

The US has 150,000 licensed federal gun dealers. The US also has 144,000 registered gas stations.

Gas Stations: 168,000
Number of licensed gun dealers: 50,812

There are stlil more news sources that put the number of "licensed gun dealers" at closer to 150,000, but I am just going to guess that they include any kind of license (not just dealer) in their count.

Chances are someone in your family will be hurt by a knife, not an intruder!

Are we counting the little knives and razor blades I use for my models, I know they have hurt me a lot...

 Frazzled wrote:
Chances are someone in your family will be hurt by a knife, not an intruder!

With Christmas next week and turkeys needing carved up, knife injuries will skyrocket, especially if my drunk uncle volunteers to cut the turkey!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Are we counting the little knives and razor blades I use for my models, I know they have hurt me a lot...

We are counting them, and pens as well. People have been killed by pens (stabbed in the neck, eyes etc) no way for a man to go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I have no illusions of shooting there but it's not the only game in town. I'm hoping to get into rifle first and then pistol. Once I get the distinguished I'll probably give it up. I prefer clay games in the long term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I already shoot in long range matches, but its just for fun. There's no national body unless you count F/TR

Yeah there's a decent amount of competition here... lot of .22 mostly. The bonus to living near the US Olympic training center.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
From memory I want to say that there were 3 or 4 burglary attempts in Oklahoma this year that ended with the intruder getting shot.

I know there were a couple here too.

Seaward wrote:Seems the elephant in the room's gonna weigh in shortly.

http://home.nra.org/pdf/StatementAdvisory.pdf

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The gun debate is a smokescreen for the real issue blighting the USA: knives.

According to the BBC, more people were killed by knives last year in America than guns. A total knife ban could work, and people could adapt by learning to cut their bread/cheese/meat with a karate chop.

Of course, the NBA (National Blade Association) would probably take any attempts to ban knives to SCOTUS.

Sounds like bull gak to me. Knives account for an average of 15% of homicides according to the UCR.
Put you keep leaping from the dark with statistics and your knife and we'll see what happens.

You're never going to let that knife in the dark thing go, are you? You defend your property as best you see fit, and I'll do the same with mine.

 d-usa wrote:
Are we counting the little knives and razor blades I use for my models, I know they have hurt me a lot...

Of course. See how knives even hurt their responsible owners!


On the positive I just contributed an unsightly amount to the NRA this morning.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You have to shoot to qualify as a CHL as well. Most cops couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

Nor can most CHLs.

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/concealed-carry-permit-holders-live-in-a-dream-world-video/

 reds8n wrote:

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/concealed-carry-permit-holders-live-in-a-dream-world-video/

Ah, that old chestnut. I was wondering when it was going to make its appearance.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That isn't data, it is conclusions.

If we don't have the original data, we don't know what kind of statistical analysis has been done, so we can't test the conclusions.

Steve steveson wrote:

That's not an estimate, that's a made up number.

Killkrazy, the source you're looking for is the Keck and Gertz 1995 phone survey. It's somewhat questionable, as the conclusion they come to is that upwards of 2.5 million self defense incidents took place per annum, though it's solid enough that the main complaint of it's detractors is that it's misleading due to not 'only' addressing use of guns to prevent violent crime but also guns used in other potentially life threatening situations and depending on the persons surveyed to answer truthfully.

100,000 came from a FBI report that is occasionally referenced, but I'm still trying to track down someplace with an original for you to examine. EDIT: I see some others found the source for you.


On September 9th of this year, a situation that might have turned into a murder spree was ended by an armed civilian. Sadly, it was too late for the first two victims.

"William J. Allabaugh was inside Bonnie's Food and Spirits, a local pub, reportedly making racial statements. Other patrons had also complained about Allenbaugh being armed in the bar. Allabaugh was told to leave, and while being escorted out, drew a handgun and shot a black patron, Stephen Holman in the head while he was chatting on his cell phone. Holman is in critical condition. Allabaugh then shot passerby Scott Luzetsky outside the bar multiple times, killing him. As Allabaugh walked down the street, he approached the bar owner Bob Wallace, and patron Mark Ktytor who were had gone outside and were hiding behind a car. Allabaugh pointed his gun at the two men, at which point Ktytor drew his own weapon and shot Allabaugh multiple times. Ktytor then called 911. Allabaugh is in the hospital. Authorities said that Allabaugh has been charged with Homicide and Attempted Homicide. Ktytor will not be charged." Wikipedia, sourcing the Times Tribune (sept 11 2012)

According to sources, Mr Allabaugh had his weapon illegally. Mr Ktytor had a CWP and had his weapon legally.

Thank you for the references.

Of course the quality of data produced by a survey can depend on the methodology, so I will need to check that.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You have to shoot to qualify as a CHL as well. Most cops couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

Nor can most CHLs.

How would you know?

My opinion comes from fellow cops who laugh about their "training" as well as the former rangemaster of a major California city. How 'bout you brainiac?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/concealed-carry-permit-holders-live-in-a-dream-world-video/

Ah, that old chestnut. I was wondering when it was going to make its appearance.

Chestnuts roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at your nose...

How about less personal animosity?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How about less personal animosity?

I find your lack of faith in Jack Frost...disturbing.

 Frazzled wrote:
How would you know?

My opinion comes from fellow cops who laugh about their "training" as well as the former rangemaster of a major California city.

I love that you question the information, and in turn offer really crappy anecdotal evidence as some proof of expertise to refute it.