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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ah that would make sense. Although you'd have to be careful with that (young person having unsupervised access to gun).

Absolutely. And it's a nasty situation all around when something like what happened in the video I posted occurs. But it's better than the alternative of the kids being at the mercy of their attackers.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The latest figure for total gun homicides in the US is 2012, with 8,855. So you need to either post 8,855 anecdotes, or accept that just maybe picking up the odd event here or there in a country of more than 300 million is a completely silly way of trying to figure out what's actually happening.

A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice has found that defensive gun uses (DGU) occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that suggested by Kleck: an average of 67,740 times per year

So even on a low end of the scale it is significantly higher than the rate homicide by firearm

Yes, the study did find that 67k is a pretty decent ballpark figure for how many times a year a gun is used in response to an attempted crime. But claiming that each of those 67k should be compared against the roughly 8-10k in gun homicides is comical, as it assumes that each prevented crime was going to end up in a murder, or alternatively that preventing a stolen wallet is equal to preventing a lethal shooting.

If you actually go and read the study, you'll find it emphatically states the exact opposite of what you like to think.

"This new data... clearly demonstrates that the frequency with which guns are used in self-defense in the real world has nothing in common with pro-gun assertions that firearms are used millions of times each year to kill criminals or stop crimes. In fact, a gun is far more likely to be stolen than used in self-defense.”

"For victims of both attempted and completed violent crimes, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011 in only 0.8 percent of these instances did the intended victim in resistance to a criminal engage in a self-protective behavior that involved a firearm."

"In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides. Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides."

"When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.”


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
It's actually one of the best things about firearms. It means that the weak aren't doomed to be dominated by those physically stronger than them. It means, for example, that a petite woman, or an old man, or in some unfortunate cases even a young kid can have a fighting chance against an attacker (or multiple attackers) against whom they would otherwise have no defense.

It's a nice idea, but it's also pretty much a fantasy. As I quoted above, from the survey brought in by someone trying to argue for the effectiveness guns in stopping crime, in just 0.8% of attempted or completed property crimes was a gun successfully used. 99.2% of the time the crime went ahead just fine. There's what, a third of households in the US with guns? So it isn't a problem with there being not enough houses with guns in them.

While I can't say exactly why guns aren't much use in stopping crime, at a guess I'd have to say that any method of crime prevention that requires you being ready and able to respond at any given second is probably going to suck.

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ah that would make sense. Although you'd have to be careful with that (young person having unsupervised access to gun).

Absolutely. And it's a nasty situation all around when something like what happened in the video I posted occurs. But it's better than the alternative of the kids being at the mercy of their attackers.

Yep, I still remember one of the main stories in a book called "Seven Myths of Gun Control"... A California family had a firearm in their house, 3 kids (2 girls and a boy). Mom and dad popped out, literally 3 blocks away to a local convenience store, when someone broke into the house with the kids left home. The parents, aside from leaving the kids at home by themselves, had properly taught the 2 girls about firearms and safety. Girl 1 helped the boy (who was the youngest) and herself out of the house, through a window of one of the kids' rooms, and the two of them started trying to knock on neighbors doors, begging them to call 911 because of the intruder. Meanwhile girl 2, being effectively trapped inside the house, with the guy coming up the stairs bolted for parents room, where the pistol was. She shot him 3 times (IIRC, she shot 6 or 7 times total) thus saving her own life.

 sebster wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The latest figure for total gun homicides in the US is 2012, with 8,855. So you need to either post 8,855 anecdotes, or accept that just maybe picking up the odd event here or there in a country of more than 300 million is a completely silly way of trying to figure out what's actually happening.

A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice has found that defensive gun uses (DGU) occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that suggested by Kleck: an average of 67,740 times per year

So even on a low end of the scale it is significantly higher than the rate homicide by firearm

Yes, the study did find that 67k is a pretty decent ballpark figure for how many times a year a gun is used in response to an attempted crime. But claiming that each of those 67k should be compared against the roughly 8-10k in gun homicides is comical, as it assumes that each prevented crime was going to end up in a murder, or alternatively that preventing a stolen wallet is equal to preventing a lethal shooting.

No, it does NOT assume each would be a murder or a lethal shooting. It assumes that those 67k incidents prevented harm or loss to the intended victim. And I would bet in most of those 67k incidents the intended victim really did not KNOW how serious any harm potentially inflicted by the attacker would be. Frankly preventing my self or my family from being a victim of even a mugging is worth pulling a gun on some attacker. Depending on the specific actions/behavior, frankly it is worth dropping the attacker rather than risking what ever he/she may decide to do.

 sebster wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The latest figure for total gun homicides in the US is 2012, with 8,855. So you need to either post 8,855 anecdotes, or accept that just maybe picking up the odd event here or there in a country of more than 300 million is a completely silly way of trying to figure out what's actually happening.

A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice has found that defensive gun uses (DGU) occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that suggested by Kleck: an average of 67,740 times per year

So even on a low end of the scale it is significantly higher than the rate homicide by firearm

Yes, the study did find that 67k is a pretty decent ballpark figure for how many times a year a gun is used in response to an attempted crime. But claiming that each of those 67k should be compared against the roughly 8-10k in gun homicides is comical, as it assumes that each prevented crime was going to end up in a murder, or alternatively that preventing a stolen wallet is equal to preventing a lethal shooting.

Good thing that I never claimed either of the conclusions that you leapt to.

 CptJake wrote:
No, it does NOT assume each would be a murder or a lethal shooting. It assumes that those 67k incidents prevented harm or loss to the intended victim. And I would bet in most of those 67k incidents the intended victim really did not KNOW how serious any harm potentially inflicted by the attacker would be. Frankly preventing my self or my family from being a victim of even a mugging is worth pulling a gun on some attacker. Depending on the specific actions/behavior, frankly it is worth dropping the attacker rather than risking what ever he/she may decide to do.

Good point well made, thank you for posting what I was thinking.

 sebster wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The latest figure for total gun homicides in the US is 2012, with 8,855. So you need to either post 8,855 anecdotes, or accept that just maybe picking up the odd event here or there in a country of more than 300 million is a completely silly way of trying to figure out what's actually happening.

A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice has found that defensive gun uses (DGU) occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that suggested by Kleck: an average of 67,740 times per year

So even on a low end of the scale it is significantly higher than the rate homicide by firearm

Yes, the study did find that 67k is a pretty decent ballpark figure for how many times a year a gun is used in response to an attempted crime. But claiming that each of those 67k should be compared against the roughly 8-10k in gun homicides is comical, as it assumes that each prevented crime was going to end up in a murder, or alternatively that preventing a stolen wallet is equal to preventing a lethal shooting.

If you actually go and read the study, you'll find it emphatically states the exact opposite of what you like to think.

"This new data... clearly demonstrates that the frequency with which guns are used in self-defense in the real world has nothing in common with pro-gun assertions that firearms are used millions of times each year to kill criminals or stop crimes. In fact, a gun is far more likely to be stolen than used in self-defense.”

"For victims of both attempted and completed violent crimes, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011 in only 0.8 percent of these instances did the intended victim in resistance to a criminal engage in a self-protective behavior that involved a firearm."

"In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides. Using these numbers, in 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides."

"When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.”


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
It's actually one of the best things about firearms. It means that the weak aren't doomed to be dominated by those physically stronger than them. It means, for example, that a petite woman, or an old man, or in some unfortunate cases even a young kid can have a fighting chance against an attacker (or multiple attackers) against whom they would otherwise have no defense.

It's a nice idea, but it's also pretty much a fantasy. As I quoted above, from the survey brought in by someone trying to argue for the effectiveness guns in stopping crime, in just 0.8% of attempted or completed property crimes was a gun successfully used. 99.2% of the time the crime went ahead just fine. There's what, a third of households in the US with guns? So it isn't a problem with there being not enough houses with guns in them.

While I can't say exactly why guns aren't much use in stopping crime, at a guess I'd have to say that any method of crime prevention that requires you being ready and able to respond at any given second is probably going to suck.

You can treat firearm ownership as a constant throughout the US, there are states/regions with a high percentage of armed citizens and states/regions with a very low percentage of armed citizens. If you selected any number of citizens randomly in a state like NJ where it's virtually impossible to get a carry permit you wouldn't find anyone who is armed. If you selected the same number of citizens in a state like Florida that is a shall issue state for concealed carry permits you would find some armed citizens in the group. Several of our most populous states have extremely strict gun control laws that ensure the vast majority of the populace is unarmed meaning that criminals can commit crimes against citizens in those states with no fear of armed resistance. If the areas with the most people have the fewest armed citizens it's no wonder that few criminals are met with armed resistance.

Of course crime statistics have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment anyway. It's not written to combat burglary. If I want to own a firearm because fear for myself or my family I can, if I want to own firearms because I want to participate in 3 Gun or Cowboy Action shooting competitions I can, if I want to own firearms to shoot as a hobby or just because I think guns are cool, I can. It's my right. I need no justification to exercise it. The people that need to supply valid justification are those that want to infringe on that right, not the people that choose to exercise it.

It looks like we've gotten as much out of Walmart's decision as we're going to get...