Armed citizens stopping mass shootings - Who to believe?

[D22369 0]

Quote

To mix metaphors, guns bought for protection and self/home defense are a two edged sword.

agreed, I have to wonder what the percentage of owners actually try to reduce the risk of having them turned against them or stolen, sadly I personally think the % would be quite low... even a cheap gun safe is a decent deterrent, and a good one isn't really that expensive.


Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

Obviously each individual case is different. However, it remains a fact that the gun most likely to kill an American is his/her own gun, and the person most likely to shoot an American is a family member or friend.

Yes, so long as you only consider deaths (as opposed to other successful DGUs) and only if you group in irresponsible or mentally compromised and criminal gun owners into the metrics.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

In Utopia maybe it would work that way.

And in Utopia, criminals would follow gun laws.

Quote

In the USA you are more likely to be shot dead by a family member or friend than by a previously unknown "scumbag", and the gun most likely to shoot you is a gun kept in your own home.

Crap numbers if you do not count suicides.

Also gun deaths are DROPPING. They are currently at the levels in to 70's. And looking at the FBI stats they are still going down.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

2007: 10,129
2008: 9,528
2009: 9,199
2010: 8,874
2011: 8,583

And this in-spite of more firearms being made every single day.

In the United States, annual unintentional shooting deaths total
2011: 851
2010: 606
2009: 554
2008: 592
2007: 613
2006: 642
2005: 789
2004: 649
2003: 730
2002: 762
2001: 802
2000: 776
1999: 824

The rate of homicide is down:
In the United States, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2011: 5.11
2010: 5.27
2009: 5.48
2008: 5.86
2007: 6.10
2006: 6.22
2005: 6.13
2004: 5.93
2003: 6.11
2002: 6.13
2001: 7.13
2000: 5.96
1999: 6.05
1998: 5.19
1997: 6.7
1996: 7.3
1995: 8.1
1993: 9.9

AND your number of "death in the home" also counts JUSTIFIABLE self defense uses. So if a husband is beating his wife and she shoots him... Yep, you are counting that use in your numbers.

So you count domestic violence self defense uses.
You count suicides.

But over all, gun crime is DOWN. And accidental deaths are less than 2% of the total number.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/FIREARM_DEATHS_AND_DEATH_RATES.pdf

[kallend 1,679]

However, it remains a fact that the person most likely to shoot an American is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhaig 0]

did you skim the post (with your usual level of attention to posts that don't agree with your opinion) or just purposely ignore the part about "if you ignore suicides"

--
Rob

[DaVinci 0]

kallend

However, it remains a fact that the person most likely to shoot an American is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag.

Well.. thats actually crap. I see you didn't bother to look at the sources.
Homicides 2011: 8,583
Accidental deaths 2011: 851

The data does not support your claim. Again, if you count SUICIDES then your data might be correct.

[SkyDekker 1,154]

DaVinci

***However, it remains a fact that the person most likely to shoot an American is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag.

Well.. thats actually crap. I see you didn't bother to look at the sources.
Homicides 2011: 8,583
Accidental deaths 2011: 851

The data does not support your claim. Again, if you count SUICIDES then your data might be correct.

Funny

You do realize that the homicide number could include scenarios as outlined by Kallend right?

Like the mother that was killed by her own weapons before her son went on in Sandy Hook. That would be listed as a homicide, not an accidental death.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Funny

You do realize that the homicide number could include scenarios as outlined by Kallend right?

Some of them, but the number he has been throwing around has been proven to use suicides in the calculation.

Homicides in 2011: 8,583.
Suicides in 2011: 38,364
Gun suicides in 2011: 19,392
Number of emergency department visits for self-inflicted injury: 713,000

If he takes out suicides, his number is no longer valid.

Quote

Like the mother that was killed by her own weapons before her son went on in Sandy Hook. That would be listed as a homicide, not an accidental death.

And the Sandy Hook shooter would have been considered a suicide and counted in the numbers he is trying to use.

Interesting tidbit.... Look at this:
http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/01/suicide-vs-homicide-by-state-per-100000/

There are four "states" where homicide beats suicide in deaths. Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Louisiana, and Maryland.

[kallend 1,679]

However, it remains a fact that the person most likely to shoot an American is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

kallend

However, it remains a fact that the person most likely to shoot an American is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag.

...it remains a fact that the person most likely to stab anyone is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag

....it remains a fact that the person most likely to poison anyone is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag

...it remains a fact that the person most likely to suffocate anyone is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag

...it remains a fact that the person most likely to club with a claw hammer anyone is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag

...it remains a fact that the person most likely to beat to death anyone is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag

The most likely person to kill another is someone the person knows. This is not earth shattering news. What you have failed to do is make it somehow the result of having a gun in the house.

But your first claim "However, it remains a fact that the gun most likely to kill an American is his/her own gun, and the person most likely to shoot an American is a family member or friend"

Is only true if you count suicides.

[tkhayes 154]

it's hard to argue with the numbers of homicides going down, but keep in mind, MORE guns are being purchased, yet FEWER households and people are buying them. That means, the gun people are building arsenals, and lots of people are not buying them at all.

So I am interested in seeing the numbers on whether or not gun crime is going down because more people are carrying guns with permits.......I doubt that number is out there and I doubt it is even measurable given the constraints placed on collecting gun data.

And it could simply be because fewer people have guns out there. But I expect that the answer is far more complex that any guess by anyone.

I am all for tracking all the gun data, from purchase to disposal and from crime to crime. Too bad the gun lobby continuously blocks that collection of data.

[kelpdiver 2]

tkhayes

it's hard to argue with the numbers of homicides going down, but keep in mind, MORE guns are being purchased, yet FEWER households and people are buying them. That means, the gun people are building arsenals, and lots of people are not buying them at all.

Your basis for these assertions? With NYC, Chicago (two of the three largest cities in the country) along with DC no longer allowed to forbid gun ownership, you can expect a sudden surge in legal ownership. Criminal ownership of course will be unchanged.

I don't doubt there is a downward trend over the past 50 years for gun ownership rate per household, but that doesn't speak to absolute numbers, and I'm less certain the trend is still present anyway in the last decade.

Quote

So I am interested in seeing the numbers on whether or not gun crime is going down because more people are carrying guns with permits.......I doubt that number is out there and I doubt it is even measurable given the constraints placed on collecting gun data.

there are no blockers on the CCW permits info. No blockers on the number of NICS checks either. They just aren't allowed to keep the specific information because of the proven abuse it leads to. (See California SKS confiscations, along with Katrina confiscations)

Quote

And it could simply be because fewer people have guns out there. But I expect that the answer is far more complex that any guess by anyone.

You'd really love to success with this WAG, but the numbers don't remotely support you. Any decline in ownership rate is far less than the decline in murders. For the reason that they are not correlated, no matter how much you want them to be.

Look at the size of the young male population at any given time and you see a much stronger match. Young fuckers cause trouble. When we have more of them, we have more shit to deal with.

[tkhayes 154]

Quote

You'd really love to success with this WAG, but the numbers don't remotely support you.

My point is that we do not have the numbers and neither do you. To conclude that more guns have reduced the gun murder rate is just as erroneous as concluding that the reduction in the murder rate is tied to the decrease in the median household income rate over the same period.

We do not have the numbers.

[kallend 1,679]

However, it remains a fact that the person most likely to shoot an American is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

However, it remains a fact that the person most likely to shoot an American is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag.

And it is a FACT that kids die in the their own family pools than they do someone elses

Your point is completely misleading

Which normal for your posts

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 212]

rushmc

***However, it remains a fact that the person most likely to shoot an American is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag.

And it is a FACT that kids die in the their own family pools than they do someone elses

Your point is completely misleading

Which normal for your posts

We should ban cars too, a person is more likely, by a vast majority, to die in the car owned by the family, or individual too.

We could fix that stat by outlawing ownership of cars. Then the data would be different.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 18]

turtlespeed

******However, it remains a fact that the person most likely to shoot an American is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag.

And it is a FACT that kids die in the their own family pools than they do someone elses

Your point is completely misleading

Which normal for your posts

We should ban cars too, a person is more likely, by a vast majority, to die in the car owned by the family, or individual too.

We could fix that stat by outlawing ownership of cars. Then the data would be different.

the gun banners like kallend are desperate
the data is going against them

same for the man made global warming crowd

They are dangerous, but fun to watch squirm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

it's hard to argue with the numbers of homicides going down

Yep, even with MORE guns being bought everyday.

Quote

FEWER households and people are buying them. That means, the gun people are building arsenals, and lots of people are not buying them at all.

Not really. What it means that if 60% of the population bought guns in the 60's and now only 50% of the population owns firearms that the trend is for fewer homes to have a gun. But you have to take into account that the population has increased in that time period.

So fewer household may own firearms, but that does not mean only a few people are stocking up. And even if it did.... So what? As long as there are fewer violent crimes does it matter that I have 1 firearm or 100?

Quote

So I am interested in seeing the numbers on whether or not gun crime is going down because more people are carrying guns with permits.......

It does not matter. The fact is that more guns are in circulation and more people each and every year get a CHL/CWP. The fact is that even if crime rates have not gone DOWN due to CHL/CWP increases... Crime rates have not gone UP like the anti's tried to claim they would... "Blood on the Streets".

Quote

I am all for tracking all the gun data, from purchase to disposal and from crime to crime. Too bad the gun lobby continuously blocks that collection of data.

Again...FALSE. The FBI tracks this kind of data and the gun lobby has no issue with them doing it. The gun lobby had a problem with the CDC tracking it because:

1. It is not a disease.
2. The CDC stated a CLEAR AGENDA.

You run a large DZ... Would you support the CDC collecting data on skydiving if they had made many statements that skydiving is dangerous and they want to see it banned?

[DaVinci 0]

kallend

However, it remains a fact that the person most likely to shoot an American is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag.

It is also a fact that you are more likely to be stabbed by a family member or friend than a random scumbag. You are more likely to be poisoned by a family member or friend than some random scumbag. You are more likely to be suffocated by a family member or friend than some random scumbag. You are more likely to be bludgeoned to death by a family member of friend than some random scumbag.

Your point is worthless....

[kallend 1,679]

DaVinci

***However, it remains a fact that the person most likely to shoot an American is a family member or friend, not some random scumbag.

It is also a fact that you are more likely to be stabbed by a family member or friend than a random scumbag. You are more likely to be poisoned by a family member or friend than some random scumbag. You are more likely to be suffocated by a family member or friend than some random scumbag. You are more likely to be bludgeoned to death by a family member of friend than some random scumbag.

Your point is worthless....

What is the source of your data? My source is the FBI.

It also remains a fact that the gun most likely to kill you is your own gun or that of a family member or friend.

You just make excuses over and over again.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

You just make excuses over and over again.

No

This is just you misleading and misdirecting

again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

What is the source of your data?

Wheeler ED and Baron SA. Violence in Our Schools, Hospitals and Public Places: A Prevention and Management Guide. Ventura CA: Pathfinder.

In that they state: "The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic homicide are overwhelmingly vicious aberrants with long histories of violence inflicted upon those close to them."

And the FBI's definition of acquaintance and domestic homicide requires only that the killer knew or was related to the decedent. Two drug dealers that are acquainted does not make them "friends", or "Family". Over 3/4 of murderers have long histories of violence against people to INCLUDE friends and family. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

[1] Dawson JB and Lantern PA, US Bureau of Justice Statistics statisticians. "Murder in Families." Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. 1994. p. 5, Table 7. Back to the top

[2] US Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988." Washington DC: US Department of Justice. 1993. Back to the top

[3] Narloch R. Criminal Homicide in California. Sacramento CA: California Bureau of Criminal Statistics. 1973. pp 53-4. Back to the top

[4] Mulvihill D et al. Crimes of Violence: Report of the Task Force on Individual Acts of Violence." Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1969. p 532. Back to the top

[5] Wheeler ED and Baron SA. Violence in Our Schools, Hospitals and Public Places: A Prevention and Management Guide.? Ventura CA: Pathfinder. 1993. Back to the top

Quote

You just make excuses over and over again.

No, I just prove you to be wrong over and over again.

65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.

Source: Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48. Back

Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." has been lowered to 2.7 times in "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home". And in an interview Dr. Kellermann stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.

Quote

Asked what he would want for his own wife if she were assaulted, Dr. Arthur Kellermann responded: "If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 special in her hand? Yeah." A. Japenga, Gun Crazy, S.F. Examiner, This World (Supp.), Apr. 3, 1994, at 7, 13.

So basically you are ALMOST correct. You are correct that you are more likely to be hurt or killed by someone you know - This part is correct. You totally lose it when you try to blame it on a gun, or act like a gun is the only method used to inflict that harm.

Once again, you are blind to anything to the data that does not make guns out to be evil.

To Recap:
1. You are more likely to be killed or harmed by an acquaintance than by a stranger.

2. Guns play no special factor in this fact.

3. There are more guns in America than ever before - Violent crime has gone DOWN.

4. There are more people with a CHL/CWP - Violent crime is DOWN and no "Blood running in the street" cries have come true.

[turtlespeed 212]

DaVinci

To Recap:
1. You are more likely to be killed or harmed by an acquaintance than by a stranger.

2. Guns play no special factor in this fact.

3. There are more guns in America than ever before - Violent crime has gone DOWN.

4. There are more people with a CHL/CWP - Violent crime is DOWN and no "Blood running in the street" cries have come true.

Shhhh - Don't ruin his fantasy world.
He likes running with unicorns.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,679]

DaVinci

***

65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.

Source: Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48. Back

Absolute nonsense. The US already has 4x the homicides of any other western industrial nation while having the most guns. To claim it would be 260x the rate if guns weren't around to "protect" is just pure BS.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

***

Quote

65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.

Source: Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48. Back

Absolute nonsense. The US already has 4x the homicides of any other western industrial nation while having the most guns. To claim it would be 260x the rate if guns weren't around to "protect" is just pure BS.

Thats very fuzzy math there Pro fessor

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun