Actually, going through the NRA’s website, I can’t find where they ever say “2.5 million lives are saved” by firearms each year. They say things like “2.5 million defensive use of firearms” or “firearms are used 2.5 million times for protection.” So to the extent that I’ve mis-stated their rhetoric, sorry about that.
Thanks for the correction, Renob. That’s a pretty significant difference. I retract the comments I made in my previous post.
“Used for protection” could mean a lot of things. I could see, for example, someone who straps it on everyday before leaving home sincerely believing that they used it for protection 365 times last year. To be honest, if the criteria were that it was used by a private citizen to thwart a violent attack, then I would have been suprised by a figure 1/10 that (250,000 vs 2,500,000). All of these large numbers in relation to this seem ludicrous to me but that may just be due to my ignorance on the subject, since I have no experience with either guns or violent crime.
I have also heard the argument made that, since the US has a lower burglary rate than countries such as the UK, and since part of that difference is due to burglars in the US who fear being shot by gun-owning homeowners, therefore the reduction in burglary and related violent crime is due to private gun ownership.
I agree that the “1.3 seconds” figure sounds suspect, to say the least. A lot of statistics in the Second Amendment debate are like that.
Regards,
Shodan
Regardless of the acts to which the 2.5m figure is applied, I’m strongly inclined to believe it’s inflated. And probably grossly.
I no longer have an NRA membership. Just don’t tell the officers of my gun club—sssshhhhh. We’re NRA affiliated and one is supposed to have an NRA membership to belong to the club, although I suspect many of us don’t. I do, however, still have an NRA decal on the window of my car. I should add that while I’ve allowed my membership to lapse, it is not out of any conviction that the NRA is wrong-headed, or has “low standards of honesty,” but merely out of apathy.
But it’s nice to hear you admit HCI has “low standards of honesty.” (wink, wink) And I applaud you for your introspection and acting on your principles. If only I had done the same.
Your post really made me think.
Are you saying, even your statistic (which adds up to 110%) is doggerel?
hence
You’re tongue-in-cheek agreeing with the statistic by making use of a double negative? or
Perhaps you hit the wrong key, or
Perhaps I just give too much thought to these kind of things.
JohnBckWLD, this line “the remaining 24% are mathematically flawed” didn’t give you a hint?
Bippy the Beardless
Gee, Bippy, if that were it, I alone would be saving hundreds of thousands of live each year. Hell, I was in traffic today and had a conference call and dealt with the insurance company. 500 lives saved in one day!
And when you add in the number of times I think about killing myself…
Regardless of the exact statistic on how many lives are saved by guns, the fact is, that most police in america think that handguns are the most effective self-defense tool available anywhere.
Cops dont carry handguns for YOUR protection, they carry handguns for THEIR protection.
If anything else was better than a handgun, then police would carry it instead of a handgun.
Next time you talk to your local cop, ask him why he doesnt carry car keys, high heel shoes, a flashlight, a whisltle(as some dimwitted people try to make other simpltons believe) , a knife, rely on karate, or something else instead of a well made gun for self defense.
Cops carry guns because they protect.
j.c. I don’t own a gun, but I have a couple of stout boken, so I probably saved a life or two million myself;)
Susanann they carry hand guns for their protection because the criminals have hand guns. Go to a <dig> more civilized </dig> country and very few cops need to carry guns.
I don’t have anything against private law abiding citizens having guns, especially whilst almost all criminals have access to guns. But how do you take guns out of criminals hands?
It looks like this one is going to die a quiet and peaceful death; I will also point out that the Cook-Ludwig survey of DGU’s put the number down around 85,000, give or take a few thou.
I will reemphasize that a Defensive Gun Use need not indicate that a firearm was discharged, or that the use of the firearm led to an injury or death by the defender or criminal.
Just that the known presence of a firearm in a crime scene prevented or aborted a crime, be it a misdemeanor or felony, property crime or violent crime.
There has been tit-for-tat critiques of statistical analysis and survey methodologies every time one of these DGU surveys pop up; enough to muddy the waters concerning any given survey’s validity.
One every 1.3 seconds sounded like BS when I read it; just like Kellerman’s “43 times” or Brady’s “13 children a day” (I dug up the CDC’s own stats and debunked that one right here on the Straight Dope a year or two back; you can only reach 13 a day by counting “children” as ages 0-25).
Using the low-end Cook-Ludwig numbers, you get a GDU every 6.171 minutes; using the Kleck-Gertz high-end number (2.5 mil) gets you a DGU every 12.588 or 12.59 or 12.6 or 13 (rounding up) seconds.
And remember: Kleck-Gertz gave a range of numbers; 2.5 was their high-end. I don’t recall what their low-end figure was, but it was less than a million. Special interest groups just grab the most impressive looking number that supports their cause.
Um, my roommate is a cop. They carry a heavy flashlight, an asp (a telescoping beatin’ stick) and pepper spray, as well as a .44 - all for protection (well, the flashlight serves a dual purpose). They don’t use the gun in all instances of self-protection because if they did, then often the gun would be used against them. For example, if the police officer is assaulted at close range they are always taught to NOT go for their gun but use one of their other self-protection devices. Guns are only used in specific situations of self-defense.
If attacked with lethal force, they are taught to reply with lethal force. Range is less of an issue.
Using pepper spray on someone at point blank is a no-no, you end up getting it yourself as well. Flashlights and ASP (or other) batons are worthless unless an officer can keep some small distance from the assailant (and using flashlights is a life and death last resort). They need room to work. I have done some bouncing type security and I am quite familiar with taking down violent/drunk/belligerent individuals.
If you try and pounce on a cop, plan on either getting wrestled down and cuffed (they are good at that) or shot. They are not going to play around with waiting for you to get their gun away from them if you are overwhelming them hand to hand.
A .44?!?!
Does you roommate ask everyone he arrests to make his day?
That simply HAS to be wrong. I’d need to see a cite on that one, that .44s are standard issued weapons to police officers in Virginia.
Many departments do allow people to carry a sidearm of choice but your typical .44 mag (revolver I assume) would be one of my LAST choices. Repeat shot control on a cannon like that would be a nightmare.
No doubt. The muzzle velocity and energy makes that a singularly unsuitable weapon for police officers. Overpenetration is a real issue.
Not to mention that unless it’s a revolver it would have to be a friggin’ Desert Eagle. Either way, if he used it the lawyers would have a field day and Sarah Brady would have an orgasm tearing him apart.
Don’t cops have to fill out forms if they so much as unholster their gun? Gosh, think of all the lives that could be saved if they were allowed to just wave them around and shoot in the air and stuff.
I’ve pretty much decided that gun owners save lives by firing into the sky on New Year’s Eve and various holidays, thereby brining lifesaving good luck to all the peoples.
I have not heard of any PD that allows its officers to carry a gun of their choice. Lawsuits, and all that. Most don’t even allow a choice between pistol A and B anymore. It’s all one big marketing brawl between Glock, Sig, and Beretta, it seems 
During my stint as a reserve officer, I was somewhat dismayed that I was going to be carrying a rather ‘used’ Glock 22. I offered to provide my own firearm (not to blow my own horn, but I have an excellent ‘stable’ of pistols) , but nay! Glock 22 it was. Not that .40SW is bad, but I prefer the old standards of 9mm or .45ACP. And of course, it never left its holster, other than qualifications, inspections, and storage.
Also, we did carry ASPs, but no maglites, only surefires.
You’re probably right. I’ll double check. It’s not a revolver, nor is it a magnum. It’s definitely less powerful than a .9mm and it’s a .4x. A .44 was just the first thing that popped into my head so I typed that. I should have just said “handgun” and not worried about it.
And yeah, they’re allowed to buy another gun as a backup, but it has to be registered through the department. Lots of paperwork. They still have to carry the standard issue handgun, however. And they tend to be smaller, since no one wants to lug around more heavy equipment. Or so told to me.
Getting pepper spray on you in close quarters is preferable to losing your gun. A police officer isn’t supposed to draw the gun until he can get safe distance from the attacker. Usually they are able to wrestle them away, but if they have to use the pepper spray to do it at close quarters then they do it. Part of their training is getting pepper sprayed in the face and then attacked by a non-pepper sprayed assailant. They have to defend their gun from the attacker and be able to subdue him (or at least fend him off for a certain length of time).
And yes, physically attacking a police officer will result in nothing good happening to you.
Other explanations for differing rates of burglary between the UK and the US:.
[ul][li]differing demographics[]differing reporting rates[]relative levels of poverty[]relative levels of home security[]different standards of housing[/ul][/li]
Anyway, you got a cite to back up your assertion(s)?