We all don’t share the same experiences. Perhaps ARGENT lives in an area where he has to shoot his way out of the house to go to work and shoot his way back in at night. He may live in a terrifying part of town.
I live in the Detroit suburbs. I have 2 beagles and I know how to use them. Thieves want your stuff …They don’t want to get hurt. They don’t want to get caught. That is why they avoid homes with loud doggies. They just want to buy drugs. They don’t want to hurt you. That requires family and friends. That requires a pissed off spouse. If anybody is living in fear of serial killers, I feel sorry for them. You would have to get real unlucky become their target. I suppose there are areas where you are in greater danger than most. But being afraid to walk out the door without a gun. I feel sorry for you. I would not want to live with that kind of fear.
Uh huh…would be nice if we had more data. Unfortunately the NRA lobbied to stop such studies. Wonder why?
Anyway (bolding mine):
You’ll pardon me if I find gun advocate claims and criticism of the numbers dubious when they seek to actively prevent further studies (specifically by agencies we can presume to be agnostic and honest when conducting the studies such as the CDC or Bureau of Justice Statistics) that look into these numbers.
The data at hand is damning and compelling enough to me. If mere “injuries” makes your case better then pony up the numbers that show that. While not dying is usually preferable to dying I submit just getting shot is plenty bad in its own right but that’s just me.
According to the CDC:
1.7% of gun use was a legal intervention where someone was killed. Not exactly resounding support for gun defense considering the downside IMO.
Frankly, I don’t care what the NRA claims.
:shrug:
And what percentage kept criminals at bay?
One of the reasons that my valley has so little crime is that it is very hard to get to. The other is that everyone is armed. And that’s a weird concept in itself. We don’t consider ourselves ‘armed’. We just have some guns.
We are just regular folks. I suspect that there is a hunting rifle or shotgun in every home.
That those guns make us safer from those that would do us harm is a bonus.
Criminals don’t target those that can defend themselves.
Becuase the CDC was blatantly funding anti-gun junk science. They needed to be bitch-slapped by Congress, and they were.
No. You’re not pardoned. The NRA, to the best of my knowledge (and I’m more than willing to read any legitimate cite you’re willing/able to provide) has never criticised the DOJ’s rather impartial methodology.
Did you read the CDC’s definition of legal intervention?
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the number of defensive gun uses by civilians.
I’m just replying straight to the OP.
The right to control your own property supersedes someone’s right to bear arms, period. I don’t feel you’re ever in the ethical or societal wrong by asserting your own right, and you don’t have to explain to anyone why you want guns left out of your home.
I will say that I own many, many guns. My friends own many guns. My family owns many guns. This situation is alien to me, none of them have ever open carried a firearm into my home or any home of a friend or family member to my knowledge. It would be totally unthinkable for my brother or my cousins to come into my house with a rifle slung over their shoulder or a pistol on their hip. Most of my friends and family are gun owners, many are hunters et cetera; but that just isn’t done here.
Well, if the NRA feels that self defense using a gun is so clearly supportable as some folks here seem to think they should be falling over themselves to have studies done by an impartial agency (eg the DoJ).
It is far from clear that the cited study is “junk” science but the answer is not to put the hammer down and prevent any studies but rather to ensure future studies have a valid methodology that is peer reviewed and agreed to be useful. NRA seems to prefer no studies.
This topic practically screams for a good study yet it is maddeningly difficult to find a study that is clear in its findings. Convenient since it leaves the door open to nitpicking.
Fine. Since you like the Bureau of Justice Statistics check this out and note that justifiable homicides by citizen are even lower than that by police (and becoming more rare).
Why? Because it is an insult to my hospitality. I always thought part of the traditional method of showing yourself happy to be in someone else’s company was by showing you trusted them enough to be unarmed around them - isn’t that where shaking hands started?
At my post-Thanksgiving party this year there will be a person who normally carries, because he is a Federal Agent. There will also be a lot of alcohol. Even if he isn’t going to drink, he won’t carry, nor would I want him to. Booze and firearms are not a good mixture. Part of my hospitality is to offer people food and beverages. That means no carrying in my house. It also means my gun stays upstairs out of harm (or intrigued drunks’) way, unloaded and locked.
My agent friend would be more than welcome to carry in my house if none of us were drinking. But that is so rare as to be almost relevant. I also know him well, and I know he is responsible. I don’t trust many other people in the same way. If someone came to my house carrying and did not know I did not allow that, if I found out, I would ask them not to do it again. If they decided to ignore that rule, they would be asked to leave, and would not be invited again.
Why does everyone assume you’d go to a friend’s house while carrying a weapon because you don’t trust your host? If anything, you’d carry for the trip there and back and in case something terrible were to happen while at your friend’s house. If someone is seriously considering having to carry a weapon to defend themselves from the host, I think I’d just pass on the invitation.
My offer of hospitality includes responsibility for your safety while at my property. If you feel my guarantee is not sufficient, please do not attend.
Just curious: how do you plan on guaranteeing safety if your guns are unloaded and locked away upstairs? And do guests get a life refund should you fail to honor that guarantee? 
Because I don’t think that my possession of a firearm is the only, or even close to the main thing that provides for the safety of my guests. When combined with a situation where there is a large amount of alcohol, the negative aspects of a loaded unlocked firearm significantly outweigh the positive aspects.
As I said, if my hospitality, including the implied guarantee of safety, is not sufficient for a guest, they are more than welcome not to attend. Similarly, if I hold a dinner party, and you bring along a bag of MacDonald’s, don’t expect to be invited back.
And if I found out, it would be the last fucking time you came to my house. And I’d be sure to let everyone else know what kind of “friend” you are to ignore the wishes of someone who invited you into their home.
Oh, btw, “in your purse” is not safely secured unless you plan on keeping your purse glued to you, which few women do when visiting friends.
Wouldn’t bother me one bit at all. See page 8.
Agree that studies need to be impartial. Do you have a cite that the N.R.A. prefers no studies? Are are you just pulling blanket accusations out of your hurt butt?
See above cite.
Maybe the reason for the dearth of studies is twofold:
-
They have already established a large number of annual defensive gun uses;
-
Anti-gun types don’t want any more evidence of that nature undermining their pro-control “arguments.”
Defensive Gun Use /= Death By Gun.
Reread this, and try to comprehend what’s being said here:
A defensive gun use need not result in a firearm dischrge, injuries, or death.
Isn’t it equally rude to go and not tell the person that your gun is there?
[quote=“ExTank, post:393, topic:518226”]
Wouldn’t bother me one bit at all. See page 8.
First of all that is a survey and while interesting and having some merit is not a full blown study.
Funny thing though…you should have read further than page 8 (from your cite). Thanks for making my point for me. (Bolding mine for the tl;dr version)
I noted that the NRA lobbied to stop funding of this kind of research at the CDC. If the NRA wanted to get honest numbers they could have lobbied to be sure future studies were properly done as determined by peer review of the scientific community. Instead the NRA saw to it that no money can be used for such studies again in the future (cited upthread).
As for hurt butt seems the pot is calling the kettle black on this one.
ahem Read your study more closely. It does not say what you think it says.
I understand that is the case and doubtless the numbers are higher for DGU when you include injuries or no discharge. Reread your own cite above. As noted it is still a pathetically small number in the scheme of things.
All of these studies should only be taken with a grain of salt because how often does one report a crime that was prevented? The number of DGUs are undoubtedly under reported. GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense? has a collection of some of the back-and-forth discussion that seems to plague these kinds of studies.
Quit moving the goalposts. I posted that in direct response to you when you said this:
So I gave you a Department of Justice study, in which the data colleciton methodology was “survey.”
Look at the date on the study, and tell me whose Justice Departmnt it was that did the study. Of course they were going to caveat/pooh-pooh their own results; the reality of the numbers they were seeing were politically unacceptable to the Reno Justice Department.
The N.R.A. did not put a halt to firearms/injury related studies; it put a stop to politically motivated pro-gun-control studies.
What bugs me about this thread is now in every gun control thread, when gun rights owners point out that we have been reasonable, people are now going to point to Susanann and claim “y’all aren’t reasonable, you don’t even respect my rights not to have a gun in my house.”
Every gun control thread, someone says that a gun owner doesn’t have to justify why they want to own a gun. That’s true. Just as much as a person doesn’t have to justify why they don’t want a gun in their house, whether it is owned by them or carried by a guest.
So thanks a bunch, Susanann, for becoming a posterchild for gun control posters here.
One thing you should note: The D.O.J. study doubted their own numbers as they yielded, in certain categories, higher numbers of crimes (rapes, robberies) than they could account for in their own crime reporting statistics; statistics based on police reports from every county in the country.
So, what happens when a crime isn’t reported? Is it a non-crime? It didn’t happen because no cop saw it?
Also: the same methodology they used to try to cast doubt on their own numbers also works pretty damned good on Dr. Arthur Kellerman; for starters, his methodology would yield Accidental Deaths By Firearms far in excess of the C.D.C.'s numbers, gather from Medical Examiners from every county in the country.
Another critical flaw of Kellerman’s is his lack of accounting for other aggravating risk factors. According to his methodology, insulin would be the cause of diabetes.
Now who is moving the goalposts. YOU provided that study to toss at me to prove your point. I showed it didn’t and now you poo-pooh it.
Further, the points they make are glaring and obvious. For the number YOU want to be true more people have to be defending themselves from some crimes than actual crimes committed. It is absurd on the face of it. Sorry you do not like it but facts can be troublesome like that sometimes. If you read on through page 10 it explains how the false positives skew the data.
Fine. I am noting they could put a halt to that without putting a halt to research which they did in that case. At least I presume someone could find a way to mandate a responsible process for scientific research. Have the researchers produce their methodology and open it to peer review. Once a methodology is deemed valuable and and honest means of gathering and assessing data they can then get more money to go out and collect data.