I, for one, look forward to the “Positive Broadsword News of the Day” thread.
Kleck’s high number of DGU is 1/2 million to 3 million.
NCVS is 108,000
Can have ideological/methodological concerns about either (the latter is self-report), but those give high and low points. Either way, many more than are used for illegal purposes.
It’s like saying lucky he had a tiger to protect us from the other guys with tigers out there. It’s very easy to be unimpressed.
It’s the vagueness of the definition of DGU that makes the statistics all but useless. On one end you have normal people facing very real threats and using their guns to either defend themselves or to drive away their attackers. On the other end you have people who whip out their gun anytime someone looks at them funny and claim the fact that the other person ran away when faced with an unstable idiot with a gun counts as a DGU. Somewhere in the middle you have people who avert threats merely by having a visible gun, and people who escalate situations which could have been solved peacefully but now can’t be (just because they have a gun), and all other sorts of cases. It’s not easy to count without some clearly defined criteria and reliable reporting, and we’ve got neither.
I keep thinking back to that story of the 14-year-old kid who got lost on the way to school, rang a stranger’s doorbell to ask directions and was nearly shot by a crazy couple who claimed he was “breaking in”. The kid was lucky because 1) the gun jammed and 2) the couple had a special doorbell that recorded the event. But I wonder what would have happened if the gun hadn’t jammed and the incident hadn’t been recorded (both of which are more probable than what actually happened). We’d have a dead 14-year-old black kid and the word of two people that they had shot someone attempting to break into their home. Clear DGU, right? And we’d have people here claiming that obviously the kid shouldn’t have been there (why wasn’t he at school?) and how stupid he was for trying to break into someone’s house in broad daylight, and how the homeowners were just protecting themselves from an obvious threat. Tell me I’m wrong.
So yeah. DGU. It’s a puzzlement.
I am not familiar with that story but I am familiar with a story of DGU where an intruder broke into a house in broad daylight. The homeowner shot and killed the intruder. It’s unfortunate that there was a death, but the homeowner successfully used a firearm to protect his family. Oh, and the intruder was his own 14-year-old son.
I have no idea what you mean.
It was not “lucky” that the armed bystander likely saved numerous lives. Luck involves happenstance and random results. This person was thankfully carrying a gun to protect himself and others. It was fortunate , not lucky, that someone was armed and willing to stop a mass murder event. Whether or not you are impressed is irrelevant. This was an unequivocal good response to a reckless/crazed/evil (take your pick) murderer.
It was fortunate in the same way that it is “unfortunate” that so many of these reckless/crazed/evil shooters have easy access to guns in the first place. Which I’m guessing is what the ‘tiger’ comment was about; to wit: if the bad guy hadn’t had a gun/tiger in the first place, there would be no need for a good guy with a gun/tiger.
There is no proof that the armed bystander saved anyone’s lives, but there is proof that he killed someone. You called the person he killed a murderer. Who did he murder?
From the linked article:
I should have written “would-be murderer”, but it’s hardly a stretch to say that the bystander saved many innocent lives. It was a school-related event with many children. I can’t imagine being so pedantic, cavalier and obtuse to argue otherwise. But go ahead, if you wish.
Did you hear the one about the Dallas cop who defended herself from the black man in her apartment?
Oh, wait… Never mind…
The post above yours shows a woman pointing a pistol at a guy after he hit another woman in the face.
WHAT??? is the NRA outlawed in some parts of the US?
Don’t threadshit. There are plenty of other threads to discuss that incident. You don’t need to bring it up here.
It’s six in the morning and 3 men are breaking into the house.
There’s very little time to react. That’s why it’s so important to have all the doors locked. These men went to all her doors. She could have men rushing her from several directions.
This is why my wife & I go to the range every few weeks. Criminals don’t care if a home is occupied. They’ll break in anyways and harm whoever is there.
The men were found and charged.
2 criminals
She’s a mom with three kids. Got my numbers turned around.
Seems like running and screaming out the back door while the people were at the front door would be a safer action.
Not necessarily when there’s multiple intruders. And it would mean opening the door yourself, not knowing if there was someone waiting to either come in or grab you.
Safer? She heard “people” talking outside her house. How would she know how many, and whether or not any were at her back door?
And the article says she has three children. Not sure of their ages, but she’s supposed to run and protect three children at the same time?
She called 911, and she didn’t shoot through any doors or windows. She waited until they kicked in a door. Seems to me to be a textbook example of protecting her family with a firearm.
Yep, this one sure sounds like doing it right to me.