Do you mean the Koreans who inadvertently shot and killed another Korean guy who they mistook for a looter?? Those Koreans?
Is that a successful defensive gun use?
What the fuck is this gibberish supposed to mean? Can you rewrite this in English?
You seem to be under the impression that the NCVS survey used something other than self-report? So how did they collect the data.
I wrote this out above. There is evidence of unreliability in the estimates. There is evidence demonstrating mechanisms of the unreliability. Given this, you don’t just pick one. Can you clarify which part of this you don’t get?
By the way, you seem to be endorsing the NCVS particularly. You must agree with the findings that there are no differences in outcomes for those who defend themselves with a gun or with something else, right? No benefits for gun defense. It’s the FBI! It’s the NCVS! You accept that, right?
They have? Where do you get that from? The one government report I bothered to pull for you, since you asked so nicely (it was two seconds on Google, you could have figured it out too) showed no change in the rate of knife crimes.
Fix your top problem and something else becomes your top problem next. That does *not *mean the something else got worse. It’s not hard.
If you think you’re citing an increase in knife crimes in the UK, well, you aren’t. Try reading something before you link it, 'kay, chum?
You might include a study of Defensive Knife Uses too, while you’re at it.
Maryland guts gun-control ‘ballistic fingerprints’ program after zero hits in 15 years
Maryland scraps gun “fingerprint” database after 15 failed years
From the articles:
Having solved zero cases at a cost of millions of dollars, however, key components of the state’s Responsible Gun Safety Act of 2000 are being laid to waste.
*
But the system — — never solved a single case.*
*
As Maryland pulls the plug on its ballistic fingerprints program, individuals familiar with the effort say the state spent millions of dollars accumulating and managing hundreds of thousands of shell casings that failed to ever give authorities a smoking gun with respect to criminal investigations.*
You’d think somebody would have known something like this wasn’t going to work.
Oh, wait. :rolleyes:
Please link your source, I must’ve missed it and would like a look.
Some proportion of instances of defending oneself with a gun must result in justifiable homicides, or we’re talking about brandishing, intimidation, escalation, or some goober scaring off a raccoon* and later saying it was a prowler, not citizens stopping felonies. It must be a small proportion, because justifiable homicides by private citizens are very rare.
*Which is exactly what you get when you rely on surveys.
Out of a vague sense of curiosity, but really for the likely entertainment value, I’d be interested in knowing just what point you think you’re making here?
That the government would like to see less knife crime?
That there would be a lower level of knife crime if it was easier to get guns in the UK?
That if only people had easier access to guns, they would be able to deter knife wielding criminals, who would in no way whatsoever feel the urge to ensure they had a gun themselves?
Enquiring minds, etc.
Let’s look at this further.
- Guns are hard to get, so petty criminals and angry teens are using knives.
- As a result, the police are focusing on knife crime as the next priority since guns aren’t a primary concern (although still a serious one).
- Knives designed primarily as weapons are themselves difficult to obtain, so many of the aforementioned petty criminals and angry teens are reduced to using kitchen knives (which, by the way, you have to be at least 16 to buy).
- A&E doctors are flagging this practice.
All of those things are logical consequences of the gun ban and actually support the idea that making guns hard to get is a good thing. Robberies and attacks still happen but with less death.
For comparison, note also that the UK responded to the problem of people trying to commit suicide by overdosing on aspirin and similar OTC painkillers by limiting packaging to 16-dose foil packs. As a result, the number of people attempting suicide that way fell dramatically (note I say “attempting” - quite a lot of them were surviving with destroyed livers). Of course, I realize this impinges upon people’s freedom to buy 500-aspirin bottles but that’s the socialist UK for you. Again: less death.
Also - back on guns - we had a drive-by shooting in our (London) neighborhood a year or so ago, just around the block from our house. This has not made me more afraid of gun violence. Funnily enough, the difficulty in getting guns (and the penalties for having them) means that guns only tend to be acquired by the more hardcore criiminals and gangs, and primarily used against rival criminals and gangs (as was the apparent reason for the local shooting - for some reason, barbershops in south London are gang hangouts and that’s what got shot up). It’s like Chris Rock’s joke about making bullets so expensive people won’t be able to shoot each other - make the cost of getting a gun hard enough and you’ll only get shootings by people who really mean it.
I don’t mean to trivialize the gun issue here; if nothing else, innocent bystanders get killed in some of these gang incidents and there will always be those who have and use guns. That said, you’re unlikely to get mugged with a gun because the mugger would have to rob 10-20 people just to make up the cost of the gun, which is uneconomic when he could just use a kitchen knife (and risk less jail time in doing so as well). Economics for the win!
Good guy old lady pulls a gun in a Walmart parking lot and successfully fends off a stranger who threatened her with his blackness, and points the gun at three other bystanders as the violently black perpetrator flees.
In what I can only assume must be a clerical error, she was arrested.
Counting … that’s *four *Defensive Gun Uses, all of them successful!
If by “the UK”, you mean “A&E doctors at one hospital”, then I would point out that the article presents no statistics whatsoever. The doctors state that there are certain types of knives that are disproportionately used to inflict injury but these knives have little other essential use and could be replaced with less harmful types of knife.
Sounds like a reasonable thing to investigate.
This over two-year old news item includes the statement "Scotland Yard said knife crime in general is falling in London and the majority of incidents involved threats to use a knife.
A Scotland Yard spokesman said the number of people in London injured as a result of knives fell 28% between April 2012 and March 2013."
These are two newspapers reporting on the same thing over 8 years ago. Some quotes from the Telegraph article.
So knife crime is down substantially since the mid-1990s; must be the handgun ban that caused it. Of course, I do not believe that - I just throw it out as an indicator of the issues of trying to tie changes in crime levels to the gun ban. Given that there were only about 140,000 handguns anyway (about 7% of the total guns), I would expect the handgun ban to have no effect on almost all types of crime - except perhaps murders by handgun, which is what the ban was designed to address.
No, the police have actively been cracking down on knife crime. It’s been a decades-long campaign, even before the most recent restrictions on guns.
Well, the less the police have to worry about guns, the more focus they can put on knives. That’s a WAG at causation rather than anything citable, mind.
And, a whole lot fewer knife victims than gun victims get killed.
Yes, those Koreans.
Are you seriously going to try and argue that the Korean shopkeepers were worse off overall because they had guns because of the tragic death of one person?
No, it was probably friendly fire. That doesn’t come close to negating all the good that came from having an armed citizenry during that week.
Are you seriously trying to argue that the presence of privately owned guns during the riot did not constitute defensive gun use?
The part where I say that there is also a wide range of estimates about the economic impacts of global warming so can we ignore those estimates as well? Or do we say “we don’t know exactly how high the number is but we know the number is high so we can’t pretend it doesn’t exist”
The fact that one number is clearly unreliable doesn’t make all the numbers unreliable.
I’m not. I’m trying to get you to admit to the most ridiculously conservative number as a starting point to ease you into seeing that the likely numbers are significantly north of the NCVS numbers.
All I see is a paywall to an article written by Hemenway. The conclusions Hemenway draws from data (or invites his readers to draw) is about as honest as Cheney was on Iraq.
This was an example of “do something, do anything” mentality combined with too many episodes of CSI.
Someone else on this board had a much better understanding of how the NCVS was conducted but basically you don’t get raccoon because this is a survey of people who were victims of a reported crime. This is why we think the NCVS number is too low.
“I haven’t read the article, but I dismiss it out of hand, even though I just repeatedly endorsed the data.”
You have a totally anti-science orientation. Your pretense otherwise is like old-earth creationists who argue that science proves the Bible.