Concealed Carry Permit Comes in Handy

[TPaine7]

Anecdotes rarely prove much. They refute only the weakest arguments. Nevertheless, some people like them. Others seem to think that the criminal always prevails--that "resistance is futile."

This post is for them.

"A lady was flagged over Sunday evening about 6 p.m. on the interstate between Kelley Highway and the Arkansas river bridge." Lt. Steve Coppinger with State Police says that two men in a car signaled that the woman was getting a flat tire.

"When she pulled over to check her tires one of those person in that other car got out and attempted to rob her at knife point."

But what the thief didn't expect happened next. Coppinger says the female driver pulled out her handgun.

"She pointed that at her attacker and he backed away, got in the car and they fled."

Investigators say the would-have-been victim was able to turn the tables because she had a concealed carry permit.

Source:http://www.kfsm.com/global/story.asp?s=9541680

This poor woman didn't realize that the perpetrator is always (or almost always) armed with a gun. She didn't understand that he would surprise her and she would have virtually no chance to prevail. She didn't know what is obvious to the anti-gun "experts"--it was a safer and better strategy to preemptively surrender, to throw her children's mother, her husband's wife, her friends confidant on the tender mercies of a couple of thugs, one of whom wielded a knife.

But a miracle occurred. In her pathetic ignorance, she actually prevailed!

Imagine that.

[chucktaylor]

1. Chance beyond chance.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. Nice to have a chance, when that chance beyond chance happens.

[Deep13]

187. She had no duty to be a social experiment or a statistic. nt

[TomInTib]

2. Now, there is some restraint.....

She should have capped the asshole.

There is a deterrent for you.

[jgraz]

3. What's wrong with anecdotes? I love 'em!

Two People Dead In Murder/Suicide
Little Rock Police say a man shot and killed his girlfriend and then turned the gun on himself.
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=77492&catid=2


Police say an alleged affair led to murder-suicide
Police are investigating the case of a mother killing her seven-year-old son and then took her own life Thursday.
http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=9551674&nav=menu57_5


Polk deputies investigating murder suicide
According to investigators, the first ex-husband, Khemraj Dhani, 51, showed up to the home where his ex-wife, Kalowti Dhani, 49, their 17 year old daughter and the other ex-husband were. Dhani burst into the home and shot the woman, who died on the scene. Dhani then shot the second ex-husband before turning the gun on himself.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=8116558&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1


Murder-Suicide at Lockheed Martin Plant
Police confirm a contracted security guard shot and killed a worker at the Lockheed Martin plant in Archbald Tuesday morning, then turned the gun on himself.
http://www.wnep.com/Global/story.asp?S=9530590&nav=menu


Mother, kids shot to death in Dallas home
A mother and her two young children were found shot to death Friday, possibly by the mother who may have also staged a series of attacks on the family over the last two weeks, police said.
Police responding to a report of gunfire found the bodies of 49-year-old Jeanmarie Geis, her 8-year-old son and her 4-year-old daughter in their Dallas home Friday morning.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hQXQvVZrUHITiDYLjSz7hcDjL3mAD95699HO0

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. Me too!

Accused Rapist Shot, Killed by Victim

CAPE GIRARDEAU, Mo. - No charges will be filed against the Cape Girardeau woman who shot and killed a registered sex offender trying to break back into her home.
Ronnie Preyer, 47, of Jackson died seven hours after being shot in the chest.
Cape Girardeau County prosecuting attorney Morley Swingle tells Heartland News that Preyer is the same man who raped the 57-year-old woman on Saturday, October 25th.
Swingle says she shot Preyer as he broke through her basement door into her kitchen around 2:15 Halloween morning.

http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=9273275&nav=8H3x

Police: Accused Burglar Shot, Killed

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A homeowner who feared for the safety of himself and his family used a shotgun to kill an accused burglar early Tuesday in Del Paso Heights, Sacramento police said.
Police were called at 12:18 a.m. regarding a shooting in 800 block of Carmelita Avenue, Sgt. Matt Young said.
Officers arrived to find a 19-year-old man suffering from a gunshot wound. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
Young said an investigation found that the dead man and an unknown number of accomplices allegedly tried to break into the home. A man, his wife and two children were inside the house. One of the burglars appeared to be carrying a rifle, police said.

http://www.kcra.com/newsarchive/17427555/detail.html

Homeowner Shot, Attacker Killed In Robbery

HOUSTON -- A homeowner was jolted out of bed by the sound of gunfire on Sunday, KPRC Local 2 reported.
Houston police said three or four people broke into a home in the 10000 block of Foy Lane at about 7 a.m.
The homeowner was ready to fight back, police said.
"He did what he needed to do to protect himself, his wife and his property," Detective Fil Waters said. "The suspects were armed and at some point in the robbery they shot the owner. He managed to get a weapon and returned fire," said Waters.
One of the attackers died at the scene. Another attacker was transported the hospital. Police said they are looking for one or two more people who may have been involved.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/17086452/detail.html


Barber-shop owner who killed armed robber feared for son's safety

The gun-toting robber wasn't satisfied Thursday night when the West Oak Lane barber handed over all the money in the shop, so he made the fatal mistake of threatening to hurt the barber's young son.
Convinced that he and his son were about to die, the barber pulled his licensed handgun and fatally shot the robber in the head.

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20081115_Barber-shop_owner_who_killed_armed_robber_feared_for_son_s_safety.html


Clerk shoots, kills masked man during Worcester holdup

A liquor store clerk shot and killed an alleged armed robber in Worcester last night, firing at a masked man several times when he pulled a handgun during a holdup, police said.
The alleged robber -- Evan Louis Rivera, 40 -- was pronounced dead at a hospital 45 minutes after the shooting. When the clerk opened fire, Rivera's accomplice ran and remains at large, police said. The clerk who shot the robber was interviewed by police and has not been charged.
The two masked men entered Big Bob's Liquors on Richmond Avenue at 9:59 p.m., police said in a statement describing the shooting. One of the men pulled a handgun and pointed it "directly at one of the two store clerks then on duty," the statement says.
One of the store clerks pulled his own gun and shot the alleged robber several times, police said. The clerk's name was not released because he has not been charged with a crime. Police said he was cooperative and is properly licensed to possess and carry firearms.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/12/clerk_shoots_ki.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7

[jgraz]

6. Yours cover 4 months. Mine cover 4 days.

Your turn.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. There is a lot of crime and a small percentage of carry permits.

So should the honest law abiding citizens I posted about have their ability to defend themselves taken away by the actions of criminals?

David

[jgraz]

8. How would a carry permit have helped that 7 yr old shot by his mother?

I'm not in favor of outlawing carry permits. I'd just like to see a bit of intellectual honesty in this discussion. The "Dirty Harry" stories don't take away from the fact that guns are far more often used on family members, coworkers or the gun-owners themselves than on anonymous criminals.

[TPaine7]

9. Citation please.

...the fact that guns are far more often used on family members, coworkers or the gun-owners themselves than on anonymous criminals.

If you have a citation for this claim, please provide it.

Thanks.

[jgraz]

12. Seriously? OK, here's a few to get you started

More than half firearm deaths are suicides
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/

Only 2% of residential gun deaths involve the shooting of an intruder
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/24/1557

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084


Unfortunately, I'm no longer able to find a free copy of this study:
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.pu.12.050191.000313?journalCode=publhealth

It's probably the most common citation on the circumstances of gun violence, stating that guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill an assailant in self-defense. (e.g http://www.ncgv.org/facts)

[8Kilo1]

17. I like how

the gun crazies demand citations and sources in response to anecdotes.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. I like how gun grabbers respond with anecdotes to requests for citations.

[jgraz]

28. Huh? Do you understand what an anecdote is?

Cuz I don't think you do.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. Your post #3 is a great example of anecdotes.

[jgraz]

33. And that was in response to which request for citations?

In case you forgot, you said "gun grabbers respond with anecdotes to requests for citations". Please show where that happened.

Has it even occurred to you that someone doesn't have to be a "gun grabber" to simply want honest discourse about this subject?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. and you have yet to respond to my question about your intellectual honesty.

I didn't say you had responded with anecdote to requests for citations, that is commonplace here though. Has it ever occurred to you that someone doesn't have to be a "gun nut" to simply want honest discourse about this subject?

David

[jgraz]

44. OK, let me explain something about intellectual honesty

When you post a direct response implying that I responded to a request for citations with anecdotes, then defend it by pointing to a post where I did not, in fact, respond to a request for citations with anecdotes, then say you did no such thing, that is not intellectual honesty.

When you call me a "gun grabber", then complain about being called a "gun nut" (something I never did) that is not intellectual honesty.

I'm all for honest discourse. Anytime you're ready.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. Except I didn't do that.

I never called you a gun nut I never said you responded with anecdote to a request for citations. You in fact responded with some actual hard figures.

David

[jgraz]

50. I like how child molesters respond with denials to accusations of intellectual dishonesty.

See what I did there?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. I believe you just called yourself a child molester.

I don't think there is a rule against calling yourself names on DU though.

David

[SteveM]

181. LOL! (nt)

[iverglas]

69. you can try and try

but anyone but Hercules will eventually give up. ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=193979&mesg_id=194417

[jgraz]

71. Y'know, I'd be happy if we predicated gun ownership on a simple test of critical thinking skills

That to me would constitute a "well-regulated militia".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. Yes you seem to have given up there.

[8Kilo1]

61. A Childish Dodge

[TPaine7]

62. I like the way people who can't follow the logical progression of

a discussion feel free to condemn those who can.

I was responding to a statistical claim, not an anecdote.

[TPaine7]

64. I take it that "used on" means "used to shoot at and hit":

...the fact that guns are far more often used on family members, coworkers or the gun-owners themselves than on anonymous criminals.

If that's what you meant, you are probably correct.

Most people who have guns for defensive use intend to defend their families, themselves and their property. Injuring or killing offenders is not their objective, unless it becomes necessary to the aforementioned defense. The OP's story, while being of very limited usefulness as an anecdote, is an example of this. Zero lives were taken; one life was potentially saved. This, of course, wouldn't count.


Of course, anti-gun arguments engage in the tactic of comparing family deaths to stranger deaths, when they well know that a better comparison would be lives taken illegally vs lives saved.

[jgraz]

84. You can never compare lives saved because you can rarely prove a life was saved

For example, how many lives have been saved because an abusive spouse did *not* have easy access to a handgun? How many lives have been saved because a suicidal person used pills instead of a gun? How many lives have been saved because a shooter only had a revolver instead of semi-automatic rifle?

You can't prove any of that. Just like you can't prove that the woman in the OP's story saved anyone's life. For all we know, those guys would never have hurt her. Or, you could argue that her life was saved because the perps did NOT have a gun. Or, perhaps the experience with this woman prompted the robbers to go out and purchase greater firepower.

The only valid stat we have right now is the number of deaths or injuries resulting from weapons being fired. It would be interesting to see an attempt at acquiring the kind of data you cite. I have no idea how someone could come up with a reasonable estimate of "lives saved" by firearms.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

88. The hypocrisy is strong in you young skywalker.

You obviously care nothing about intellectual honesty or having a constructive debate. There is no real need to prove anything about lives saved. We have a Constitutional right to firearms, specifically handguns and it's intolerant people like yourself who are obstructing honest debate on the subject.

David

[jgraz]

89. Ok, Dave.

:eyes:

[jgraz]

96. Y'know, you may want to try to follow a thread of conversation for more than one post

This is a real question in terms of societal effects of gun ownership, and it deserves more than your silly personal attacks and ramblings.

Go back and read the entire exchange. Then try to come up with a coherent response that actually addresses the subject at hand.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

97. Again Pot meet Kettle.

You aren't interested in having a constructive debate about anything. That is clear.

David

[jgraz]

99. Apparently "constructive debate" only includes arguments you win

you must not have many "constructive debates".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. I'm hoping to get to the point you and I actually debate something.

Where should we start? How about introductions? I'm David, I'm a Fire Captain and a Paramedic from a medium sized city in the South. I love your state I came to Yosemite and climbed for 2 weeks way back when I was in college, best trip of my life. I am interested in having a constructive debate, sometimes you've just got to get past the first meeting.

David

[TPaine7]

119. You can get scientific estimates

of people who were, as a result of being armed, not at the mercy of felons.

It is, in my view, a benefit that the OP's woman was not left to the tender mercies of a knife wielding criminal. That type of benefit happens orders of magnitude more often than gun murders.

Gary Kleck did a rigorous scientific study with 19 layers of questions to trap liars and an intricately nuanced design (according to a world renowned and rabidly anti-gun criminologist) that showed that approximately 2.5 million legitimate defensive gun uses take place a year. People who were counted as having had a legitimate DGU (defensive gun use) ran an intellectual gauntlet at the spur of the moment. If you think most folks can make up a thoroughly consistent lie and consistently answer a battery of questions, questions specifically designed to weed out inconsistency, at the spur of the moment, you are more impressed with average intelligence than I am.

I forget the exact numbers, but as I recall, if only a small fraction of those who thought their lives were saved by their DGUs were correct, it would easily outweigh all US murders. Data will be supplied if requested.

[jgraz]

125. I'm familiar with Kleck's study and it's flawed in many, many ways

First off, his numbers don't add up. Kleck asserts that 18% of his 2.5M reported DGUs were against an assailant with a firearm. But he also acknowledges that there are around 550,000 gun crimes annually in the US. If you do the math, 18% of 2.5 million is about 450,000 -- or about 82% of all gun crimes. Clearly it's absurd to state that 82% of all gun crimes involved a DGU. Kleck has never explained this discrepancy.

His stats on actual gun firings are equally suspect. Kleck states that in 8% of all DGU, the assailant is shot by the gun owner. Kleck also states that, in general, 15% of gunshot wounds are fatal. Once again, if you work out the math, 15% of 8% of 2.5M DGUs gives us 30,000 justifiable homicides in a year. But the FBI's own Uniform Crime Reports put the count of justifiable homicides at around 300 a year. That's two orders of magnitude lower than Kleck's results would indicate.

So it seems that Kleck's study resulted in severe over-reporting of DGUs by gun owners, perhaps by a factor of 100. Could it be that Dirty Harry fantasies (like the one in the OP) have colored the responses given by gun owners?

Aside from obvious statistical discrepancies, Kleck's study suffers from several methodological problems that are even more difficult to address. Kleck made no effort to establish a control group by simply polling for victims of crime. By doing so, he could have established a baseline for criminal activity and -- even more important -- the frequency and effectiveness of all forms of resistance, not just the wielding of firearms. By failing to do so, Kleck makes it impossible to make an honest, qualitative assessment of his data -- even if it did not suffer from obvious and severe overestimation of DGU events.

Also missing is any assessment of the possible downside of gun ownership, nor the upside of not owning a gun. For example, how many lives have been *saved* because a handgun was not readily available during a domestic dispute or a particularly deep bout of depression? No effort is made to gather this data, so no comparison is possible. We do know, however, that suicides account for over half of the reported gun deaths in the US (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/) and that residential guns are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder (http://www.ncgv.org/facts).


David Hemenway has been a leading critic of Kleck's study. You may want to read some of his writings, starting with this one: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

[iverglas]

129. don't forget my favourite bit

as paraphrased by Master Paine7: "approximately 2.5 million legitimate defensive gun uses take place a year".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=150671&mesg_id=151036

How many people actually are victims of officially recorded crimes every year? This table:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
seems to tell us that there were 11,401,313 crimes against the person + crimes against property in the US in 2006 -- 1,417,745 person, 9,983,568 property.

And somebody wants us to believe that there might have been another million or two had people not been flashing or firing firearms?

The property offences shown there aren't the kind generally committed when the victims are even in the vicinity -- theft, burglary, vehicle theft. If people are there, they tend to fall into the "robbery" category, and get included in the violent/against the person numbers.

But who knows? Maybe a whole lot of those "defensive" firearms uses were by people who wandered out to their garage and found someone fixing to steal their lawn mower. They pulled up their T-shirt, pointed at the pistol in their pants, and the would-be thief slunk off.

I dunno. I just can't think of much to say. There are about 1.5 million crimes of violence officially recorded in a year in the US, and somebody wants me to believe that that many crimes, or half that many, or even half again as many, were averted by somebody doing something with a firearm.

Are people who tote firearms around, or keep them in the front hallway at home, just really really unlucky? They get targeted by criminals at rates that are multiples of what ordinary people experience?

Damned if I can find the bit I'm actually looking for -- the number of people who engaged in "defensive gun use" who believed that a death would probably have resulted if they had not done something with a gun. It was some multiple of the number of homicides that actually occur in the US in a year -- leading us to conclude that perhaps having a gun handy somehow increases one's risk of being murdered.


So it seems that Kleck's study resulted in severe over-reporting of DGUs by gun owners, perhaps by a factor of 100.

It seems maybe so.


html fixed

[jgraz]

130. Which is why I always say, "I'm not against guns, I'm against stupidity."

I'm honestly not sure which bothers me more: the real stats of people being killed by our insane gun policies, or the otherwise intelligent people who seem to buy into creationist-level argumentation as long as it supports their predetermined world view.



OK, the actual deaths bother me more. But the stupidity is gaining...

[TPaine7]

147. Really?

First off, his numbers don't add up. Kleck asserts that 18% of his 2.5M reported DGUs were against an assailant with a firearm. But he also acknowledges that there are around 550,000 gun crimes annually in the US. If you do the math, 18% of 2.5 million is about 450,000 -- or about 82% of all gun crimes. Clearly it's absurd to state that 82% of all gun crimes involved a DGU. Kleck has never explained this discrepancy.


His stats on actual gun firings are equally suspect. Kleck states that in 8% of all DGU, the assailant is shot by the gun owner. Kleck also states that, in general, 15% of gunshot wounds are fatal. Once again, if you work out the math, 15% of 8% of 2.5M DGUs gives us 30,000 justifiable homicides in a year. But the FBI's own Uniform Crime Reports put the count of justifiable homicides at around 300 a year. That's two orders of magnitude lower than Kleck's results would indicate.

Not knowing the context of your “Kleck asserts” and “Kleck says” sources, it’s hard to be sure, but it appears that you’re way off base.

[HiDemGunOwner]

159. A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed

By Marvin E. Wolfgang, American criminologist who was described by the British Journal of Criminology as “the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world” lauded Kleck's study as "an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator." He comments further about the derived 2 million DGU each year with "It is hard to believe. Yet, is is hard to challenge the data collected."
He concludes that "Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it."

Now, I don't have a Ph.D, and I am not sure who here does, but when I read that one of the most highly acclaimed criminologists in the US, one who incidently was by his own admission "as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country" state he cannot find fault with the methodologies of the study, you'll forgive me when I attach a little more weight to his opinion than those of jgraz and iverglas.

Aloha

[iverglas]

160. ah, ex cathedra itself

You really don't have to believe me and jgraz, you know.

You can

(a) do the math yourself (it really isn't that hard)

or

(b) read the math done by other people (there are links here and there)

Meanwhile, it's too bad Marvin is dead, 'cause we'll never know how embarrassed he must be for having uttered such nonsense.

[HiDemGunOwner]

163. Speak ill of the dead often?

I don't believe you or jgraz, and I really don't need your permission or blessing for that. I have read the opinions of others, both pro and con, including some of the most recent literature. I have come to my conclusions (and I'll put my multiple degrees up against yours if you'd like to banter those around again in some attempt to legitimize your, IMHO, flawed conclusions) based on my interpretation of the data, along with those who I feel are much more qualified to render an opinion on complicated statistical analysis (your admonisment to "do the math" as if it were simple algebra only highlights your utter incompetence to proffer a qualified opinion on the subject).
Your comments about Marvin being embarrassed about his conclusions after analyzing the data only further clarifies your irrational and biased views. Only someone devoid of intelluctual honesty would resort to taking pot shots at a dead respected scholar for their views on something you disagree with because you cannot debate the facts without name calling and swearing.

[iverglas]

164. read on, Macbeth

Did you want to produce some instance of my "banter(ing my degrees) around ... in some attempt to legitimize (my) ... flawed conclusions"? Or just make unsubstantiated assertions in your own attempt at ad locutorem argument?

If you're so very clever, then I'm sure you did read the entire Wolfgang article, and actually know what it said. And not just lift the misrepresented tidbit out of a cesspool. Of course, if you had read the article, and yourself chose to misrepresent what it was about and what it said, why that wouldn't cast you in a very flattering light, would it now?

There's no "simple algebra" about this math, friend. It is simple arithmetic.

15.4% of respondents to the Kleck/Gertz survey believed they had probably averted a homicide by flashing or firing their trusty firearm.

Kleck and Gertz's math led them to state that firearms had been used defensively in two million incidents.

Can you do 15.4% of 2,000,000? No degrees needed. A completed grade 5 education would probably help, but a calculator would suffice.

The thing is nonsense on its face. The dishonesty/unreliability of the respondents is evident to the naked eye. And if they were that dishonest/unreliable on that point, there is not the slightest reason in the world to rely on them for anything else.

[HiDemGunOwner]

166. Nope, I've wasted enough time

I would go back and re-read all the posts I looked at today to get that tidbit about your degrees, but that would mean I would have to look at the rubbish you write....

And every citizen contacted by Kleck was dishonest/unreliable? I guess you're the only honest/reliable citizen (yeah, I know you're Canadian...)around, right?

As far as misrepresenting what Wolfgang was discussing in his opinion piece, I quite on purpose confined my quotes to the methodology you and others have questioned. If you want to discuss the literature on the issue of concealed carry and it's effect on crime, I have a recent article you can research...

[iverglas]

170. nah

If you want to discuss the literature on the issue of concealed carry and it's effect on crime, I have a recent article you can research...

I don't know how I would "research" an article ... but I don't pay a lot of heed generally to what's said by people who can't tell a contraction from a possessive pronoun.


Or by people who can't type a sentence without misrepresenting:

And every citizen contacted by Kleck was dishonest/unreliable?

I mean, to read that, you'd think someone had actually said that.

So many others have said these things. But of course you've never read 'em.

http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/11/29/klecks-methodology-part-1/

Kleck’s ’studies’ rely on anonymous phone surveys. These surveys are known as self-report surveys. Self-report surveys are troublesome because there’s virtually no way to omit responses which are untrue, misunderstood, misremembered, misinterpreted or are just plain lies.

As I sagely noted before, a DGU is a subjective thing; it means different things to different people.

Additionally, some people will often tell a questioner what he/she thinks the questioner wants to hear. It’s not done out of malice or ignorance–it’s just a fact of self-report surveys; some respondents will tell you what they believe you wish to hear. A self-report survey on who subscribes to Sports Illustrated , several years ago produced a finding that subscription rates to the magazine were 4-5 times higher than reality.

Similarly, respondents in self-report surveys will often tell questioners what they they think makes them look good. Example, self-report surveys concerning issues such as seat belt usage or library card ownership often contain large exaggerations. It’s easy to see a person who owns a firearm might wish to place himself in a heroic light by claiming a DGU.

There are also false responses from respondents who may be mentally ill, impaired, or otherwise unable to respond accurately.

Finally, there are mischievous responses; that is, respondents who knowingly lie.

Remind me, because I can't be bothered looking it up.

What was Kleck's n?

Oh, all right, here we are:

http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm

4,978

SCHULMAN: Okay. Let's ask the "one year" question since you say that's based on better recollections. In the last year how many people who responded to the questionnaire said that they had used a firearm to defend themselves against an actual confrontation from a human being attempting a crime?

KLECK: Well, as a percentage it's 1.33 percent of the respondents. When you extrapolate that to the general population, it works out to be 2.4 million defensive uses of guns of some kind -- not just handguns but any kind of a gun -- within that previous year, which would have been roughly from Spring of 1992 through Spring of 1993.

1.33% of 4,978 is 66.

That's some mighty extrapolation going on, eh?

SCHULMAN: Okay. I can just hear critics saying that 50 or 55 people responding that they used their gun and you're projecting it out to figures of around 2 million, 2-1/2 million gun defenses. Why is that statistically valid?

Pretty good question.

SCHULMAN: So if between 1 percent to 1-1/3 percent of your respondents are saying that they defended themselves with a gun, how does this compare, for example, to the number of people who would respond that they had suffered from a crime during that period?

KLECK: I really couldn't say. We didn't ask that and I don't think there are really any comparable figures.

Myself, I find that kinda odd.

I mean, that's a figure that could have been compared to verifiable figures. As a kinda truth check. And yet the question wasn't asked.

And let us not forget:

KLECK: Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun. Forty-seven percent involved the gun being pointed at the criminal. Twenty-two percent involved the gun being fired. Fourteen percent involved the gun being fired at somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning shot; the defender was trying to shoot the criminal. Whether they succeeded or not is another matter but they were trying to shoot a criminal. And then in 8 percent they actually did wound or kill the offender.

That's 8% of 2.5 million = 200,000 gunshot wounds in the course of these "defensive gun uses" in a year. (I assume that's referring to the one-year period; correct me if I'm wrong.)

Here we do have some authoritative facts for comparison. I can't be bothered finding the most up to date or reliable. Here's something from 1998.

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/128/3/236

For every death involving firearms, twice as many persons with firearm-related injuries need hospitalization and five times as many need outpatient care. About 150 000 persons are treated annually in U.S. hospital emergency units for nonfatal gun-related injuries.

Kleck's respondents injured more people than are treated in hospital every year for firearms injuries in the US, basically.


Oh, one could just go on ...

[X_Digger]

169. Hrmm.. math, it is not strong with this one..

Basic math gone wrong.. Pesky distribution again..

If I've had two occasions to avert homicide by the use of a firearm, I'm still the same one person in the 15.4% of respondents.. hell, if I shoot it 1,000 times, averting a homicide 1,000 times, I'm still one person in the 15.4%.

*sigh*

Assuming a 1 to 1 correlation between those two numbers is either disingenuous or just ignorant.

[iverglas]

171. lordy

So you're saying even MORE homicides were averted?

Okay.

[X_Digger]

174. No when you comment on it 'not adding up'

15.4% of respondents to the Kleck/Gertz survey believed they had probably averted a homicide by flashing or firing their trusty firearm.

Kleck and Gertz's math led them to state that firearms had been used defensively in two million incidents.

Can you do 15.4% of 2,000,000? No degrees needed.

That is combining two figures that don't have a 1 to 1 relationship. One refers to the percentage of people who reported to have averted a homicide, one refers to number of uses- you're not accounting for a person having more than one encounter.

[iverglas]

176. tell ya what

The information needed for fine-tuning those numbers should be readily available.

Why don't YOU do that math?


You could have an average of two such incidents per respondent in question, and the thing would still be stupendoustly stupid on its face.

KLECK: Well, as a percentage it's 1.33 percent of the respondents. When you extrapolate that to the general population, it works out to be 2.4 million defensive uses of guns of some kind -- not just handguns but any kind of a gun -- within that previous year, which would have been roughly from Spring of 1992 through Spring of 1993.

We are talking about these numbers, remember:

SCHULMAN: So roughly 50 people out of 5000 responded that in the last year they had had to use their firearms in an actual confrontation against a human being attempting a crime?

KLECK: Handguns, yes.

SCHULMAN: Had used a handgun. And slightly more than that had used any gun.

KLECK: Right.

SCHULMAN: So that would be maybe 55, 56 people?

KLECK: Something like that, yeah.

How many of those 55 or 56 people do you seriously imagine claimed to have averted TWO (or more?) homicides in a year??

[X_Digger]

179. I don't know.. but then again..

neither do you. So don't claim to know that they 'don't add up'. 5th grade math notwithstanding.

If one of the respondents were a night clerk at a convenience store in an urban area with a high crime rate, I could easily see it being two (or more).

[iverglas]

162. oh, crap

I'm always right, I sometimes just don't bother realizing it.

http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/11/28/more-myths-from-gunloons/

Now, you know that's gonna be worth reading, because it says "left" and it refers to "gunloons".

Interestingly, it also points out that the person who posted what you have just posted, without crediting it, committed plagiarism. Just as you did. ;)

Want to name your source? Or has the thing been copied and pasted so many times in the right-wing cesspools of the internet that you actually have no idea where it is, and just copied it from someone else who had copied it from someone who had plagiarized it ...?


With my emphasis:

Second problem, JDFAR (and the man he plagiarized) omit certain statements from Wolfgang. Why? Because those words change the entire tone. Marvin Wofgang:

“The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.” (J of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:2 p617-8)

Huh, eh?


The entire Wolfgang article can be read here:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Wolfgang1.html

Read it, have you? Why of course you have.

So, he also says:

Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. There is a research literature on robbery that focuses some on victims and on the three major variables with which I dealt: (1) intimidation or threats; (2) victim response, including resistance; (3) degrees of victim injury. Normandeau's <1> study in Philadelphia, the works of Conklin, <2> Skogan, <3> Hindelang, <4> and Cook <5> have dealt with intimidation and the presence of weapons. Amir, <6> Chappel and James, <7> Brodsky <8> and Marques <9> have dealt with rape and victim resistance, as have Conklin and Block <10> and Hindelang <11> for robbery. My reference to these authors and their works is meant to convey not only their visibility but also the pioneer quality of their contributions to victimology.

Of course, what does contradict the ludicrous 2,000,000 figure (he seems not to have noticed that the respondents who reported over 15% of those incidents believed that someone would probably have died had they not used a firearm to avert the crime/death -- i.e. that there would have been THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND more homicides during the time period than there were) is, well, you know, reality.

Frankly, his main concern in that extremely brief article seems to be to defend his own theses against the Kleck/Gertz conclusions.

When he said this:

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. Maybe Franklin Zimring and Philip Cook can help me find fault with the Kleck and Gertz research, but for now, I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research.

what troubled him was that it seemed to contradict his own conclusions that resisting a criminal increased the likelihood of injury. NOTHING more.

THAT is what he is talking about. NOT the number of uses of a firearm reported in the study. He seems to have paid no attention at all to that little datum, other than to express surprise. It isn't at all "hard to challenge the data collected", for pity's sake. Let alone the extrapolation from that data.

What troubled him was that Kleck and Gertz appeared to have established that resisting a crime did not result in an increased risk of injury, as he had always maintained it did.

The view he had opposed was that resisting a crime was a wise move.

What did you think, or what did you want someone to believe, it was?


html fixed

[HiDemGunOwner]

165. Yep, you stepped in it all right...

I didn't even bother using the links you provided, not that I recognized the first one anyways. I have a copy of Wolfgang's paper on my computer, so I don't need a link.
It is: The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 1995(86)1, 188-192.
And while he was also defending his research, he also stated "The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
So your contentions that the "math" was suspect or that somehow the large numbers of DGUs were wrong, based on the methodology of the Kleck study is, at least in the opinion of Wolfgang, incorrect.

[iverglas]

167. here's what may be my fave

http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/11/26/piling-on-kleck-and-his-bogus-dgu-surveys/

Here’s another example. According to Kleck, in 34% of his DGUs–the criminal was in the act of commiting a burglary. In the year of Kleck’s ’study’, there were 6M burglaries. Of these 6M burglaries, 22% were committed when a resident was home (~1.3M burglaries). Further, Kleck estimates 42% of US homes have a firearm. Again, we go to the calculator:

6M (total burglaries in US) x .22 (% of burglaries committed with at-home resident) x .42 (% of households with firearm) = 554, 400 burglaries

.34 (% of DGUs involved in burglary) x 2.5M DGUs = 850,000 burglaries

This means, according to Kleck, burglaries were foiled by a DGU in 153% of all cases. IOW, all burglaries occurring when a resident with a gun is home are prevented–not just once but more than 1.5 times.

Like I said. Wolfgang's sole interest was in the apparent contradiction of his own conclusion that using a firearm against a criminal is unwise. That was the ONLY aspect of the Kleck/Gertz "study" that concerned him -- the fact that it seemed to demonstrate that using a firearm in that situation decreased rather than increased the risk of harm to the victim.

The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.

He didn't oppose it because he found guns distasteful; he opposed it because his research led him to conclude that it INCREASED THE RISK OF HARM TO THE VICTIM.

The entire very brief paper is a defense of his conclusions against the Kleck/Gertz conclusions, to which he evidently paid entirely insufficient attention.

And your statement:

So your contentions that the "math" was suspect or that somehow the large numbers of DGUs were wrong, based on the methodology of the Kleck study is, at least in the opinion of Wolfgang, incorrect.

is quite simply FALSE, because Wolfgang DID NOT ADDRESS the problems in issue.

[TPaine7]

180. No it does not.

"This means, according to Kleck, burglaries were foiled by a DGU in 153% of all cases. IOW, all burglaries occurring when a resident with a gun is home are prevented–not just once but more than 1.5 times."

No it does not. Kleck's study was not designed to be statistically valid at the level of every subgroup. That is false.

[HALO141]

154. Hogwash

Your post only demonstrates that statistics are of no more use than anecdotes.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. Talk about intellectual dishonesty, Who said it would have?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. I see you still can't respond to my question.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. If you'll notice my question was about the stories I posted about.

Then you asked a question implying I said it would have helped the 7 year old. This is a shining example of your sincerity when it comes to intellectual honesty. When I called you on it you failed to respond, another shining example of your integrity.

David

[TPaine7]

122. If you see intellectual dishonesty in the OP, please point it out.

If I see it too, you will have my thanks and apology.

[slackmaster]

18. None of those stories have anything to do with the subject of this thread

Which is people carrying concealed weapons legally for self-defense.

[jgraz]

27. Sure it does

The motivation behind any of these Dirty Harry wish-fulfillment stories is to propagate the visceral reaction we all have when people stand up to bad guys. In these cases, it's helpful to keep in mind that there are downsides to a fully-armed society.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. How many of the people in post #3 are CCW permit holders?

[jgraz]

35. So your argument is that only CCW permit holders should be allowed own guns?

Wow, that's pretty radical. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that kind of a restriction on our second amendment rights.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. and you say you are trying to be intellectually honest.

I guess your fingers were crossed. You responded to a post about CCW permit holders with anecdotes about random gun violence, another attempt to be intellectually honest I guess.

David

[jgraz]

48. Then show me how you can have CCW permit holders without having random gun violence

On the other hand, if your point is that you should have to go through weapons training and get a restrictive permit before owning a gun, then we both agree.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. Criminals commit most random gun violence not CCW permit holders.

I think everyone agrees we should do what we can to take firearms out of the hands of criminals. I believe we should do that without violating the Constitution. I believe there are ways to reduce the criminal use of firearms do that. Random violence however will never be stopped.

David

[slackmaster]

34. A "fully-armed society"? That's quite a straw man you have constructed

The motivation behind any of these Dirty Harry wish-fulfillment stories is to propagate the visceral reaction we all have when people stand up to bad guys.

And you must have an amazing ability to feel other peoples' visceral reactions. I have always believed that each individual's visceral reaction to any particular situation is unique.

:nuke:

[jgraz]

37. Then what, in your understanding, is the point of the OP?

[slackmaster]

39. The point of the OP is that sometimes having a concealed firearm is a good thing

Contrary to many statements that have been made on this forum over the years.

[jgraz]

46. Again: is your argument that only CCW permit holders should be allowed to own guns?

If so, then the OP has a point.

[slackmaster]

49. That's the most ridiculous conclusion you could possibly draw from what I and others have written

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

[jgraz]

52. Apparently you're not familiar with reductio ad absurdum

Once again, what's the point of the OP if it's not to advocate for a fully-armed society?

[slackmaster]

54. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid debate tactic in some circumstances

You have misapplied it severely.

[jgraz]

59. How has it been misapplied in this case?

Again, you should be able to come up with some explanation for that claim.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. How about this?

People who are legally able to purchase a firearm should be allowed to do so. If they use that firearm for home defense, target shooting, hunting, etc. it's their business. Fortunately in this country they have the freedom to do that. Sometimes those firearms are used to defend the home and the people that live in that home. If that person is legally allowed to carry a firearm in the State where they reside and they go through the necessary training and legal requirements to obtain a CCW permit. Then they should be allowed to do so at their own discretion within the limits of the law. Sometimes those firearms are used to defend the person carrying them against violent assault. Sometimes those firearms will be used illegally to commit crimes, that is the price of living in a society as free as ours. We should definitely do what we can to eliminate all criminal use of all firearms within the Constitutionally protected limits of course.

David

[slackmaster]

109. There's nothing to explain

To use reductio ad absurdum you have to start with a statement and take it to an extreme but valid logical conclusion. You haven't done that. You haven't refuted or disproved any claim made by anyone. You haven't made anything resembling a point of your own. You haven't even said anything verifiable, haven't provided a single source for anything. All you have done is bob and weave, move goalposts around, and accuse people of being intellectually challenged.

Frankly I got bored with the discussion yesterday, and started cleaning up my house for Christmas. I got a lot done. I cut up all of the shipping boxes for everything I've bought in the last six months, and steam-cleaned the carpet in one room.

I do come to DU for lively discussions, but this one turned into a tedious, unrewarding excercise so I bailed out.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

182. "That's you all over" -- Wizard of Oz (nt)

[Tunkamerica]

10. The whole point of the posts before this point are...

good guys with guns do ood. Bad guys with good do bad. Morons with guns do either bad or good or strike black gold...texas t.

[safeinOhio]

11. Love triangles and crime victims.

Guns are good for one and bad for the other.

[newfie11]

13. If someone wants to kill a person and there were no guns

I am sure they would find another way. There are always knives or if it is a child, drowning, etc. Heck around 15 years ago the feds confiscated all the guns at Cherry Creek SD (Lakota Res.) due to the gang shootings. All was pretty quiet for several weeks (practice time) and then people were being shot by bow and arrows.
If all guns were prohibited I am pretty sure the criminal element would still have them. It's not like they would obey the laws of the land and turn them over.
I often wonder how much experience with guns people have that are so opposed to them.

[jgraz]

14. Explain how one could pull off a Columbine or VaTech with a knife or bow and arrow

[newfie11]

15. ok how about ricin poisoning.

I mentioned there are other ways of killing people then using a gun. I am not into mass murder but ricin could do a columbine or VaTech shooting.


People can breathe
in ricin mist or powder and be poisoned.

Ricin can also
get into water or food and then be swallowed.

Pellets of ricin,
or ricin dissolved in a liquid, can be injected into people’s bodies.

It is easy to make with castor beans.

Again I wonder what your experience with guns is.

[8Kilo1]

16. Your experience with ricin is limited..

First, to "do" a Columbine or a VA Tech, you would need literally tons of ricin unless you could manage to get your victims enclosed and confined to a small area. Otherwise, you'd have to inject them--something that's not really conducive to mass murder.

Second, the fact is guns can be procured, with no background check, by anyone. Regardless if they're mentally ill or whatever.

[newfie11]

21. ok how about this

Terrorist Attack" in Toyko

Chicago, IL, March 19, 1995 --Monday morning rush hour, in Tokyo, has disintegrated into chaos, according to Japanese news and government sources. Reports of toxic fumes in a subway station began at approximately 08:17 a.m. (Tokyo time) and have quickly escalated into a major mass casualty incident. According to the Tokyo Metropolitan Police, as many as five-hundred sixty-five (565) people have been hospitalized and five people are confirmed dead.
The cause of this morning's disastrous incident continues to be one of mystery and intrigue, with a mid-morning statement that the incident was caused by a "random mass attack" perpetrated by an "unknown person or persons". Few other details were released by official sources, except another statement that Tokyo police were treating the incident as "multiple homicide investigation". No group has claimed responsibility for the heinous act.

The exact nature of the chemical involved has also remained a mystery until the time of this report. Initial reports, attributed to the Tokyo Fire Department, said that the poisonous substance was acetonitrile, an extremely toxic substance used as a fumigant and in metal treatment and photo processing. The next report, from the police department, said that there two boxes that were believed to contain Methyl Cyanide, also a very toxic chemical, that can cause rapid injury and death. The latest, unconfirmed, report speculates that a nerve gas called Sarin may be the cause of the tragic occurrence.

http://www.emergency.com/japanatk.htm

[jgraz]

23. So Tokyo has Sarin stores where you can buy Sarin without a background check?

You guys are ridiculous.

[slackmaster]

19. The VT guy would have used a bomb IMO

:nuke:

[newfie11]

20. yeah!! So there!

[jgraz]

22. And he could have purchased that at his local bomb shop?

:eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. He could purchase the necessary equipment at Walmart and Home Depot.

Without a single background check or eyebrow raised.

David

[jgraz]

29. I'm completely in favor of Walmart carrying the raw materials to build handguns

That work for you?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. We are talking about bombs not handguns. After all handguns are protected by the Constitution.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xenotime]

128. Not all handguns are protected. You can't own a fully automatic

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

138. You can own a fully automatic handgun, provided you obtain the proper permits, pay the fees, etc.

That's not what we were discussing though.

David

[57_TomCat]

107. They already do.

I'm completely in favor of Walmart carrying the raw materials to build handguns
Posted by jgraz

$25 and I can have a working ZIP gun in an hour. Wal*Mart is great for the McGyver in all of us.

[slackmaster]

38. The things needed to make a deadly bomb are available at Wal-Mart

:nuke:

[jgraz]

42. Once again, there's a difference between buying materials and buying fully-formed weapons

Just like there's a difference between allowing drug stores to sell decongestants and allowing them to sell methamphetamines.

And you can bet that if as many people were making bombs with cleaning supplies, you'd have to show I.D. and sign a form before you could buy any of them.

[slackmaster]

43. Building a bomb is so simple a child could do it

Making methamphetamine is not.

[jgraz]

45. And how many children are building bombs?

This is a silly argument. You and I both know that if as many children were building bombs as were being killed by firearms, you'd have every volatile chemical under lock and key.

[slackmaster]

51. Too many

You and I both know that if as many children were building bombs as were being killed by firearms...

Please provide statistics to show how many children build bombs in a given year. I'll bet if you really looked you'd find that more children are injured by homemade fireworks, crude model rockets, etc. every year than by firearms. But I admit that is just a guess, and you were the first one to make a statement that might be testable.

[jgraz]

53. You're the one making the extraordinary claim. Don't demand citations to disprove it

If you think many children are building bombs, show me your evidence.

[slackmaster]

55. You first

You're the one that made the claim.

[jgraz]

57. Now you're just being ridiculous.

You've stated that building a bomb is so simple a child could do it. I challenged that claim. Are you really unable to see where the burden of proof lies? Seriously?

Your claim is that you can purchase bomb-making material at walmart and the children can use these materials to build bombs. I don't believe you. If you refuse to provide evidence, I'll take that as a retraction of your claim and move on.

[Howzit]

66. here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=190424&mesg_id=193015

[jgraz]

70. Once again, that's not the question

The original question: Are as many children building bombs as are being killed by firearms? We still don't have any data on how many children are doing this.

In fact, to be completely fair, the quesiton should be "are as many children killed by bombs as are killed by firearms?"


I guarantee you this: as soon as a few kids start blowing themselves up with TATP, Congress will hold frantic hearings and some hysterical laws will get passed. Just like what happened with decongestants.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. The original question was, "Explain how one could pull off a Columbine or VaTech with a knife ...

or bow and arrow."

Of course you were intellectually honest with this question. Because clearly someone wanting to kill lots of people would limit themselves to a knife or a bow and arrow if guns weren't available. You may be the most disingenuous poster to play in the gungeon in quite some time. The hypocrisy is strong in you young skywalker.

David

[jgraz]

90. OK, Dave.

:eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. Thanks for admitting it.

[jgraz]

94. OK, Dave.

:eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. Thanks again.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. I know plenty of teenagers capable of building a pipe bomb.

I am surprised that you don't.

David

[8Kilo1]

82. Anecdotes, anecdotes...

Well, we certainly know where to get our anecdotes.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. Do you know a lot of developmentally challenged teenagers?

Because just about any teenager who isn't developmentally challenged is able to build a pipe bomb. I knew a couple of kids that built them when I was a teenager. Of course that was back when kids could buy black powder no questions asked.

David

[jgraz]

87. And you just proved my point

People used to be able to buy black powder, no questions asked. Now they can't.

People used to be able to buy pseudoephedrine, no questions asked. Now they can't.

Both of these killed far fewer people than handguns, yet there are more restrictions on them. Why is that?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. Wrong again.

Kids haven't been able to purchase handguns as long as I've been alive. I can buy black powder and pseudoephedrine with a driver's license. I have to fill out a ton of paperwork and go through a NICS background check to purchase a handgun. In some states I have to wait for a certain period of time. So I'm sorry but you are just flat out dead ass wrong here.

David

[jgraz]

98. Oh really? Been to a gun show lately?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. Yes. When was the last time you bought a gun at a gun show?

When was the last time you were actually at a gun show? I had to go through an NICS background check the last time I bought a gun at a gun show.

David

[jgraz]

102. You clearly were not in Nevada

Unless this has changed since June of 2007, you don't need a background check to purchase a gun at a Nevada gun show. No background checks and no records kept on private gun sales.

And that's the point. There are consistent federal restrictions on decongestants but none on gun sales. Close that loophole and you'll have a better argument.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. Sorry wrong again, there are tons of federal regulations on gun sales.

Most of the firearms sold at gun shows are sold by licensed dealers those sales are regulated at the Federal and State level. There are also Federal regulations on private gun sales.

David

[jgraz]

104. Key word: most

You're playing with the facts again.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. Your quote, "There are consistent federal restrictions on decongestants but none on gun sales."

That's just plain wrong. There are consistent federal regulations on both commercial and private gun sales.

David

[slackmaster]

111. Wrong

If you buy a gun from a gun dealer in Nevada, a background check is required.

If you buy a used gun from a private individual, no background check is required.

Being at a gun show has nothing to do with it.

There are consistent federal restrictions on decongestants but none on gun sales.

Bullshit. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[jgraz]

112. And the people allowed to privately sell pharmaceuticals would be...?

You can shade your parameters as much as you want, but you can't get away from the fact that there are widely advertised and attended events where private, anonymous sales of firearms take place. Imagine what the federal government would do if they were selling drugs -- even legal, OTC drugs -- instead of guns.

[slackmaster]

113. You've completely lost it

People sell guns through newspaper classified ads, at shooting ranges, and to people they meet in various social events.

Imagine what the federal government would do if they were selling drugs -- even legal, OTC drugs -- instead of guns.

There are in fact dietary supplements and herbal remedies sold at gun shows. But you probably didn't know that, because you haven't ever been to one.

[jgraz]

115. Are they selling ephedrine any more?

No. Because a few people died and the feds outlawed it. I used to take ephedrine all the time before workouts. Now I can buy a gun to take with me on a jog, but I can't take a simple herbal supplement.

[slackmaster]

117. Your right to buy ephedrine has been infringed

I'm opposed to most restrictions on drugs.

BTW I assume you mean pseudoephedrine, and if you were using it for anything but a decongestant you may have been in violation of federal law. Ephedrine in its refined state has been a controlled substance for decades, available by prescription or administered by a doctor only.

The herb ephedra used to be available in health food stores. That has changed.

[Statistical]

126. Let's be honest

You are aware that the vast majority of private sales occur outside gunshows.

So what you want is not a "gunshow loophole" closed but a "private transaction loophole".

I am sure you see how stupid it would be to require 2 private citizens conduct an FFL check AT A GUNSHOW but they could leave the gunshow and not conduct a check.

I also assume that you believe only an FFL could be trusted to handle the transaction

So lets be honest when you say "gun show loophole" what you are proposing is that:
ALL transactions are conducted by FFL. If I want to sell a gun to you (person to person) regardless of the location (gunshow or in my home) we must both go to an FFL. The FFL conduct NICS and then transfer the weapon.

There is no "gunshow loophole". Everyday thousands of gun are sold by an FFL and a background check is done.
Everyday thousands of guns are sold, bartered, trader between private individuals and no background check is done*

The gunshow portion is irrelivent and an intention untruth to confuse the public.

(* Some states require a background check or FFL to facilitate any transfer).

Sound about right?

[SteveM]

183. You are using "loophole" when there isn't one...

Gun shows are merely hire-a-halls where individuals and dealers gather to sell/by guns. If a dealer has rented a table, he/she must follow the restrictions set forth in NICS; if an individual rents a table, he is not bound to utilize NICS, and in fact is barred from doing so. In other words, should I choose to sell a shotgun to a friend, I am not required nor allowed to use NICS.

Put another way, gun shows do not "sell" or "buy" guns.

If you wish to extend NICS to include ALL people who would buy or sell a gun, then make your argument. Keep in mind government registration of gun-owners is usually a non-starter in these discussions.

[slackmaster]

110. I went to a gun show on Saturday

Background checks were required on all purchases, except by people who have a valid Federal Firearms License.

Just like everywhere else in California.

[jgraz]

114. Again, you're cheating. California has one set of laws. Other states are different

States are not allowed this same leeway when it comes to the sale of over-the-counter medicines.

[slackmaster]

116. So what?

What's your point?

[jeepnstein]

118. Do a Google search.

Back in the good old days I had to actually order the book from a seller. The bottom line is if you want to do some violence, there are plenty of ways to do it. Some ways are actually more effective than messing with a firearm....

http://home.scarlet.be/comicstrip/anarcook/indanarcook.html

[Howzit]

65. See post #67

If that many kids post videos of home made devices on youtube, how many are making them and not posting?

[57_TomCat]

106. I and my close circle of friends were...

routinely concocting a variety of "homemade" fireworks. The materials were easily available and quite the excitement builder. Loaded guns were also in the houses of all my friends as well as mine. They were not misused. We were in the 10 to 16 age group when we were blowing things up. Luckily the explosions were never so large as to send someone to the Dr. or get the local law involved with an introduction to some serious penalties that I never new existed back then. :)

From many conversations with older friends we all seem to share that "explosive" phase. I was raised in the south where there was plenty of space and "boys will be boys" was a standard response.

[Howzit]

63. With an IED

Go to youtube and search for tatp or acetone peroxide and see what kids are blowing up.

It is not the tool, but the intent that kills. Where there is a will there is a way.

[spin]

81. How about a gasoline can...

I live in Tampa Florida when this happened.

Billy Ferry was the neighborhood crazy man. The Winn-Dixie was the neighborhood market.

As evening fell on Saturday, July 3, 1984, some voice in his head told Ferry to hurl a bucket of gasoline across the checkout lines crowded with shoppers buying picnic stuff for the Fourth of July.

The shoppers, the checkout clerks and the bag boys had no chance.

Ferry struck a match. Five people died, 13 others were horribly burned. And this little subdivision east of Tampa was scarred for what seemed forever. The mall soon was all but abandoned.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/102900/TampaBay/Community_finally_ris.shtml

For more information...


http://www.kudzumonthly.com/kudzu/sep01/inferno.html

[aikoaiko]

56. To a couple of people -- please see sigline.

I made the commitment to do this, but I think its pointless.

[jgraz]

58. Thank you.

[jody]

60. aikoaiko, I agree but I sometimes grow so tired of listening to the same litany of rants sans facts

from those who would ban handguns or all guns.

On a thread in another forum, I pointed out that under federal law, the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right and I was not surprised to find that some DUers did not know that.

You are right to plead for not using disparaging terms but sometimes they do seem so very, very appropriate to make a point.

[iverglas]

68. ah, I see jody has settled on

the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right.

Good. Now we won't have to listen to any more idiocy about how the right to own guns is natural / inherent / inalienable and suchlike assorted crap.

[aikoaiko]

108. I feel your pain.

In a moment of wishful thinking I committed to trying to address the name calling among those who dsicuss gun issues. In hindsight, I think its not my place to police anyone's rhetoric and I feel awkward about it. I don't know if I'll continue.

[jody]

120. Please continue but remember "no good deed goes unpunished." n/t

[iverglas]

67. what she evidently didn't understand

is that when someone signals you to pull over for whatever reason, you use your common sense and do it in an area where you are not vulnerable to robbery or assault.

Unfortunately, women are socialized to repress any natural suspicion they feel about others, and to always be polite and nice.

Teaching girls and women to trust their feelings and thoughts about situations and people, and to act in their own interests and not always put others' interests first, or accept what others (especially men) tell them is in their interests, is one of the basic first steps toward reducing the violence and abuse women suffer.

This woman had no need of a firearm. What she needed was the confidence to control her situation rather than turn that control over to someone else.

But hey, women can always listen instead to the bully-boys trying to persuade them that what they need is guns, and just hope that if this happens to them, they don't happen to encounter the thugs who do have guns and pull them first.


typo fixed

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

77. Nice of you to force your opinions on other women.

[iverglas]

83. there we have that "intellectual honesty" again

I can't force my opinions on anyone. I'm one voter in an electorate of millions, and even if I find a party that agrees with me 100% and it forms a government, I can't count on it doing what I want when it comes to firearms policy or anything else.

Not that my post actually had anything to do with firearms policies. Or any other matter on which anyone could be forced to do anything.

Nasty and sad of you to misrepresent everything I say.

Oh, and everything everyone else you disagree with says.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. I thought women could think for themselves.

[jgraz]

132. Apparently not this one.

Actually, this is a great point. How many other drivers "deterred crime" by simply refusing to stop? If she hadn't acted like an idiot, she'd have had no need to use her gun.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

139. Lets play blame the victim.

Your quote is so reminiscent of those phrases like if she hadn't been wearing that she wouldn't have been raped, if he hadn't been in that neighborhood he wouldn't have been robbed, etc.

David

[iverglas]

141. A is false, B is true

A. If she hadn't been wearing that she wouldn't have been raped

That's just false. It is indeed a lie propagated to shift blame for assaults to the victim. The fact that it demonstrably a lie -- what women who are sexually assaulted are wearing is completely irrelevant to the assaults -- is the important point here.

B. If he hadn't been in that neighborhood he wouldn't have been robbed

That's just a statement of fact. (I mean, other than that he might have got robbed somewhee else, the odds of that being pretty slim.) It does not imply blame. Someone might use it to try to ascribe blame, but that's just bad logic.


It is a fact that there are things one can do to avoid certain problems. Not going to a neighbourhood where one's odds of being robbed are higher than in other neighbourhoods is not a guarantee of not getting robbed, but it does reduce one's risks.

Not pulling over when signalled to by a stranger, thus avoiding a carjacking by that stranger, doesn't mean that one won't get a flat tire and get carjacked by a different stranger. But it does give one some greater range of choice and control of one's situation.

Women are socialized to be compliant and unsuspicious, perhaps especially when it comes to men telling them things about their cars. You will not find me blaming women for doing what they are taught to do their whole lives.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

142. and you should be commended for it.

Maybe you'll rub off on jgraz.

David

[iverglas]

143. maybe if you could explain

how jgraz and I are in disagreement here, I'd take a shot at it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

144. ....

You will not find me blaming women for doing what they are taught to do their whole lives.

David

[JonQ]

121. Yeah, why can't women and any other vulnerable group live in constant terror?

Then we wouldn't need guns and everything would be magical.

:sarcasm:

BTW, blaming the victim is usually not a winning strategy.

[jgraz]

123. Any woman who needs a gun to keep from living in constant terror should probably see a shrink

There are probably some strong anti-anxiety drugs that she could get a CCW permit for.

[JonQ]

124. I was responding to ivers

statement. Where this woman would have been better off if she'd been more afraid of her surroundings and how she would have been fine if it weren't for poor judgment. Unfortunately bad things happen to people even when they utilize excellent judgment.

[slackmaster]

127. Please explain why your remark is not sexist

If you can.

[jgraz]

131. Um... because it's true. Any man who feels that way should do the same.

But, of course, it's not sexist to imply that it's *normal* for women to live in constant fear if they don't own a gun. That's not sexist at all. :eyes:


Could it be that it's not sexist because it supports your predetermined view on firearms? Hmm....

[slackmaster]

134. OK, it wasn't sexist

But you are not in a position to determine how anyone else other than yourself ought to feel, or how others should deal with their feelings.

[jgraz]

135. So you're saying that we shouldn't have opinions on other people's actions or beliefs?

Wow. Good thing this isn't some sort of political discussion board...

[slackmaster]

136. I think the opinions you have expressed here are poorly thought out and reflect your biases

Are you happy now?

[jgraz]

137. I think your opinions of my opinions are poorly thought out and reflect your biases

NOW I'm happy.

[iverglas]

133. on living in fear

in case it's of interest:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=193979&mesg_id=194293

Taking reasonable precautions to protect one's self and to avoid situations where one is not in control or is vulnerable to harm is always wise for anyone.

Pointing out that someone failed to do this is not necessarily "blaming the victim", particularly when it is also pointed out, as I have done, that there are reasons why women in particular fail to do this that have to do with how women are socialized.

Women are taught (a) to be constantly afraid, and (b) to be polite and compliant, and not to act on suspicions or doubts, particularly about men.

It's a poisonous mixture. Living in exaggerated and often unreasonable fear, and not having the confidence and skills to avoid situations in which there might be reason for fear.

I didn't have the fear to start with, and I am still "fearless" in that sense -- I'm not afraid of my shadow when I go out at night. I'm just burdened by free-floating fear as a result of traumas -- too easily startled, too high a level of general anxiety. I was a little too fearless to start with, and a little too impervious to reasonable persuasion about self-protection. And I was also a victim of that socialization -- I could have got out of the situation I was in (not knowing what it was at the time) before it was too late, but was reluctant to offend the individual by not accepting the offer of a ride to where I was going.

Pointing out that women often don't act in their own self-interest is not always blaming the victim.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

140. But it certainly is blaming the victim sometimes, eh.

[oneshooter]

145. Personally I would rather have one

A cocealed handgun, and not need it. Rather than need it and not have it!!

I have a CCL in Texas. I carry all of the time, except at work. My prefered carry piece is a SIG 220 45ACP, loaded with 200gr JHP's.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

146. I'll bet

you carry that handgun because a cop is too heavy, and because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[JonQ]

149. Didn't you know that you are virtually guaranteed

to accidentally shoot yourself or a loved one once you purchase a gun? It has control of you now. run, abandon all hope!

[oneshooter]

152. Been around firearms all of my life.

And have yet to see one that will raise itself up, load, and fire itself!! Follow the 4 commandments of firearms, keep them away from children with out adult supervision, keep them clean, and no problem. Myself, my Loving Wife and my 2 older sons are High Power shooters, my oldest son and myself also shoot Black Powder Cartridge rifles in competition. My youngest(10yrs old)shot his first .22 match this year!! Came in 3rd against 10 older kids.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[JonQ]

155. I know

I was having a bit of a dig at the gun-grabbers around here who seem to think that guns have a mind of their own.

[iverglas]

172. ah yes

The psychotics who post here regularly.

I haven't noticed them, myself. Could you provide a link or three?

[spin]

150. Damn, that's a serious concealed carry weapon...

Out of curiosity, what carry method do you use?

Welcome to DU

[oneshooter]

151. A Don Hume IWB holster

Set at a 30degree angle. My preferred load is CCI Lawman 200gr JHP, commonly known as "flying ashtrays". Loving Wife preferred her Colt LW Commander, also in 45 and the same ammo.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[spin]

153. Good holster...

I have a Don Hume IWB for my .357 S&W Model 60 3" revolver. I often carry a S&W model 642 in .38 +P. I carry the snub nose in a Uncle Mike's or a Bianchi pocket holster. It's quick and easy to grab and go, but some people call it a mouse gun.

I tend to be a wheel gunner, but I do own several full sized Colt .45 autos. I haven't carried one concealed for years as they are heavy and somewhat uncomfortable.

[oneshooter]

156. With the alloy frame

both weapons are a lot lighter. My theory is that if you got to make a hole in someone, then make it as big as possible!
If I carry a wheelgun it is generally a tuned SAA clone with a 4 3/4"barrel and in 45 Colt, silvertips of course! It is carried strong side in a custom IWB holster. Never felt alone with it on my side.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[spin]

157. I can't argue with your view...

and a .45 round WILL make a large hole.

I chose the J-frame Smiths because of ease of carry and the fact that I have small hands which makes a larger revolver slightly awkward to shoot.I found larger weapons were a pain to carry and to conceal in Florida heat. A lot of the people I know who have concealed carry licenses here in Florida carry smaller weapons, but I know several who always carry a full sized semi-auto. One is a businessman who keeps his SIG in an belt holster conceal under his suit jacket or a medical scrub.

Of course, the first rule of a gunfight is to have a gun.

[JonQ]

148. On another forum

when it was pointed out that a woman could have acted differently (using a firearm) to defend herself you had a hissy fit claiming we were all "blaming the victim" and we should be ashamed.

Now that a woman successfully used a gun to defend herself (using a firearm) you're having a hissy fit saying it is all her fault that she was in that situation and she could have avoided it entirely. But that's not blaming the victim.

Seems dead, unarmed women are the only kind you find acceptable.

[iverglas]

177. oh, dear, I missed a little pile of poop

How clever of me. I mean, I might have stepped in it ...


Seems dead, unarmed women are the only kind you find acceptable.

Seems like you have nothing in your holster but falsehood and filth.

[HiDemGunOwner]

161. How convenient

"This woman had no need of a firearm. What she needed was the confidence to control her situation rather than turn that control over to someone else."

And according to you, neither did the woman in Cape Girardeau. If I recall correctly, you suggested that in the case of a home invasion type scenario, you should just run out of your house. Except, in the case of the Cape Girardeau woman, the fact that she tried to exit the dwelling enabled the rapist to gain entry and subsequently rape her. Funny how when she decided to arm herself and take up a strategically adventageous position (stay in the house)she was not only able to prevent a second rape but was able to maintain control over her situation. Seems like that was a very good way to reduce the "violence and abuse women suffer." At least it was for that woman.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

168. Excellent point.

[iverglas]

173. tell ya what

Instead of your lazy reminiscences, how about you find the post(s) of mine you're referring to, and QUOTE what I SAID?

Start as you mean to go on, I always say. I don't mean to be responding to misrepresentations of things I have said.

[HiDemGunOwner]

175. Nope...

If you want to refute it, go ahead. Then maybe I'll exert the necessary time and energy to research it just to prove you wrong...

[iverglas]

178. .

[HiDemGunOwner]

185. Right back at ya, Bozo

iverglas (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-01-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. and as we all know perfectly well
Edited on Sat Nov-01-08 05:28 PM by iverglas

....All I would say in relation to this particular case is that if I were at home and heard someone trying to break in the basement door at night, I'd be going out another door or window of the house in a big hurry, not sticking around to wait and see what might happen if the door-breaking was successful. I have no idea what the situation was in the house in question.



Edit -- from the article:


In the first incident, the woman heard glass breaking in her basement about midnight on Saturday. She went to leave the house, and the man attacked when she opened the front door. He punched her in the face and then forced her into a bedroom, where he raped her, said H. Morley Swingle, prosecuting attorney in Cape Girardeau County.

... She was home alone again Friday about 2:15 a.m. when Preyer broke the same basement window. The victim was awake watching television, when Preyer switched off the electricity to her house.

She tried to call 911, but couldn't because the power was off. She got a shotgun and waited as the man began banging on the basement door. She fired when Preyer came crashing through the door.


She acted very sensibly the first time by trying to leave. The second time she undoubtedly feared the same result if she did that. I think I would have wanted the basement window replaced with something other than glass, myself.

Based on the apparent facts, I would not likely question a claim of self-defence myself.

Now shall I go find a few hundred examples of women shot to death by their intimate partners and we can all chat about how lucky they were to have firearms in their homes?

I did edit out your interpretation of how many of the recent Castle Doctrine laws have departed from all common law definitions, but otherwise the above is yours verbatim.

You try to rationalize that your suggestion to run from the house was the appropriate and preferable action by stating the woman "acted very sensibly the first time by trying to leave" without taking any responsibility for the fact that it resulted in her rape. Yet you criticize any suggestion that arming herself and taking up a defensible position was the more advantageous action and resulted in her preventing a second rape. At least you're generous enough not to question her need for self defense under the circumstances. Too bad you cannot be honest enough to admit that had she taken up a defensive position with a firearm in the first place, she would have never suffered the trauma of the rape, or that for women who might find themselves is substantially similar situations, that they too would probably be better off not leaving the house and doing exactly what this woman did the second time.

iverglas (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-03-08 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. escape from assault/death

Only an idiot takes a chance on being able to defend against an assault when there is an apparent escape route.

Well, an idiot ... or someone with something to prove ...


I say good for her, she removed a multiple, persistent sexual predator from the earth in the most decisive way possible, and prevented herself from being sexually assaulted yet again by the animal. As far as I am concerned, that gunshot wound he received was self-inflicted.(not Iverglas' comment, but a quote from another post)

I wonder how many people would be saying the same thing in a case where it turned out the assault report was fabricated.

I do believe that has been known to happen.

[iverglas]

186. you do work your little bum off, doncha?

And no, I don't plan to be "admitting" any of that crap in the near future, ta.

[HiDemGunOwner]

188. Yes, I do

And I really had no real expectations that you would admit to your failures and misrepresentations as that type of behavior from you is quite evident throughout your posts (along with personal attacks, unnecessary profanity and an unfounded sense of moral superiority). But, for sake of those new here hoping for some reasoned discourse and valid advice on tactics on the subject at hand, I wanted to prevent them from being misled by your often incorrect or generally bad advice.

Face it. A responsible, mature and intellectually honest person would admit that based on the outcome in this case, leaving the house was not the best decision and resulted in the woman being brutally raped. This is the advice you gave then, and presumably would still give, to someone in similar circumstances. It is overly simplistic and in general tactically unsound, and could easily cause a woman (or a man) to be unnecessarily victimized by a bad guy(s) intent on harming them.

And, just for clarification, what exactly won't you be admitting? That you didn't give the advice you did (if only your recall was as good as mine, eh...) or that the advice itself was "crap?"

[iverglas]

190. you own face

Face it. A responsible, mature and intellectually honest person would admit that based on the outcome in this case, leaving the house was not the best decision and resulted in the woman being brutally raped.

You chose to quote something I said when I was not aware of all of the facts of the case in question. Good job. Congratulations. Quite an accomplishment. Great return for all that work. Not quite honest, but there you go.

Based on HINDSIGHT, the decision was not the best one in that one situation.

Now, are you calling the woman who made that decision a fool?

This is the advice you gave then, and presumably would still give, to someone in similar circumstances.

Actually, it's advice I have followed myself, by exiting a second floor window and taking the stairs to the ground, when an alcoholic/addict with whom I shared living quarters for a time became menacing. And I lived to tell the tale. Not a bruise. Huh.

Both I and the woman in question acted very sensibly by leaving the confines of the house, as I said and you for some reason emphasized. Acting sensibly is not a guarantee of good outcomes.

You try to rationalize that your suggestion to run from the house was the appropriate and preferable action by stating the woman "acted very sensibly the first time by trying to leave" without taking any responsibility for the fact that it resulted in her rape.

Uh ... ME "taking any responsibility for the fact that it resulted in her rape"??? How despicably dishonest is that?

Yet you criticize any suggestion that arming herself and taking up a defensible position was the more advantageous action and resulted in her preventing a second rape.

Really? How come you didn't manage -- in all that searching and cutting and pasting you did -- to come up with me actually doing that??


So, what won't I "admit"?

Too bad you cannot be honest enough to admit that had she taken up a defensive position with a firearm in the first place, she would have never suffered the trauma of the rape, or that for women who might find themselves is substantially similar situations, that they too would probably be better off not leaving the house and doing exactly what this woman did the second time.

That bullshit, that's what.

[SteveM]

184. Oh, heifer dust! Quit being so paternalistic toward women...

"Unfortunately, women are socialized to repress any natural suspicion they feel about others, and to always be polite and nice": Leaving aside what constitutes "natural," there are just too many loud and obnoxious women in this world who have missed out on your rather antique "socialization."

"This woman had no need of a firearm:" My God, first you advocate "not always...accepting what others (especially men) tell them is in their interests..." and then do the same thing!

"...women can always listen instead to the bully-boys trying to persuade them that what they need is guns.." seems to forget that most women come to gun ownership as adults, fully capable of making their own decisions. Quit treating women like children.

[DeadEyeDyck]

158. I pack heat

I get in very late and always pack. My work takes me into some unsavory places. I hold a legal conceal carry permit. I have never drawn a gun on anyone but reserve the right to defend my life.

[rangersmith82]

189. She should have shot the POS in the face

Now he is free to prey on someone else.

Another crime prevented by a gun owner!!!