What Does the U.S. National Crime Victimization Survey Tell Us?

[LAGC]

FACT: Even with all the guns floating around out there, you are more likely to be Robbed and much more likely to be Assaulted by an unarmed criminal perpetrator than an armed one, where a gun would come in real handy for self-defense.

Robbery
By armed offenders 200,930
By unarmed offenders 248,420

Assault
By armed offenders 701,440
By unarmed offenders 2,967,070

FACT: Nearly 80% of all Rapes/Sexual Assaults are committed without a weapon, simply by the perpetrator over-powering the victim, where a gun would come in real handy for self-defense.

FACT: Victims who employed protective measures (brandishing a gun, shooting back, etc.) were OVER 10 TIMES MORE LIKELY to report that their efforts helped defuse the situation or prevent the crime, versus those who say employing protective measures hurt their situation.

Person using measure / Number of / Helped / Hurt
Measure taken by victim
Crimes of violence 2,797,070 66.0% 5.7%
Rape/sexual assault 128,520 53.0% 8.9%
Robbery 361,090 65.1% 2.5%
Assault 2,307,460 66.8% 6.1%
Aggravated 478,430 100 66.0% 4.0%
Simple 1,829,030 100 67.0% 6.6%

FACT: Of those victims who employed protective measures and said that they helped, 46.5% said they avoided injury or greater injury, 18.6% said they scared the offender off, 15.3% said it allowed them to escape, 6.4% said it allowed them to protect their property, and 6.9% said it protected other people.

Read it and weep, anti-gun folks, straight from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs -- Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0804.pdf

[Glassunion]

1. Some do not buy into victimization surveys... For them you'll have to do better.

Just sayin...

[rl6214]

2. Some will also say that if deadly force is not used against you...

you should not morally use leathal force to defend yourself.

Just sayin...

[Logical]

24. So true!

[oneshooter]

26. Others say just give it up and nothing bad will happen to you. n/t

[ThatPoetGuy]

3. Where's the data for other self-defensive measures? Pepper spray, mace, etc.

I'd be interested in seeing that, but that wasn't part of the purpose of the study.

[Maine_Nurse]

5. Fact: a properly applied bullet is rarely ineffective, unlike the other measures.

[spin]

8. But be aware that a handgun is not a particularly lethal weapon ...

and you can empty your weapon into an attacker and still end up severely injured or dead.

If you seek to stop an attack by using a firearm much depends on accuracy and shot placement, the caliber and type of ammunition you are using and to a certain degree luck. If your attacker is high on drugs or drunk, you might find that he is far more difficult to stop.

Of course, a miss from a .44 magnum could well be less effective than a hit from a .22.

[gejohnston]

13. true, but

the sight would of a .44 aimed at you would be more effective than the sight of say, any small pistol.

[spin]

33. I totally agree ...

When I first moved to Florida I lived with my mother and my step dad until I could find a job.

My wife had a cat which hated me, but loved her. The first night that we were in my step father's home the cat had got outside and my wife was worried.

She heard the caw meowing and woke me up. We quietly went to the door in order to not wake my parents up. We got the cat back inside and I decided to sit outside to smoke a cigarette.

I must have made enough noise to wake my step dad up. A week before, his truck had been broken into and his fishing gear had been stolen. Hearing noise outside the home, he grabbed his .22 magnum single action cowboy style revolver and went to the front door to check the situation out. He did look at the bedroom we were in and not noticing any lights through the crack under the door he assumed my wife and I were asleep.

I had finished my cancer stick. I walked to the front door and opened it. I found myself facing my step dad with the .22 magnum revolver in his hand.

He said, "Halt".

I raised my hands and said, "Roy, it's just me." Fortunately he didn't put a round in my stomach.

I found a job and moved. Several months later I stopped by my mom's house. During the visit, I asked her to show me the revolver Roy had pointed at me.

When she showed it to me, I said, "That can't be the same handgun. It's too small."

I was wrong.

[Maine_Nurse]

57. You are correct on many counts there...

It has been stated that the purpose of a handgun is to allow you to fight your way to a proper long gun. On the other hand, I live in the sticks and my loaded home firearms are as much for bears that try to climb into my kitchen (happened a couple years ago) as they are for the drug-seeking home invaders (also happened, along with 12 neighbors, a few years ago). So the .45-70, 12ga., and bedside SRH in .454 are pretty likely to be very effective as long as I do my part and get the hit. I'd even surmise that a miss from the .454 would be almost as good as a hit at close range--that was what I used on the bear as it's shoulders cleared the window sill on the way in and the blast on the firing end was nearly debilitating, making me wonder if I ruptured my eardrums. I can't imagine what the results on the other end would be. All kidding aside, the other loaded firearm in my house is a Ruger Mark II target .22 since I fire it so much it is like an extension of my arm (same for the wife) making it the most likely to get hits when needed. Not good for bear, but definitely fine for deterring two-legged vermin when you can dump 10 into an area the size of a teacup in 3 seconds at 25 yards.

[spin]

104. Yup. I have one of those Ruger Mark II target pistols ...

They are fine firearms and VERY accurate.

[ThatPoetGuy]

23. Fact: your statement is complete and total nonsense.

By giving the descriptor, "properly applied," you're tilting the results.

Pepper spray, when "properly applied," is rarely ineffective.

A fist, when "properly applied," is rarely ineffective.

Words, when "properly applied," are rarely ineffective.

That "properly applied" makes your statement meaningless. Possibly deceitful.

[Maine_Nurse]

58. Uhhh, pepper spray, fists, tear gas, etc are actually

sometimes very ineffective. I deal with people on a daily basis that have no problem walking through those things and continuing with their behaviors, as evidenced by the police reports I get at their admission and the times it has taken 3-8 of us to hold one down when needed. Drugs, mania, and psychosis are pretty amazing things, trust me.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

68. No it isnt.

Pepper spray, even when properly applied is not very effective - especially in areas of the country where the only kind of pepper spray normal people can get is pretty lame.

Fists, when properly applied can be utterly ineffective - especially when it is a woman facing a male assailant.

Words are utterly useless against someone who intends to do you harm.

[Starboard Tack]

71. Effective in taking 30,000 lives annually and costing tens of billions of dollars annually

in medical costs for those injured.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

80. Unimportant.

Suicide doesnt count. There went most of that 30k.

Of the remaining 11K or so, criminal acts account for about 10K of that. These also do not justify any restrictions on the law abiding.

Accidents account for ~1000 deaths per year. Actually a little less but trying to stick with round numbers here.

None of the above justifies restrictions on the law abiding, and frankly wouldn't even if the numbers increased by a factor of 10 or even 100.

[Starboard Tack]

81. You're obviously still learning this shit, because you are repeating nonsense

that has appeared many times on this forum. You also are showing your true colors. "Guns count. Human lives don't." Unless it's your life, of course.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

83. You're intentionally misrepresenting what I have said.

My RIGHTS count far more than some other life ever will.

If we have no rights, what value is our life?

No - I don't care about the death of a criminal during a crime. No, criminal use of a firearm will never justify forbidding me from using one legally. No, I will NEVER accept that the method someone chooses to kill himself somehow can justify leaving me disarmed. No, accidents from misuse of a tool do not and will not justify forbidding me to use the tool properly.

Maybe in your mind, the above are all adequate reasons to restrict the rights of the 300+ million who DIDN'T misuse a gun. If that is the case, you're invited to move someplace else which has a similar perspective. Basically every other country on earth.

I would love to know what I said which you consider "nonsense".

[Starboard Tack]

108. "My RIGHTS count far more than some other life ever will."

That pretty much says it all. Your RIGHTS are more important than the lives of others.
Suicides don't count in your mind.
The 11,000 other gun deaths are irrelevant to you.
Like your fellow toters, you describe your GUN as no more than a TOOL, like a table saw. There lies your NONSENSE.
Your tool, when used for it's manufactured purpose is to seriously injure or kill a human.

I have no desire to restrict the rights of 300+ million people, because 300+ million people have the good sense not to tote their guns around in public. I want to restrict the behavior of sociopaths, who feel that shooting people, in order to protect their property, is justified.

[rrneck]

111. Are "toters" sociopaths? nt

[Starboard Tack]

116. What do you think?

C'mon, you're a smart boy. You can figure it out.

[oneshooter]

118. "Are "toters" sociopaths?" Simple question, yes/ no answer. What are you scared of? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

119. Of course most are. Especially the CC toters. What's so difficult to figure out?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_if_someone_is_a_sociopath
so·ci·o·path
    Show IPA
noun Psychiatry .
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Glibness/superficial charm
Manipulative and conning
Grandiose sense of self
Lack of remorse, shame or guilt
Shallow emotions
Need for stimulation
Callousness/lack of empathy
Poor behavioral controls/impulsive nature
Irresponsibility/unreliability
Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Authoritarian
Secretive
Paranoid
Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
Conventional appearance
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Incapable of real human attachment to another
Unable to feel remorse or guilt
Narcissism, grandiosity (self-importance not based on achievements)


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_if_someone_is_a_sociopath#ixzz1WcvXA0dC

[rrneck]

126. Is someone who conceal carries a

knife a sociopath? How about a Phillips head screwdriver? Is a black belt in karate a sociopath? How about someone with AIDS? See how your emotional outrage based on soft science starts us down a gigantic slippery slope? Read a book sometime, we've been there before.

You're a bright boy. Surely you can figure it out.

[oneshooter]

180. Apparently he can't. Either he is afraid to answer, or , more likely ignoring the question.

Which is both rude and uncivilized. Perhaps a sign of other problems?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[petronius]

130. I haven't seen a more inept or self-serving long-distance-diagnosis since Dr. Frist

was on the scene... :eyes:

[rrneck]

120. Anybody can figure out

you have once again dodged another question. What's the matter? Can't you tell the difference between discussing and venting? This isn't a fucking group therapy session no matter how much you might wish it to be so.

Why don't you show a little more intellectual honesty and a little less emotional drama? Cmon, you're a bright boy.

[Starboard Tack]

124. It's all up there. Check the points you think apply

Glibness/superficial charm
Manipulative and conning
Grandiose sense of self
Pathological lying
Lack of remorse, shame or guilt
Shallow emotions
Incapacity for love
Need for stimulation
Callousness/lack of empathy
Poor behavioral controls/impulsive nature
Early behavior problems/juvenile delinquency
Irresponsibility/unreliability
Promiscuous sexual behavior/infidelity
Lack of realistic life plan/parasitic lifestyle
Criminal or entrepreneurial versatility
Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Authoritarian
Secretive
Paranoid
Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
Conventional appearance
Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Incapable of real human attachment to another
Unable to feel remorse or guilt
Narcissism, grandiosity (self-importance not based on achievements)
May state readily that their goal is to rule the world


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_if_someone_is_a_sociopath#ixzz1WcvXA0dC

[rrneck]

127. See #126. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

113. Well shit. All my guns are broken, or I'm using them wrong.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

115. Yep sure does.

My rights absolutely are more important than the lives of a criminal. Guess what? So are yours.

No, suicides are not and never will be a reason for my rights to be restricted.

No, criminal acts are not a reason to punish the law abiding.

Yes, a gun IS a tool.

You do realize you just called the entire state of Texas "sociopaths" right? I take that as a personal insult and consider it a violation of forum rules.

[Starboard Tack]

117. I called toters sociopaths. Not the entire state of Texas. See how you fit in.

Here is a list of ways to identify a sociopath. This list is from "Profile of a Sociopath." Is is a pretty good list of sociopathic indicators.

Glibness/superficial charm
Manipulative and conning
Grandiose sense of self
Pathological lying
Lack of remorse, shame or guilt
Shallow emotions
Incapacity for love
Need for stimulation
Callousness/lack of empathy
Poor behavioral controls/impulsive nature
Early behavior problems/juvenile delinquency
Irresponsibility/unreliability
Promiscuous sexual behavior/infidelity
Lack of realistic life plan/parasitic lifestyle
Criminal or entrepreneurial versatility
Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Authoritarian
Secretive
Paranoid
Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
Conventional appearance
Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Incapable of real human attachment to another
Unable to feel remorse or guilt
Narcissism, grandiosity (self-importance not based on achievements)
May state readily that their goal is to rule the world



(Obviously, in order to be a sociopath a person doesn't have to exhibit anything like all the above. Usually, the lack of a conscience, the manipulation of others, dishonesty and the inability to love and/or have lasting and profound personal relations and cruelty are key symptoms and often much more revealing than having been in trouble with the courts.)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_if_someone_is_a_sociopath

[We_Have_A_Problem]

125. I dont fit in with any of it.

However, since the State of Texas supports the use of lethal force to protect property, you absolutely are saying the state is made up of sociopaths. There are other states which allow lethal force to protect property as well - are they all sociopaths as well?

I have no lack of conscience. I am not dishonest. I do not manipulate or any of the other symptoms you have presented.

In fact, it is my sense of conscience and honesty that compel me to protect myself, my family and my property.

You may not like it, but you're directing your anger at the wrong person. The criminal is to blame - not the victim.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

131. And once again you insult.

CC is the only legal way I can carry.
My personal property is worth more than a criminal's life. Always will be.
It is not narcissistic or grandiose to believe that I am better than a criminal.
I am lacking in neither empathy nor social conscience. I do not see that allowing a criminal to make me a victim is somehow a net benefit.

You're welcome to keep attempting to insult me. Meanwhile, I will feel sorry for you that you have such low self-esteem that you value the life of a criminal above your own.

[Starboard Tack]

137. This has nothing to do with criminals or how I feel about them

We're discussing your behavior, not some criminal's behavior.
"CC is the only legal way I can carry." So your desire to carry a gun is so strong that you will resort to the only legal way of doing so. Are you saying you would carry openly if it were legal in your state?

"My personal property is worth more than a criminal's life. Always will be."
"It is not narcissistic or grandiose to believe that I am better than a criminal."
You think your shit is worth more than a criminal's life. Nothing grandiose or narcissistic about that, is there?

Don't worry, you aren't alone. Most toters agree with you. Problem is, that kind of thinking is not in tune with Democratic principles. Rather, it indicates the sociopathy found more often amongst RW Libertarians, Conservative Republicans and Teabaggers.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

140. Excuse me?

Uh - yes, I choose to carry legally, and in Texas, the only legal method is CCW. When OC becomes an option, I will consider that as an alternative. It would sure make my life easier as open carry would be a lot simpler on a bike (i ride a motorcycle most days).

No, there is nothing grandiose about believing my property is more valuable than a criminal's life. It is, in fact, the law in this state.

Your last paragraph appears to be a blatant violation of forum rules.

[rrneck]

133. Questions pending in post #126. nt

[krispos42]

152. Lives are more important than rights?

As you say, Mr. Cheney.

[Starboard Tack]

157. What's that supposed to mean?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

158. You and I are apparently equally stumped on that one...n/t

[krispos42]

163. Oh, nuttin', massah tack

I'll jes be in my little shack enjoyin' my life, suh.

[Starboard Tack]

165. Sorry, not following your train of thought.

But, I'd be happy to have an intelligent conversation whenever you feel up to it.

[krispos42]

169. That's a possibility

It's also possible that you are following it but don't want to admit it.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. And according to the DOJ, involved in 60-100 thousand lawful defensive uses per year.

Nice try, combining suicide and criminal use.

(though technically, I guess suicide is illegal)

[Starboard Tack]

139. The stats on lawful defense uses are anecdotal, in the main.

The deaths are real, including the suicides. What is lawful isn't always right. Texas has laws that allow you to shoot someone who is no threat to your person or the person of another. That is fucking medieval.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. While using red dot sights and dumbed down bullets.

After practicing killing with silhouette targets, naturally...

[Hoyt]

19. You're catching on. Were you the gunner who said he's prepared "clear houses" with his red dot?

"Clear houses" -- Christ you guys crack me up. That was almost as crazy as the toter who said he was trained to "dodge and shoot" in a crowd.

[DWC]

18. Hoyt, how do you feel about abortion?

Do you think (paraphrasing your words) "there are a few women that use birth control. Most, however, would rather take advantage of an 'opportunity' to abort a fetus even if birth control or another option could be just as effective"?

Taking life, Any life, is devastating to those that must make that decision and haunts them for the rest of their lives. But in the real world there are situations in which that decision must be made.

Your ridicule of those who are prepared to make that decision, whether it be a responsible adults who are prepared to defend themselves and those in their charge or women who must determine to terminate a pregnancy has gone beyond the bar of any modicum of civility.

Enough is Enough.

My normal salutation is Semper Fi but you, sir or madam, just do not deserve it.

[rl6214]

20. More mindless tripe, unless of course you are willing so provide evidence

to back it up?

"Gunners around here would rather shoot an unarmed teenager in back than use pepper spray."

"There are a few gunners that carry pepper spray. Most, however, would rather take advantage of an "opportunity" to shoot someone even if pepper spray or another option could be just as effective. They've been practicing for that unlikely event, buying the latest killing apparatus, etc. They are going to shoot as long as laws are friendly to them."

You have got to be the MOST dishonest person around here because of course you have absolutely NOTHING to back any of this BS up.

Now run along, you mom probably has dinner ready by now, then off to your basement to do your homework.

[spin]

31. Once again you show that you have a great imagination ...

I personally do know people who have concealed carry permits and also carry pepper spray. I am one.

Oddly enough, I do not know anyone who carries a concealed firearm who is looking for an "opportunity" to use it to shoot someone. Anyone with a speck of intelligence realizes that if you actually do have to shoot someone, even if it is entirely justified, you will face an enormous legal hassle as well as some serious psychological problems. I enjoy having nice dreams when I sleep, not nightmares.

If it were true that people with carry permits were looking for the chance to shoot someone, we would be reading a lot of stories about people who went to a bar and flashed a large roll of cash when they bought a drink. They would then leave the bar and wait for some fool that witnessed their wad of cash to try to rob them.

Probably the reason we do not read more stories where people with carry permits actually use their weapons to stop a mugging is because such people practice "situational awareness" which may mean that they don't walk down dark streets with a cell phone glued to their ear. Being alert to your surroundings and using commonsense may, in itself, be sufficient to deter most predators.

So of course, you will tell me to leave my handgun behind and simply rely on my situational awareness.

I am experienced enough to realize that you can do everything right and still end up dead. While my concealed handgun in no way insures that I will survive a violent attack, it does give me higher odds of doing so.

I do not expect that I will ever find myself in a situation where I will have to use my snub nosed revolver. I also do not expect that I will ever win a lotto in Florida, but I buy one ticket for every drawing. My snub nosed S&W Model 642 is so light and easy to carry that I could almost forget that I have it with me. It's like an insurance policy. You never expect to use it, but if it proves necessary it's damned nice to have one.

[SteveM]

89. I recall a study which indicated ANY sort of resistance to violent crimes...

was preferable to no resistance, in terms of injuries to the victim. I don't remember the source.

[DWC]

4. Great Post !!!! Great Information !!!! Thanks !!!! n/t

[spin]

6. A concealed weapon might come in real handy in both attacks ...

from an unarmed attacker as well as an armed attacker.

Especially if you are like me. I am 65 years old with degenerative disk disease and a candidate for a hip replacement. Twenty years ago, I might have been able to take on an unarmed attacker or possibly even an armed attacker using just my training in jujitsu.

Today I am realistic enough to realize that with my limp I may well be an attractive target for a predator. I would prefer to use what remains of my skills in jujutsu or the pepper spray which I carry. However, if I face an extremely dangerous individual who I am convinced has every intention of putting me in a hospital or six feet under, I may chose to use my snub nosed .38 caliber revolver which I carry in my front pants pocket.

But much depends on the situation. If my situational awareness fails me and I find myself confronted by someone who I believe merely wants my money, I will simply give my wallet to him. I can replace my money, my driver's license and my credit and debit cards but I can't replace my life or my health.

For those who will say that the chances of my ever finding myself in a situation where I might have to use my legally concealed weapon is extremely slim, I will agree but point out that it could happen. For those who will accuse me of being afraid to leave my house without my concealed weapon I can only point out some statistics.

Violent Crime — General

The odds of being a victim of a violent crime during adulthood are greater than 2 to 1. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin — February 2002)

More than one in three (35 percent) of adults are estimated to fall victim to violent crime. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin — February 2002)

In 2005, U.S. residents age 12 or older experienced an estimated 23 million violent and property crimes. (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey — September 2006)
http://www.witnessjustice.org/news/stats.cfm#violentcrime

I am far from a bloodthirsty individual who fantasizes about becoming a hero by shooting and killing some mugger. I have a deep regard for all life, both animal or human. I have little interest in being a hero especially if it involves shooting another person. I currently sleep well with enjoyable dreams. I don't need to have to live with the nightmares that shooting another person would cause, even if it was entirely justified.

Some who often post here have made such insinuations about those who legally carry concealed. I do know a large number of people who have carry permits and I have yet to meet one who looked forward to blowing some foolish criminal away. Maybe that is because the overwhelming majority of those that I know with a carry permit are shooters who often practice on pistol ranges and enjoy shooting as a hobby. Many are retired police or veterans of the military and not "mall ninjas".

edited for typos.

[Hoyt]

7. Report interesting. Did you notice how many offenders were thwarted without resorting to guns?

Heck, many more of the offenders/criminals were handled without any weapon, much less a gun.

Maybe the small percentage that can't walk out of their house without a gun or two ought to reconsider. But they won't.

[spin]

9. You have never answered my question on what tactics ...

you would suggest for unarmed individuals to stop an attack from a much larger attacker or one who is armed with a knife or a gun.

I await your wisdom.

[Hoyt]

10. If you are so overpowered by everyone, carry a stick, cane or something. You don't need a gun.

[Taitertots]

17. Why carry an obviously inferior weapon?

How effective do you think your grandmother would be using a cane against a determined attacker?

[oneshooter]

28. He believes that a 74yr old woman who CC a .357 Mag revolver

for self defence is "sick". Mom read that and said that he was an "idiot". I tend to believe her rather than him.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

72. Your Mom carries a CC .357 Magnum?

Well, that explains a lot.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Wow, sexist and ageist in one sentence.

I'm impressed.

[Starboard Tack]

101. If that's an example of how you comprehend the written word, then it helps explain your opinions

How on earth did you manage to extrapolate "ageist" and "sexist" from my comment, which was a reference to the apple not falling very far from the tree.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. Not clear to me how her age or gender is otherwise of interest.

Nor the caliber.

[Starboard Tack]

109. Ask Oneshooter. Seemed important to him.

Concentrate hard and you'll figure it out.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

88. My wife...

...carries either a .357, .41 or .44 magnum.

She has a real thing for magnum wheelguns.

Why? Simple - she doesn't want to have to shoot somebody more than once or twice to stop the threat. All three of those are excellent choices for a one-shot-stop.

[Starboard Tack]

102. How wonderful for you. What kinds of threat would cause you or her to shoot someone?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

128. I've already plainly stated

A threat to our person or property.

Thankfully, we've not had a need to discharge a firearm, but there have been a few circumstances where the display of one has, shall we say, induced someone to modify their intentions....

[Starboard Tack]

138. That is not a value shared by many Democrats.

Valuing property over human life, any human life, is despicable.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

142. True...

Many Democrats do not share that value. However, many do.

As we've covered with another poster, self defense and property defense, are not dependent upon party affiliation or political views.

If you're implying that I am somehow a member of another party, you should be aware that is a direct violation of forum rules.

If that was not your intended message, please clarify.

[Starboard Tack]

143. I don't infer your membership of another political party.

I take note of your views on gun toting and your preference for property over human life. Views which you share with extreme right wingers, not with the vast majority of Democrats. My purpose is not to insult you, but to hopefully change your attitude by pointing out inconsistencies in your position.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

145. There is no inconsistency.

I do not consider pacifism or concern for the criminal to be consistent with my morals.

Neither do a lot of democrats.

You may have noticed most of the discussion in this thread, and the entire guns section of the forum, stands on my side of the table.

You also make the mistake of assuming the criminal ONLY wants property. Yes, in some cases, we know after the fact that is all he wanted, but at the moment of the crime, the victim has no way to know it is only property being sought. As such, I see no problem with assuming the thief intends harm and has chosen to spend his life cheaply.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

150. Intelligent discussion.

Every time it starts you run away.

[petronius]

151. So all that nonsense about sociopathy you just posted: was that troll-weeding

or intelligent conversation? :shrug:

[krispos42]

153. So then you agree that people that risk their lives for property are despicable

So then, what's the big deal with shooting them when they try to do so?

[Starboard Tack]

159. Stealing property is despicable.

Shooting someone over property is even more despicable. Brandishing a weapon, unless one's life is in immediate danger is unlawful in most places outside of Texas, where, apparently it is OK to shoot a thief in the back as he is running away.

[oneshooter]

160. There you go again, telling less than the truth. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

162. Please explain what part is less then the truth

[krispos42]

164. Pay attention, Rightward.

There are damn few people on this board that will shoot a fleeing criminal in the back just because he's making off with a TV set, and there are damn few circumstances where such an act is even legal.

But there are pieces of property that are not so irreplaceable as a TV set. How about if somebody is running off with a portable fireproof lockbox that contains critical pieces of your identity? Would you kill a person that is trying to steal information that can ruin, I repeat RUIN your life and the lives of your entire family? That could wipe out your credit, your mortgage, and your retirement? That could get YOU or one of yours arrested for something that somebody else did with your stolen identity?

How is insurance going to "fix" that problem? How is that replaceable? How is that repairable? Buying you a new lockbox and replacing a smashed window pane ain't going to put the genie back in that bottle!


How about if somebody was making off with a laptop full of critical records of hundreds or thousands of people? You know, like the problems the DoD, the VA, and the SSA had with stolen laptops a couple of years ago.

[Starboard Tack]

166. None of those things would be worth taking a human life to protect. Sorry.

And what do you mean by "Rightward"?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

167. You're seriously suggesting

That someone should simply let a thief run away with something that could utterly destroy your life or the lives of potentially thousands of others rather than shoot him to stop him because it MIGHT kill him?

Wow ...just wow....

So tell me, what is your home address? I would like to come by and peruse your home and see what you have that I may want. After all, you have repeatedly stated that you have nothing you would stop a thief from taking, so I see that as a pretty good return on my investment of risk.

[Starboard Tack]

171. Please don't twist my words. I said nothing about letting a thief do anything.

We are talking about appropriate response to a situation. There are many ways to prevent theft without killing the thief. We don't shoot people in the back. We don't shoot people who are not a physical threat.
If you think any material object or piece of paper is worth a human life then you need to stand in front of a mirror and say "Wow...just wow..."

If you enter my home with criminal intent, I may just shoot you. But if I see you leaving with a bag of swag under your arm, I will chase you, hunt you down and retrieve my property. I will not shoot you, unless you threaten my life, or another's life. Period.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

173. Yeah you kinda did.

I find it an appropriate response to stop a thief using whatever method I choose. If he doesn't want to get a few extra holes in him, then he should find a new career.

I realize you do not see your property as worthy of protecting. I, however, see mine differently. So be it.

Criminals should be aware that getting killed is a very real occupational hazard.

[Starboard Tack]

174. If you want to engage in snark and gunslinger talk, do it with someone else

[We_Have_A_Problem]

175. No snark or gunslinger talk

Just clear English ripping holes in your argument.

You may want it one way, and you're welcome to your opinion. To expect others to always agree with you, and succumb to your wishes, well...that's just not going to happen.

[Starboard Tack]

177. "I realize you do not see your property as worthy of protecting."

That, my friend is snark. I would definitely protect my property and never said anything to the contrary.
"putting a few extra holes in someone to protect my property" is gunslinger talk. Very macho and maybe appreciated in some backslapping, beer chugging, good ole boy circles.

It isn't about how I want it. It is the law in most places. It was the law in the old west, too. You don't shoot people in the back. It is cowardly and dishonest and murder.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

178. Meh - your opinion.

You have stated your property is not worth a life. Hence, not worth protecting.

As far as the rest, you may perceive it as "gunslinger talk" but it isn't. If you feel it is "macho", then again, that is your view. You're welcome to your opinion.

In the "old west", it was never the law. If a criminal got shot running away, it was considered overall a GOOD thing. Hollywood's representation of the "old west" is very inaccurate.

[Starboard Tack]

179. "You have stated your property is not worth a life. Hence, not worth protecting"

You obviously have comprehension issues. I would protect my property with all the force and ingenuity necessary. Taking another's life is not an option for me, as long as my own life is not being threatened. I am not a religious person, but I do believe in karma and that we all have a soul. Nobody is going to steal my soul and that's what would happen if I killed someone purely over property.
I think, if you want to test it, you'll find my opinion would be shared by the members of the jury. You will find a very small percentage of folk who think that property trumps life.

[krispos42]

170. Interesting reply.

I can shoot a man who was going to kill me, but apparently I can't shoot a man that was only going to cripple me for life, 'cuz that's not worth taking a human life to protect.

Thankfully, that's only your opinion.



Noun

starboard (plural starboards)

1. The right hand side of a ship, boat or aircraft when facing the front, or fore or bow. Starboard does not change based on the orientation of the person aboard the craft.

[Starboard Tack]

172. A little knowledge can be dangerous.

When sailing on a starboard tack, the wind blows from the starboard (right), causing the sails to fill and push them to port (left) causing the boat to heel (lean) toward port.
When two boats are on a potential collision course, the vessel on the starboard tack has right of way.

I don't know what you mean by "cripple me for life". If you mean physically cripple you then you would be justified. If you mean financially, no.
It is not my opinion. It is the law.

Minnesota's self-defense law contains a "duty to retreat" provision. A person facing a threat has a duty to retreat where practical, before responding with "reasonable force." If an attack is sudden retreat might be unrealistic or create a risk of bodily harm. In order to protect you, your loved ones, or your property, in some situations there may be no reasonable alternative to the use of reasoanble force in self-defense.

What is "reasonable force?" There must be thousands of court cases discussing this, in various situations. The idea is that the level of force used in self-defense should be commensurate with the perceived threat level at the time.

[krispos42]

181. Apologies

I remembered it as being the side of the boat the boom was on, e.g., wind from starboard moves the boom to port. My bad for the confusion.


As to the rest of your post, this is what I find problematic in general, in that we are pretty much free to inflict life-destroying actions on people just as long as they aren't physically hurt. Every single day, for example, spouses abuse their mates, turning them into twisted shadows of their former selves. Making them dysfunctional, emotionally stunted, suicidal. So do schoolyard bullies, or workplace bullies. The casual verbal cruelty that destroys lives goes virtually unpunished. The casual financial cruelty also goes virtually unpunished.

We make a big hue and cry when a gay middle-schooler kills himself because he was literally teased to death. And maybe the tormenters get a stern talking-too by their parents. But if he had punched-out one of his tormenters? Oooooo, no, we can't have that! He'll be expelled.

If somebody clamped a pair of vice-grips on your testicles for 3 years, that person would be in jail for years. But three years of stolen-identity hell? Meh, who gives a shit? Bernie Madoff destroys hundreds or thousands of retirements, putting those people in positions of emotional toil and pain, essentially forcing them to work a decade or more. Hell, the only reason he'll die in prison is because he was old when he went in. The banksters are now, as we speak, stealing homes from people by wrongly foreclosing on them. And they got bailouts, and performance bonuses for getting the bailouts!

*sigh* It's getting late. Rant over.

[oneshooter]

100. Meaning what? Do you also believe that it is "sick" for her to be able to defend herself? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

103. Just means the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

I'm sure you all have wonderful gun stories to tell each other. Must be a real hoot.

[oneshooter]

105. But you would prefer that she didn't have it, n/t

[Starboard Tack]

110. I would prefer that none of you toted your weapons in public.

You want to have a family shootathon, be my guest.

[spin]

107. I remember my mother telling me of how she used a S&W LadySmith revolver ...

to stop an individual who had been hiding behind some bushes and rushed her when she was walking home after her bus ride home from work.

She fired two shots over his head and he ran the other direction. She had the little .22 in her purse with her hand on it as she was walking. The area she lived in was mostly rural so the shots endangered no one. This incident occurred in the 1920s in Pennsylvania. At that time the LadySmith was a very popular firearm for women to carry for self defense.

My mother was an excellent shot and could have easily shot her attacker but all's well that ends well. I took her to the range when she was in her 80s and she could still shoot a .45 auto.

Yup, she did tell me many interesting stories about firearms. Most involved my grand dad.

You wouldn't understand why your post brought me back some fond memories. Thanks anyway.

[Starboard Tack]

114. Nice story, but we are no longer in the 1920s.

Some of us have moved along during the last 90+ years.

[spin]

121. And some women, like my daughter, still carry a S&W revolver in their purse ...

the difference now is that my daughter had to get a concealed weapons permit while none was required in the 1920s. But my daughter does carry a more powerful handgun than my mother did. She packs a .22 magnum S&W Model 351 PD.



My mother's gun was an early model S&W LadySmith chambered for .22 Long.



Another difference is that my daughter would never purposefully shoot warning shots over an attackers head.

My mother successful stopped an attack which might have resulted in her death. If she would have died that night I would not be here and neither would my daughter or two grandsons.

My daughter once used a revolver to stop an intruder who was breaking into our Tampa home and was halfway through the sliding glass door he was forcing open.

The intruder noticed my daughter as she walked into the kitchen and announced, "I'm going to rape you."

She raised a S&W Model 25-2 .45 acp revolver and drew down on him. He ran. The only reason she did not shoot him was I had told her to never shoot anyone unless they were totally inside the house. Had she died that night, I would not have my two grandsons to enjoy and I would have lost my only child.



I'm glad that my daughter and I were not among those who, as you call it, "moved along".

[Starboard Tack]

122. Nice pictures, but what does home invasion have to do with toting?

[spin]

132. Well my mother was "toting" ...

when she was attacked.

Violent crime occurs both in the home and outside the home. It's your choice how you plan to deal with a violent attack. Some of us prefer to have a range of options available. Of course, using a firearm is the last option a responsible and intelligent person ever wants to use.

My daughter and I have had martial arts training and we carry pepper spray. We also practice situational awareness to avoid potential problems. Both of us also have a background in shooting handguns. For us, carrying a firearm is a commonsense decision.

For you, maybe not.

[Starboard Tack]

134. Look, they are both good stories, but neither has anything to do with CC today.

Pepper spray, martial arts and situational awareness training are all very sensible, as is having a 12 gauge at home. Carrying a handgun around is a tad over the top, IMO, and doesn't fall into the category of COMMON sense.

[X_Digger]

135. And who are you to set that line?

Your distinction is arbitrary, based on your own opinions and feelings, not based in reality.

Good thing you don't get to make that decision for anyone other than yourself.

[rrneck]

136. Bullshit. Prove it. nt

[spin]

141. Why is it a tad over the top...

For a woman like my daughter who is 5' 2" and weighs just over 100 pounds on a good day to carry a firearm to defend herself against a much larger attacker? Pepper spray is fine but not infallible. Martial arts for a person her size is more to provide a woman a chance to escape an attack and run. Of course, there is no guarantee that a handgun will stop an attack from a determined individual who may be high on drugs. Still firearms are often used successfully to stop or deter attacks.

Why is it a tad over the top for an individual like me who is 65 years old and has degenerative disk disease and is a candidate for a hip replacement to carry a concealed hand gun to thwart an attacker who intents to seriously injure or kill? I have a handicapped sticker to enable me to have a shorter walk when I shop. I have a limp. A predator may view me as an easy victim.

Why is it not commonsense for an male who is much younger than me and in far better physical condition to carry a firearm if he lives in a dangerous neighborhood with many instances of violent crime? He might be one hell of a tough guy with plenty of training in the martial arts and still be at a serious disadvantage if he is faced by one or more attackers who are armed with firearms. In real life, unlike in the movies, even with extensive training it is very difficult to successfully stop an attack by multiple attackers even if they are unarmed.

Since violent crime is not limited to only bad neighborhoods, why does it not make commonsense for an individual who lives in an upscale neighborhood and who has the experience and training necessary to obtain a weapons permit and carry a handgun if he sees value in doing so when he is out and about?

It may not make commonsense to you to carry a firearm but in most states it is legal if you meet certain requirements. You may have thought carefully about what you would plan to do if you were attacked and you might have a solution that will work for you in your current situation. Others may have reached a different conclusion and determined that carrying a firearm makes sense for them.

Why do you consider that your opinion is far superior to others who have a different view? Are you an expert on self defense? If so, please share your views with the rest of us who lack your knowledge and your skills.

What works for you is not necessarily true for everybody else. I respect your opinion but consider it somewhat shortsighted and foolish when you try to apply it to all people in all situations in a nation as large and diverse as ours.

[Starboard Tack]

144. " Why do you consider that your opinion is far superior to others who have a different view?"

I don't. And I don't have any magical solutions to the hypothetical scenarios you presented. My opinions result from personal experience and the education I have received by participating in this forum. The conclusions I have reached, so far, indicate that toting of guns by more individuals is not a solution to the problem of violence in our society, but rather a contributor. The more handguns sold, the more are available to those who would do harm with them. Many people, including cops are killed with their own weapons. I think toting is foolhardy and delusional, regardless of it's legality.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

146. If you are defining "many" as...

...greater than 2, then yes, your statement is accurate.

If, on the other hand, you intend it to mean a significant percentage, then no, it isn't even close to the truth.

[Starboard Tack]

149. When 10,000 gun homicides happen annually, those left grieving

don't care about percentages. Every one was a human life, not a percentage of one.
If percentages are so important to you, then why would you ever carry a gun?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

168. No - they don't care.

However, those people are not justification for the removal of a right from everyone else in the nation who had nothing to do with the situation.

Yes, it is a tragedy for those involved. Never said otherwise. On a national scale though, it is utterly unimportant.

[spin]

147. That is your opinion and I respect it. However I disagree ...

The object of allowing honest and qualified citizens to carry firearms is NOT to reduce crime or act as a solution to violence in our society.

I have a concealed weapons permit and I definitely do not view myself as a cop or a vigilante. This is what Florida has to say about the use of lethal force.

Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense

***snip***

Q. Are there special laws that apply to the use of Handguns?

A. Yes, special laws apply anytime anyone uses deadly force, whether or not the weapon is concealed. Florida law defines deadly force as force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. When you carry a handgun, you possess a weapon of deadly force. The law considers even an unloaded gun to be a deadly weapon when it is pointed at someone.

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

***snip***

Q. When can I use deadly force in the defense of another person?

A. If you see someone who is being attacked, you can use deadly force to defend him/her if the circumstances would justify that person's use of deadly force in his/her own defense. In other words, you "stand in the shoes" of the person being attacked.

Q. What if I see a crime being committed?

A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter. emphasis added
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

While it is true that those who have concealed weapons permits are not angels, they are known for committing very few crimes with their concealed weapons.

For example since Florida allowed "shall issue" concealed carry in 1987, the state has issued 2,031,106 concealed weapons permits of which 843,463 are currently valid. Only 168 carry permits have been revoked over the 23 year time frame for a crime committed that involved the utilization of a firearm after the license was issued. source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Licenses can be revoked for a number of reasons such as drawing your firearm in a situation which upon review did not meet the qualifications for legitimate self defense. For example:

Q. What if I point my handgun at someone but don't use it?

A. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.

Example: In a 1987 case, a woman refused to pay an automobile mechanic who she thought did a poor job repairing her car. They argued about it, and the mechanic removed the radiator hose from the car so she couldn't drive it away. She reached into her purse, pulled out an unloaded gun, and threatened to kill the mechanic if he touched her car again. The mechanic grabbed the gun and called the police.

The woman was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to serve a mandatory three-year prison term. The fact that the gun was not loaded was irrelevant. Even though she was the mother of three dependent children and had no prior criminal record, the statute does not allow for parole. Her only recourse was to seek clemency from the Governor.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

Therefore, your assertion that allowing more people to legally carry concealed weapons will contribute to more crime is basically false as while there are a few instances in which a person with a concealed weapons permit has misused his weapon to commit a murder or a robbery, the number is statistically insignificant and is offset by the number of people who have been able to save themselves from serious injury or death by using their concealed weapon for legitimate self defense.

But technically you did not specify that allowing honest and qualified people to carry firearms causes an increase in crime. I definitely agree that if a violent felon carries a concealed weapon he is indeed dangerous and may contribute to firearm crime. That is why I oppose merely giving such a person a light slap on the wrist, as all too often happens in many states, when he is caught carrying a firearm . I also am furious that the management of the ATF allowed thousands of firearms to "walk" from mom and pop gun stores after they were purchased by individuals that the ATF knew would deliver them to gun smugglers. These weapons have already resulted in death in both the United States and in Mexico and will undoubtedly be used to facilitate more crime.

You also say that the more handguns sold, the more are available to those who would misuse them. Interestingly enough, the sales of all firearms including handguns has skyrocketed in recent years but the violent crime rate has fallen.

[Starboard Tack]

156. You bring up many good points and the Fla piece is very educational.

Very different to Texas, where one is legally allowed to shoot people who are running away. That would be murder/manslaughter in most parts of the world. It is that kind of insanity that motivates me to participate in this forum.
I am not convinced that the increased sales in handguns has any direct relation to the decrease in violent crime. I think there are many factors at work there, including the reduction of gang warfare in places like Los Angeles.
I must say that your honesty and civility in discussing the issues is most refreshing, compared to others here. If all were like you, I, for one, would be far less vocal in my opposition to toting.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThatPoetGuy]

38. This study actually shows that unarmed self-defenders did better than armed ones.

You might want to look at facts, rather than biased OPs.

Those who fought back with weapons prevented the crime 72% of the time. Those who fought back without weapons prevented the crime 81% of the time.

This study directly contradicts virtually every pro-gun argument. And yet the pro-gun people will spin it to trick people into believing falsehoods.

[Hoyt]

42. Exactly! But now that you've pointed that out, the toters will just say guns are a useful tool or

some other BS. They are all for facts, unless the facts clearly show they are full of it.

[spin]

62. Of course, a handgun is absolutely worthless ...

It's hard to imagine why anyone would consider carrying one for self defense.


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Have a look again, at the rate of injury for non-resistance, resistance with anything but a gun and

resistance with a gun, and oh wait, you're never going to do that. Nevermind.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Preventing the crime is not actually the important piece.

Not suffering injury, is.

I'm certainly not going to shoot someone for trying to take my stuff. I'm only going to shoot to prevent imminent harm.

Reading comprehension for the win.

[Taitertots]

96. No, it says the exact opposite

Because people with guns count in both groups.

[spin]

21. Why did I never think of that?

If I ever face an attacker armed with a handgun who is fifteen feet away, I will just attack him with my cane.

Maybe, he will be laughing so hard, that he will miss when he tries to shoot me.

I think I will continue to rely on Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.

For your information, fighting with a cane is a martial art and to be effective it requires training. Watching a video or buying a book on cane fighting does not prepare you for using one in a "real life or death" encounter. I don't know of any martial arts courses that teach the art of how to fight with a cane or within several hundred miles.

At one time I did consider buying a Cold Steel sword cane.

Watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7ozTWYvk2o&feature=player_embedded

The obvious problem with using a sword cane is that our justice system would be more prone to prosecute me for using such a device for self defense than they would if I used my firearm. If I made it through the criminal justice system, I would likely face a civil lawsuit. Knifes and swords have a nasty reputation.

I have over 40 years experience in using a handgun. I have a concealed weapons permit. It would be extremely foolish for me to decide to stop carrying my concealed handgun and instead decide to rely on a cane for self defense. As I have stated, I have absolutely no training in how to use a cane nor can I find any courses near to me.

I personally believe that it might be good advice to not bring a cane to a gun fight. You may feel differently. That is your choice.

I am not a fool.

[Hoyt]

36. So you'd shoot an unarmed man at 15 feet? And you're right, most states don't allow carrying swords

Yet, gunners see no issue with carrying a gun or two.

[spin]

54. Where did I say I would shoot an unarmed man at 15 feet?

I said, "If I ever face an attacker armed with a handgun who is fifteen feet away, I will just attack him with my cane." And I also said, "I personally believe that it might be good advice to not bring a cane to a gun fight. You may feel differently. That is your choice."

[Hoyt]

55. He's not gonna pull his gun until he is right on you. Unless you have way to identify an attacker

before they are on you and pull their weapon, then preparing for 15 feet is crazy unless you are doing a drug deal or something where two black limos pull up under a deserted bridge.

Well, maybe you are one of the carriers deluding themselves into thinking they may have to "clear a house" one day. If so, such delusions are reason enough to deny a permit IMO.

[gejohnston]

56. do you watch a lot of

Starsky and Hutch reruns on Hulu?
Do you write crime novels?
I wrote a short story once about, oh never mind.

[Hoyt]

59. Actually, I was assuming you guys watch/read this stuff as part of you mandatory "training."

My point is simple, you aren't likely to shoot people at 15 feet unless you are in a gang war, drug deal, or something similar . . . . . . or have some way of identifying a criminal at a distance before they do anything.

[rl6214]

70. "Actually, I was assuming"...

Yup, there's your problem right there. You know when you ASSume things you make an ASS out of you, not ...

[AtheistCrusader]

22. As a tool using mammal, I choose the best tools available.

You can use a cane if you want.

[Hoyt]

37. Killing an unarmed man with a gun should be a crime if one could have handled it without gun fire..

[AtheistCrusader]

44. And it is.

So no worries.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

[We_Have_A_Problem]

91. Ooooh...

...it isnt. sorry. Fail.

Nothing in that statute requires the assailant be armed to resist with lethal force.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. Hard to be assaulted with the level of danger implied by that statute

by a guy that doesn't have any arms.


(I am being facetious. It is excusable contingent upon the credible danger presented by the threat, not whether he has a gun or a knife, or gingivitis)

[We_Have_A_Problem]

93. Yet you implied

that the statute in question made it illegal to use a firearm against a criminal who didn't have one.

Did i misunderstand? Sometimes the flow of conversation here can get a little confusing. I'm being serious - not snarky or sarcastic.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. I was being sarcastic.

To a sarcastic poster.

Sorry if I misled you.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

95. Ah ok...

The poster to which you responded was being serious, so...

No worries - glad we cleared that up.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

90. Why?

A 250lb man does not NEED a weapon to kill a 125lb woman with his bare hands.

Why should the lack of a weapon on the criminal render the victim defenseless?

[krispos42]

154. If...

So it's my obligation to put down the item that will guarantee me being able to stop an attacker without harm to myself?


In order to stop an attacker, I should also receive injuries AND run the risk of losing the fight?


What the hell are you trying to say? This isn't a reality TV show. It's not a title match. It's not the Olympics. It's not a sporting event. It's not a fight over honor. Do you have any clue as to what you're trying to say?


An attack by definition does not have the intended victim as a willing participant. And the intended victim, being forced unwillingly into violent conflict with no rules, honor, no guarantees, and no referees, is under no obligation to fight fair as long as there is a clear threat to the victim or nearby innocents.


I'll kill an unarmed man with a gun if he comes towards me while threatening me. No problem! Why? Because a) I don't really know he's unarmed or simply doesn't have a visible weapon, or will grab an object in my house to used as an improvised weapon, b) I don't know if he's alone, and c) because I have virtually no combat experience or related skills. I've never boxed, or wrestled, or learned martial arts. I haven't been in a fight since middle school. And I don't spend my life being a predator of humans.

So yeah, I'll gun down the 160-pound hands-empty 20-year-old that's breaking into my house if he's stupid enough to move towards me or mine after he sees I've got a gun. Because I KNOW that after I shoot him, me and mine will leave the conflict with him completely unharmed, hale, and healthy. And that is the primary goal that I, as the intended victim of a violent assault, am looking for.

If YOU want to get into an even fight with an attacker, that is of course your option. Assuming you and yours live, I hope you can deal with the physical and mental trauma that is inflicted.

[Starboard Tack]

73. No need to insult mammals.

[rrneck]

76. Explain thst comment. If you can. nt

[rrneck]

12. Good luck. nt

[Taitertots]

16. If you have a gun you can thwart offenders without using it too n/t

[Hoyt]

41. Yea, but the impact on society ain't worth it. I don't care how good guns make you feel.

They are not good for society, especially when toters can't refrain from carrying them in public parks, restaurants, churches, nursery schools, etc.

[Taitertots]

97. There is no negative impact and I don't carry a gun

"They are not good for society"
Support your assertion. There are more guns than ever before and crime remains low.

[Logical]

27. How does having a gun make it worse?

[DanTex]

14. NCVS tells us a lot.

The first thing NCVS tells us is that defensive or protective measures do not require the use of a gun. Protective measures, according to NCVS, include things like running away and calling for help, along with using weapons other than guns. NCVS shows that self-defense using other means is far more common than self-defense with a gun, and that self-defense with a gun is generally not more effective than other means. As Tim Lambert explains, to determine the effectiveness of different forms of self defense in preventing injury, you need to determine whether injury occurs before or after the protective measure. And by and large, the data shows that being injured prevents a victim from using a gun more than a gun prevents a victim from being injured:

Over all means of self-protection against robbers, 34% were injured before they did anything and 7% after. For gun defenders, 13% were injured before they used the gun, and 8% after. The results seem quite clear: gun defence does nothing to reduce your chances of injury, but injury prevents victims from using guns for defence.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2002/02/dgu-00056.php


The second thing NCVS tells is is that the DGU estimates that pro-gun advocates like to trot around are absurd overestimates (like Kleck's 2.5M). The number of DGUs each year, according to NCVS, is in the range of 50K to 100K per year. Also, the NCVS data shows that there are far more criminal gun uses per year than defensive uses (as have all studies that have measured defensive and criminal gun uses with the same methodology).


Something NCVS does not tell us anything about is homicides. So in order to determine whether a gun is effective in preventing death, you need to look beyond victim surveys. On this topic, some studies have shown that owning a gun, carrying a gun, or resisting crime with a gun actually increases your chance of being killed. For example, there's this study, though unfortunately only the abstract is available:
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/11/science/don-t-resist-robbery-chicago-study-warns.html
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=101318
Others have argued that it is difficult to draw the conclusion that resisting is unwise, because police reports don't always get the event sequences down precisely enough say whether the violence of the attack caused the resistance or vice versa. At the end of the day, though, despite the sensational DGU stories that get circulated, there is very little evidence that a gun provides much protection from crime beyond what other non-firearm defensive measures and common sense can provide.

[Logical]

25. The antis are taking time to try to respond.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThatPoetGuy]

35. The antis took time to read the study, rather than the misrepresentations.

It shows, among other things, that unarmed protective measures were more effective than armed ones.

You might want to take the time to read it too, before buying into r....-...g lies.

[Logical]

40. You realize that if I carry concealed I am unarmed if I do not pull my weapon?

Do you understand that? So I can let the robbery proceed and hand over my wallet, which I would in most cases, and then having a gun hurt nothing.

[ThatPoetGuy]

43. You realize that's a non-sequitur?

Perhaps you're arguing with someone else, but your statement in no way relates to the OP's misleading statements... or your snide comments about the "antis" taking time to read the study, which you didn't bother to read.

[Logical]

45. LOL....where did I say the antis were taking time to read the study? If you read...

my OP like you read the study then I am worried about you.

[ThatPoetGuy]

47. First, you said it in reply #25. And second, you just outed yourself as a multiple-account troll.

So you post OPs as LAGC and respond to them as Logical, huh?

Sounds so very honest.

[Logical]

49. You are really embarassing yourself now.....

First off my exact post was "The antis are taking time to try to respond"

Where on any planet does that mean I said you were reading the study? Really, I want to know how you got that from the statement above.

And by "My OP" I meant the "The antis are taking time to try to respond" which is the thread we are in RIGHT NOW discussing.

Jesus, are do you lose it easy!

[ThatPoetGuy]

50. Oh, so you don't know what "OP" means. Got it.

And please don't project your hysteria onto me.

[Logical]

52. LOL....you are losing it. So I guess I am not a "multiple account troll" now.

You are helping the pro-gun side more than any pro-gun poster!

[Logical]

48. And since your temper is hurting your logic.....

All I meant is that if I have a gun and do not use it I would still be categorized in the unarmed category. So having a gun does not mean you HAVE to use it.

Now you can get outraged again.

[Starboard Tack]

74. What do you mean by "have a gun and not use it"?

If you tote it, you are armed. That is using it.

[rrneck]

77. How is he using it? nt

[Glassunion]

78. Simple... If you have your car keys in your pocket... You are driving.

[Starboard Tack]

79. That would be subjective

One may say "for security", another may say "as a fashion statement", another may "to intimidate goblins", another may say "it makes me feel like a real man"
When you strap it on you are using it, just like clicking that seatbelt.

[rrneck]

82. So

the use, according to you, depends on the subjective interpretation of others. How does that subjective interpretation relate to the Bill of Rights?

[krispos42]

155. A woman is with her family at a lake for a vacation

She decided one day to get away from the others, so she packs a lunch and hops into the little outboard fishing boat on the dock.

She motors out onto the lake until she's nice and far from shore, stops the motor, and lies back in the boat with here iPod and a good book.

A little while later, she become aware of a game warden's powerboat pulling up alongside her, puts down the book, pulls out her earbuds, and says "Yes, officer, can I help you?"

"Good afternoon, ma'am. I'm just checking fishing licenses, so if you could produce yours I'll be happy to leave you be," replies the warden, eying the rods, buckets, and nets in the boat.

"Officer, I'm sorry, but I'm not fishing. This is my husband's and sons' stuff. I don't fish. At all."

"Ma'am, I'm going to have to issue you a citation for fishing without a license," said the game warden, pulling out his ticket book.

"But I wasn't fishing!" she cried out.

"Sorry, ma'am, but you're in a fishing boat full of fishing equipment. I'm going to have to give you a summons."

"Well, you'd better get a good lawyer for your rape trial then!" the woman told him sternly.

The game warden looked up, startled. "But I haven't laid a hand on you, ma'am! What are you talking about?"

"You have no permit but the equipment handy, don't you?" replied the woman with dangerous innocence.


* * * * * * * * *

"Starboard Tack". Hmmmm... right-side sail placement. Interesting choice of username.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

176. Not even remotely true.

Armed, yes, but that does not equate to using a firearm.

Feel free to believe that though. It certainly does illustrate the degree to which you will ignore actual facts in favor of your prejudices.

[petronius]

46. From which table do you conclude unarmed measures are "more effective"?

Table 71 suggests they're more common - not really a surprise - but I see nothing about effectiveness...

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThatPoetGuy]

29. This whole thing is deceitful. Shame on you.

You said that the added benefits were the result of "protective measures (brandishing a gun, shooting back, etc.)" You tried to imply that "protective measures" meant guns. But it didn't. The study doesn't say anything remotely like what you want it to say.

The study gave very positive results for "protective measures," yes.

But here's what is included as "protective measures."
"Attacked offender with weapon
Attacked offender without weapon
Threatened offender with weapon
Threatened offender without weapon
Resisted or captured offender
Scared or warned offender
Persuaded or appeased offender
Ran away or hid
Got help or gave alarm
Screamed from pain or fear
Took other measures."

Based on that list, what was the most effective "preventive measure?"

What preventive measure led to the least completed crimes?

What preventive measure stopped assaults, rapes, and robberies most effectively?

Wanna guess?

Here's a hint:

It doesn't involve weapons.

The most effective preventive measure in that study was,

"Screamed from pain or fear."

[rrneck]

32. Which table were you looking at? Thanks in advance. nt

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Atypical Liberal]

51. Excellent, excellent post.

It just reinforces what I've said all along:

If you have no means to defend yourself, you have three choices when faced with a violent attacker:

1) Flee if you are fast enough.
2) Submit if you are tough enough.
3) Engage in a physical contest of strength with your attacker if you are strong enough.

In every case, the weak are at the mercy of the strong.

There is no doubt that a firearm is a huge equalizer in the face of a violent criminal, and your data shows it.

[DanTex]

53. Actually, the data doesn't show that at all.

The data doesn't come anywhere close to showing that firearms are more effective than any other means of self-protection. The OP claims that, but that's just because the OP doesn't explain that "protective measures", according NCVS, includes not just using a gun, but many other measures, like calling for help.

You are free to believe that guns provide effective protection from crime. But don't kid yourself that there's statistical evidence supporting this opinion.

[Atypical Liberal]

61. Doesn't sound that way to me.

Well, I suppose it's possible that calling for help is just as affective as pointing a gun at an assailant, but somehow I'm somewhat skeptical of that idea.

[DanTex]

63. I get that you're skeptical, but the data is the data. See my post #14.

I get that you honestly believe a gun provides highly effective defense against crime. But I don't get why y'all need to pretend that NCVS data shows something that it clearly does not.

[Atypical Liberal]

65. It's highly suggestive.

If victims of violent assault were able to use "protective devices" to help themselves, it seems pretty clear to me what was going on.

But maybe they just used harsh language?

[DanTex]

66. Actually, that's "self-protective measures" not "protective devices". "devices" is your word.

Despite what seems "pretty clear" to you, the NCVS actually breaks down the protective measures by type, so you don't need to speculate. According to table 70 of the survey results linked in the OP, only 1.3% of the protective measures were classified as "attacked offender with weapon" and only 0.6% "threatened offender with weapon". Kinda changes the picture quite a bit, wouldn't you say?

You see, the story the OP was peddling -- that NCVS shows how common and effective gun use is for self-defense -- is just the standard misleading pro-gun nonsense, but this is completely at odds with the data. The numbers show that the vast majority of "protective measures" don't involve a gun. And if you look at NCVS more closely (e.g. see my post #14), you find that use of a gun is not more effective than other non-gun means of self-protection.


What's funny in all this is that (unbeknownst to the OP) the pro-gun side generally tries to downplay NCVS data on self-defense with a gun, precisely because NCVS data shows that DGU is a very rare event.

[Atypical Liberal]

67. OK, you win.

I will have to read the damn data now.

[Atypical Liberal]

69. You are correct.

Most of the self-protective measures did not involve a weapon.

[DanTex]

75. Appreciate the honesty.

It would be nice if more people on any side of any issue were more willing to look at data honestly like this. Cheers.

Anyway, here's a study about defensive gun use you might be interested in (don't know if you've seen it before). It argues that NCVS severely underestimates the number of DGUs, by a factor of 20 or more.
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

I should point out that I believe this study to be pretty worthless (for reasons I won't get into right now), and that several other researchers that have taken serious issue with Kleck's methodology. Nevertheless, it is a peer-reviewed study by an established criminologist, and you'll probably like what it has to say.

[ileus]

60. My only hope is the state continues to allow my rights to choose my mode of keeping safe.

Maybe I carry one of my nice safety devices, maybe I choose to take the risk.

[DWC]

64. Honest question

There are well over 300,000,000 people in the US.

Approximately 10,000,000 people or less carry a defensive handgun in public (cc or oc) =< 3% of the total population.

Of those who chose to resist the violent crime it would follow that only 3% or less would have the defensive handgun option while 100% had the option to yell, fight, or...

It appears that resisting with a weapon of some type is a positive response. It would seem that a person with a handgun and trained in its use should have the best probability of a successful defense.

Your thoughts?

Semper Fi,

[SteveM]

99. May be redundant, with my post below...

We can argue and speculate about what is the best measure from data taken in the aggregate, but the main point is folks have the right to carry self-defense measures, up to and including guns.

I think the preferable use of a gun depends greatly on the nature of the threat. There are places on 6th Street in Austin (an "entertainment" district that now resembles the last beer/piss stink day of a Florida college weekend) where I would be more comfortable using a pepper spray; there is another area on the same street where I would prefer a revolver (3 shootings within the last 2 yrs.), but I try not to go there or anywhere some thug is taking lab exercises to fulfill street cred requirements. But some folks can't avoid that luxury due to job/living requirements, and the idea of "just moving" is spoken from a mythical upper-middle income perspective.

Everyone should have the lawful option to bear arms, even if the situation usually means "lesser" measures of self-defense can be taken. "Usually" is such a sometimes thing.

[SteveM]

98. I think the data has put to rest the idea that "no resistance" is best policy...

The "no resistance" philosophy, so prevalent in the 70s and for some time afterward, held that a victim was less likely to sustain injury from an attack than if the victim resisted. This "compliance is best" notion flew in the face of self-defense outlooks then, and the data now seems to show it is a flawed notion now.

How one chooses (if they have such a luxury) a self-defense/resistance strategy is probably dependent on the nature of the attack, and the "weapons" carried/available. I would prefer pepper spray if a group of drunken frat rats happen to think a 63-yr-old is easy meat; a couple of prison-pumped street thugs is a different matter. I don't even want people like that near enough to effect even a pepper spray "choice," as violent attackers probably have some experience in the effects of a spray. Frankly, I wouldn't even wish to use a knife. If I have a handgun available, I would choose that.

How can I tell the diff. between college bullies and street thugs? It's not a perfect process, but I know they share one characteristic: They are attacking me. And now we know that self-defense/resistance is the best policy, and not something legislated or wished away, if your goal is to thwart or lessen injury.

[DWC]

112. % of armed resistance to violence is extremely small

1. Less than 3% of the US population CC or OC. Most of that number are trained in situational awareness, avoidance, and use of force if necessary. In other words we are trained to avoid trouble and places or situations where trouble has a reasonable possibility of being confronted. Therefore the number of potential violent confrontations are significantly reduced.

2. Over 80% of all communications is non-verbal. Potential victims read the perpetrator's aggressive intent and the perp reads the potential victim's fight-or-flight response. The body language of an easy target screams FLIGHT. The body language of an armed, prepared target growls FIGHT. The perp rarely wants a FIGHT and usually breaks off the intended assault before a violent confrontation occurs. Therefore, the number of potential violent confrontations are significantly reduced even further.

Given these facts, armed resistance should and does represent an extremely small percentage in this report. However, the actual effect on crime is much more significant but incapable of statistical analysis.

Your thoughts?

[spin]

123. If you simply practice "situational awareness" ...

and do not walk down dark streets with a cell phone glued to your ear, you can greatly reduce the chance that you will be attacked.

I carry, but many years before I got my concealed weapons permit I learned how to practice situational awareness in a martial arts class.