Do Firearms Cause Murder...

[rmcrobertson]

Please read more carefully: I never argued it didn't happen, I simply asked for facts.

Thanks for the DOJ stats; I was particularly pleased to see that the writers were extremely careful about a) misinterpreting the data; b) the limits of their data; c) some of the gender/ethnic skewing in the data. ("Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.") Very nice, especially since the quotes from news broadcasts, being purely anecdotal, are virtually useless to establish national statistics and trends.

Is it true that the NRA is claiming 2 million uses a year? I'm asking because a) I haven't looked them up, and b) the stats suggest something on the order of one-twentieth of that, since the 87-92 average was around 80-90 thousand/year, and apparently crime rates, particularly for violent crime, have been in steady decline over the last ten years or so.

Thanks for the discussion; it's interesting.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Hoplophobes are rarely moved by facts. Those of you who subscribe to MartialTalk Magazine may enjoy my lengthy piece on this very issue in the January edition. Then again, you may not.

 

[rmcrobertson]

"Hoplophobes." Fiddlesticks.

Axly, Phil, I assume you didn't mean me. I've been around guns since aabout 1959 or so, and I'm quite receptive to facts. I simply ask that they more or less BE facts, and I tend to try and avoid being swayed by anecdotal evidence reported third-hand from TV news.

I do find it interesting when folks eagerly accept selected factoids from the very news outlets they often claim are saturated with liberal bias, and I remain interested in what would appear to be some considerable differences betweeen the government statistics and the NRA's claims.

As always, thanks for the conversation.

 

[MisterMike]

Seems the "government statistics" are not published often enough, if the last report was 10 years old.

The NRA researches this yearly.

I seem to recall a hunting magazine that would monthly publish a page called the armed citizen, loaded with cases of people defending themselves or thwarting a crime. I think it may be American Rifleman, but I'm not 100%.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. So it's your contention that since 1992, even though the rates of violent crime have been supposedly been dropping, the NRA is correct in claiming that the number of people defending themselves with a gun has increased from 83,000 per year to two million, an increase of some twenty-five times.

Just FYI, have you ever needed a gun to defend yourself, or personally known someone who did? Such an increase would certainly suggest that you would've, or personally known someone who did. May I ask what the circumstances were? I do happen to know one guy, from about six years ago...he darn near got shot by the LA County Sheriffs himself, since they found him holding a shotgun on some guy who'd climbed in his window at 3 AM...

Thanks in advance for the info.

 

[MisterMike]

I do not beleive that is their claim. I'll search their site and see what I can find, but whatever it is, I think it can be trusted. Guns do not stop only violent crime, but burglery, trespassing, etc. Gotta keep apples with the apples here.

As for me, I have not needed a gun to defend myself, nor has anyone in my 'gun nut' family.

 

[Ceicei]

A friend forwarded this editorial to me today. It is interesting, but must consider the fact this is on a pro-gun website. It does give statistics. What I do wish is the article could have direct links to the source, although the source is identified.

Statistics are nice; however, I've learned years ago, interpretation of statistics have often been manipulated to fit the agenda of certain groups of people. I would rather look at the numbers--the hard data--and to see what and how the survey was conducted. This, again, is information based on data from 10 years ago.

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/hagin_20040105.html

I will look to see if this information (hard data) is available somewhere on the internet for us to examine. Maybe there is more up to date information that could be located.

- Ceicei

 

[rmcrobertson]

In the first place, the above post labels its source, "opinioneditorial," but also correctly notes that the data itself would be useful.

In the second...hmmm. Neither you nor your family nor your friends. Odd, given the two mil figure.

I do know somebody who's LOADED a gun once, because SWAT had some clown cornered in her neighborhood after a home invasion robbery (where, incidentally, another gun would only have got everybody shot), but she's worked in Compton for about thirty years, and this was the only time...

 

[MisterMike]

From nraila.org:

Survey research during the early 1990s by criminologist Gary Kleck found as many as 2.5 million protective uses of guns each year in the U.S. "(T)he best available evidence indicates that guns were used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes," Kleck writes. Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, he found "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997)

Looks like that number was early 90's as well.

Also:

American households that have firearms: Approx. 45%

(Forced registration may soon prove this to be higher)

With nealry 300 million people in the U.S. (soon to be topped by the overflow of illegals) and 60-70 million handguns in the country, 2.5 million defensive uses per year may be quantifiable.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry, I don't consider the NRA to be an unbiased source: very much au contraire, there.

And again--if they ARE right, how come you don't know any of these people?

And just to raise one other issue--in their statistics, were there any considerations of what I suspect are the many cases of people who claimed later that they needed that there gun, but objectively speaking didn't? And consideration of the type of yahoo who drives around with a little something stashed under the seat, and jumps out waving after a fender-bender?

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Sorry, I don't consider the NRA to be an unbiased source: very much au contraire, there.

And again--if they ARE right, how come you don't know any of these people?

And just to raise one other issue--in their statistics, were there any considerations of what I suspect are the many cases of people who claimed later that they needed that there gun, but objectively speaking didn't? And consideration of the type of yahoo who drives around with a little something stashed under the seat, and jumps out waving after a fender-bender?

The NRA just posted the stats. I don't know if the criminologist is a member though. But let's do some math, because a million of anything is a lot.

2.5 million uses / 50 states = 50,000 uses per state
50,000 uses / 365 days = 137 uses per day per state

I don't recall much from 1990, I was in HS still, but I'm sure the number has gone down with the amount of violent crime. Maybe that's why I don't know any of them personally.

As for bias, I'm sure a lot of orgs picks the stat's and polls that favor their cause. National statistics are going to have more error than local ones. At least they posted the date at which the number was taken, and don't post is as representative of what's going on today.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. So CNN is a hopelessly-biased leftist source of, "news," but the NRA is an objective, unbiased organization that simply offers unvarnished fact. I was wondering.

Again: in some thirty-five years of being around various Bad Places, I have never yet been in a situation where a gun was either warranted or of the slightest use. In that time, I have spoken to TWO people who employed guns--one loaded a pistol and kept it out just in case, never even jacked a round into the chamber let alone took the safety off; the other backed an unarmed intruder out of the house and nearly got shot himself by the cops. Everybody else I've spoken to who's used a gun, or even taken one out against a person, was a police officer.

Seems like the odds would've caught up with me by now, at 2 million plus a year. Maybe I should get that Lotto ticket, next time...

 

[MisterMike]

Yea, that's it. Are the voices coming back again? I'm lost as to where your statements come from. Certainly not my correspondence.

 

[rmcrobertson]

No need to resort to subtle invective, MM. Those voices are your own; I believe you've written on more than one occasion that CNN was hopelessly biased, and I'm simply repeating the same argument--asserting that, "The NRA just posted the stats," compares directly to noting that CNN does not make the news.

However, I remain interested in your response to my basic contention--that with all them folks out there protectin' themselves, a few more of us should be able to offer personal experiences...

It is my contention, in fact, that a very great number of these, "necessary," self-defenses were in fact either a) unnecessary and unnecessarily dangerous, or b) reported by the very people who were in fact the problem in the first place. I'd like to see the actual figures and their analyses.

I grew up, partly, in farmin' and fishin' and huntin' country. Most grown men owned rifles and shotguns. Nobody displayed them, and nobody talked about how much they hadda have 'em.

I suppose the counter-claim is that the world has grown far more dangerous--to which I would answer that American cities are a helluva lot less dangerous now than they were back in the nineteenth century.

 

[MisterMike]

Well, I have listed ABC, CBS and NBC, but I don't believe CNN. Some of their reporters make me squeemish, but I do sometimes turn to it after I've been entertained by FOX. After all, that's all these companies can really do is entertain rather than provide good journalism.

I'm not sure who you're expecting on this board to provide experiences, but theres 1 or 2 noted hunting/rifle magazines out there that do publish these events monthly.

Unnecessary? Well I guess that's all relative. Firing a gun at a dog could be one example of what does get into those stats. Just as valid as the next I would wager. Woulda been a nice pill for those dogs that mauled the girl in SF.

I guess some people will never see the need for guns. Other will blame them for the world's problems. A few will actually use them responsibly.

 

[Ceicei]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
In the second...hmmm. Neither you nor your family nor your friends. Odd, given the two mil figure.

So what are you looking for? Are you trying to find out whether ANYONE has used a gun defensively? Are not news/articles and even a few experiences already noted by others in this thread enough to indicate that defensive use does happen? It isn't made up fantasy that guns can be used defensively.

I never said that I didn't know anyone who used a gun defensively. I mentioned to you before that I chose not to share stories with you because I am not sure what your whole point with this is... You continue to deride me just because I didn't offer to tell experiences.

I will proceed now to tell you these experiences, take what you feel of any value from them.

A few years ago, my co-worker from the college where I teach, Mr. B.E., there were burglaries/robberies going on in his neighborhood. People were getting really nervous, because the latest burglary at the time involved an assault on a homeowner by the burglar.

One night, Mr. B.E. was awake, reading a book, as he couldn't sleep. He heard breaking glass downstairs. His wife and children were still asleep. He got up, grabbed his shotgun, and went to the bedroom door. He could hear the person coming up on the stairs. Mr. B.E. didn't open the door. All he did was rack his shotgun. The footsteps stopped then retreated. He heard a few more glass fall (the guy went back through the window). Nothing else happened from this incident, although he did file a police report to notify about the break-in. The burglar/robber eventually was caught. Considering this same individual had assaulted another homeowner a few days prior to breaking into my friend's house, the shotgun sound stopped another potential assault incident.

Here is another one, but this technically isn't really a defensive story as the wife never got to use her revolver:

Three houses down from me, in 1996, the family is known for domestic violence. Police go over there frequently. One day, the husband returned (he had been separated a few weeks then from his wife) and brought a rifle with him (which is illegal, because he has a restraining order against him and by law, cannot have any firearms). He threatened to blow up a propane tank with it. The whole neighborhood was cordoned off with a four block perimeter, and none of us could go home. The police, sheriff, and FBI, SWAT teams were there.

We had a ham radio in our blue Geo, so we turned it on to the police frequency to check what was going on. My husband, my two kids, and I were standing next to the car, just waiting for the standoff to end (it was five hours).

Their kid, Chase, was finally allowed to leave his family home (a buddy of my second son). There were a lot of negotiations that weren't going anywhere. The wife had a revolver hidden with her, but didn't use it against her husband. I'm surprised nothing more happened from that as he finally surrendered and left the house. She said later on that she would have tried shooting him if he made a move to injure Chase, but once Chase got out, she didn't worry anymore about what would happen if he shot the propane tank or if he shot her.

There are a few more of my friend's gun experiences I could share, but one of them is in the middle of a legal process trying to determine whether his use of the gun was defensive.

- Ceicei

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Ceicei

One day, the husband returned (he had been separated a few weeks then from his wife) and brought a rifle with him (which is illegal, because he has a restraining order against him and by law, cannot have any firearms).

- Ceicei

Ceicei,

Not is all states, does a Restraining Order automatically prohibit a person to own a gun or to use a gun for hunting or for thier job if it is required.

Yet, there has to be a normal reason to have the firearm in the first place.

Glad everyone survived
:asian:

 

[Ceicei]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Ceicei,

Not is all states, does a Restraining Order automatically prohibit a person to own a gun or to use a gun for hunting or for thier job if it is required.

In Utah, it is, so that's why I clarified that.

Yes, I'm glad everyone survived...

The only question I had was what would have happened if the propane tank was shot? Would it have just leaked, or would it go up in a fireball? Considering that the tank is pretty thick, could a shot from the rifle even penetrate it?

- Ceicei

 

[Phil Elmore]

I'll repeat: Hoplophobes are rarely moved by facts. Neither are pompous fools.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm sorry, Phillip, I don't quite understand what you're contributing to the discussion. Could you explain?