I still need help finding examples

[DWC]

I posted the thread

I need help finding examples where civilians, legally carrying a firearm in public, have accidentally shot one or more bystanders while legally defending themselves against a violent attack.

There are several examples by law enforcement, but I have been unsuccessful finding examples of civilians.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

I received one but only one response where, sadly. a young, innocent lady was shot and lost her life a few months ago in Houston, Texas

So I will expand the question

I need help finding anecdotal examples where civilians have accidentally shot one or more bystanders while legally defending themselves against a violent attack where ever the incident occurred.

There are several examples by law enforcement, but I have been unsuccessful finding examples of civilians.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

There are more than 1 million incidents in the USA each year where firearms are used by honest citizens to defend against violent attacks. What are the odds of an innocent bystander being killed in that process?

Semper Fi,

[SecularMotion]

1. You may not be getting responses because the number of defensive gun uses are greatly exaggerated.

Where do you get the statistic of "1 million incidents in the USA each year where firearms are used by honest citizens to defend against violent attacks."? If there are actually 1 million incidents of defensive gun use, how many of those incidents actually involved a gun discharge?

[gejohnston]

2. very few

Even Joyce Foundation grant recipient Phil Cook got the one million number.

[DanTex]

6. There are not 1 million defensive gun uses a year.

That number comes from a study which has been refuted several times over in the literature. Most so-called "defensive gun uses" aren't actually defensive -- they are things like escalating arguments where "the other guy started it". The fact of the matter is that there is basically no evidence that owning or carrying a gun provides any protective benefit at all. Studies that have examined this question have actually come to the opposite conclusion -- that despite all the gun fanatics claiming to have defended themselves with a gun, a gun actually brings more risks than it does benefits.

[gejohnston]

7. actually it hasn't been refuted

by any reputable scientist. Phil Cook got the one million number.

[SecularMotion]

8. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually.

David Hemenway, Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates - "Self-report surveys of rare events easily lead to huge overestimates of the true incidence of such events, particularly if the event in question has some potential social desirability. Researchers who claim that such survey incidence data are accurate must show how they have eliminated the enormous problem of false positives. Kleck and Gertz do not accept, let alone meet, this burden of proof. Their survey methodology does not ensure a Specificity rate of well over 99%. Attempts to determine the external validity of their estimates only buttress the presumption of massive overestimation. The conclusion seems inescapable: the Kleck and Gertz survey results do not provide reasonable estimates about the total amount of self-defense gun use in the United States."

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

[DanTex]

10. Here's another good article from the Harvard School of Public Health about the DGU debate.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/Bullet-ins_Spring_2009.pdf

[DanTex]

9. Actually, Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig are two of the people who refuted the study.

Obviously you haven't read any of the literature. Cook did not conclude that there are one million DGUs -- as usual, you are simply making things up. The study has also been refuted by others, including Hemenway, MacDowell, etc.

[gejohnston]

11. I actually have

and I actually understood what I read. they got a similar number and spent pages trying to explain why they shouldn't gotten the number.
Among credentialed criminologists, Hemenway is a joke and a hack.

[DanTex]

13. Actually, as I explained in depth in another post, what Cook and Ludwig did is...

...analyze the methodology used by Kleck to overestimate DGUs, and found it lacking. It's funny that, in order to defend your case, you have to resort to quoting people as concluding things that are the opposite of their actual conclusion. Outside the NRA bubble, the word for this is "dishonesty".

I pointed out many of the flaws with Kleck's study, flaws that Cook and others uncovered, in another post a while back.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=428987&mesg_id=436540

[gejohnston]

16. I know you explained it

and you know what I think of your explanation and your petty insults. Simply regurgitating what they said, often in their own words, without explaining why that is a valid criticism is kind of substance free. I think you over rate your expertise and there is no reason why I should take your "teaching" anymore seriously than I would the average meth head on the corner.
In other words, you have to better.

[DanTex]

18. Dodge.

[gejohnston]

20. not a dodge

I'm saying my critique is as valid as yours. I honestly don't think you actually read most of this stuff or actually understand it.

[bongbong]

21. Dodge?

Probably not a dodge - rather it's the fingers-in-ear "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" response. Beloved by gun-relgionists everywhere!

[DanTex]

24. That's true. Dodge is giving it too much credit.

It's just pure noise-making and avoidance of any kind of substantive debate. You'd think that someone who worships pro-gun ideologues like Gary Kleck or John Lott would, when challenged, actually try and mount a defense their pseudoscientific "research". But I've found that most of them just resort to the gejohnston tactic -- "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" as you put it.

[gejohnston]

25. the fact that you call Kleck an ideologue

tells says more about your ability to have a substantive debate than mine. But someone who worships prohibition ideologues like Hemenway, and his attempt at research by "it's true because I agree with him" hardly worth the effort. But at least you make some effort, which is more than I can say for the trolls on your side, which is where most of the trolls come from.

[bongbong]

26. LOL

> the trolls on your side, which is where most of the trolls come from.

Prove it.

This should be fun, since the Liberal position on gun control is "more of it", and, I BELIEVE this is a Liberal blog.

[gejohnston]

28. look up the definition of internet troll

[bongbong]

29. I did

It is defined as "gun-religionists posting on a Liberal chatboard".

[DWC]

15. Again, Your answer has nothing to do with the question

Either you can or can not provide
anecdotal examples where civilians have accidentally shot one or more bystanders while legally defending themselves against a violent attack where ever the incident occurred.

If you can, please do.

If you can not, please do not attempt to change the subject.

Semper Fi,

[DWC]

12. Your answer has nothing to do with my simple question.

I need help finding anecdotal examples where civilians have accidentally shot one or more bystanders while legally defending themselves against a violent attack where ever the incident occurred.

Got verifiable examples?

Semper Fi,

[SecularMotion]

19. It's not an answer to your question

It's a suggestion as to why you are not receiving responses.

As shown in several posts in this thread, the number of defensive gun uses you are claiming may prove to be greatly exaggerated and the number of defensive gun uses where a gun was actually fired is even smaller.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. Every year there are hundreds of documented justifiable homicides by non-LEOs.

Since most people survive pistol shootings, that would mean that there are even more justifiable shootings by legally armed citizens. IF armed citizens are so dangerous to innocent bystanders, as your side claims, then there should be ample examples of CCWers shooting bystanders by error.

I suggest that the reason there aren't many responses is that CCWers are extremely careful.

[Loudly]

3. Innocent bystanders galore, but from the aggressive use of guns.

Which illustrates why the presence guns and ammo in the society is an intolerable indulgence.

[glacierbay]

4. Not an indulgence

a right.

[Loudly]

5. There can be no "right" to the means of convenient murder.

A pretend "right" to terminate all the genuine rights of your fellow Americans upon a whim?

The polite word for such an argument is sophistry.

[PavePusher]

17. Please turn in all your knives (culinary as well as "sport"), vehicles and sporting goods.

They are all "means of convenient murder".

Oh, better have your hands and feet amputated as well.

Can't be too careful, eh?

[DWC]

14. Your response has nothing to do with the question

Either you can or can not provide

anecdotal examples where civilians have accidentally shot one or more bystanders while legally defending themselves against a violent attack where ever the incident occurred.

If you can, please do.

If you can not, please do not attempt to change the subject.

Semper Fi,

[GreenStormCloud]

23. Aggressive use by criminals, not by CCWers.

Since it is already illegal for criminals to have guns, taking away my guns only renders me defenseless against aggressive criminals. Criminals won't turn their guns in.

[bongbong]

27. Award time!

> Criminals won't turn their guns in.

You win this week's award for the 1,000,000,000,000th post of NRA Talking Point #17 - "criminals don't follow laws so why have 'em?"

[DWC]

30. You can lead a fool to common sense but you can not make him think. n/t