America's shooting gallery...

[zanne]

CA: Explosive story: In 1994, 'gangsta' rap artist Tupac Shakur was ambushed, beaten and shot at the Quad Recording Studios in New York. New information implicates Sean 'Diddy' Combs as being involved.
TN: Memphis police are investigating whether the death of a 5-year-old boy, who was shot in the face, was killed while playing with his 7-year-old friend, or if the 5-year-old boy accidentally shot himself.
AR: DeWayne Beasley, 39, of Hope went to a home and shot and killed 34-year-old Donny Dougan and wounded Dougan's ex-wife, then turned the gun on himself in murder-suicide.
IL: Timothy M. DeFrates, 33, shot and killed his live-in girlfriend, Arlena J. Beard, 44, before fatally shooting two dogs in the home and himself.
GA: Savannah-Chatham police ruled that a man who shot his wife then turned the gun on himself has died, names have not been released.
OH: Melanie R. Jensen, 34, was found dead in the kitchen with an apparent gunshot wound to the head and her husband, Thomas W. Jensen, 42, killed himself later in a detached garage workshop.
TX: W.C.FROSCH,74,SHOT 15 YEAR OLD BRANDON ROBINSON THROUGH A WINDOW ON THE NIGHT OF MARCH 1. THE BOY AND HIS FRIEND, DEVIN NALLS, 16, SAY THEY WERE CUTTING ACROSS HIS YARD ON THE WAY TO CHECK OUT ANOTHER NEIGHBOR'S PARTY. THOUGH BRANDON SURVIVED, DEVIN'S MOTHER DIED IN AN ACCIDENT AS SHE DROVE THE BOYS TO A HOSPITAL.
CA: 11-year-old boy, Jose Luis Garcia Bailey of Long Beach, was shot to death after two suspects approached and started shooting; a 20-year-old man was also hospitalized.
MI: Authorities say an 11-year-old boy was apparently shot accidentally by a security guard in Detroit who was targeting a theft suspect.
IA: A 17-year-old girl, Leola Ferguson, was shot in her right shoulder outside her apartment building in Cedar Rapids.
***

AND THIS ALL HAPPENED THIS MONTH.

[MadAndy]

1. And your point is?

[Orrex]

3. .

[zanne]

5. That's exactly my point. nt

[Orrex]

7. .

[zanne]

4. I should have known you wouldn't see anything wrong with it.

Just another day in the life, huh? You could see someone shot dead right before your eyes and it wouldn't change your mind about anything. You people are obssessed. The good news is, you can get help for that.

[Orrex]

6. .

[zanne]

9. But these tragedies were PREVENTABLE.

There's a big difference in saying that "tragedies happen" and tragedies that could have been prevented, but people are too interested in their gun collections to notice the difference. And now, one of you is going to start up about car accidents. Sigh.

[iverglas]

11. pretty funny, eh?

"The point is that tragedies happen in EVERY month"

Uh ... duh.

Saved you saying it, anyhow.

[Orrex]

12. Self-delete

for the sake of futility.

[MadAndy]

8. So your solution to this problem is what??

[zanne]

10. Enforce gun control legislation.

Don't try to loosen the laws; enforce them and encourage others to live by them.

[MadAndy]

13. In which of the instances you cite were the gun control laws not enforced?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Hangingon]

17. For those of us who are "developmentally disabled"

pleaase be specific. And as an added favoor define what "enforce gun control legislation" means to you.

[MadAndy]

19. The instances you state were where existing gun control laws were broken, not where

the laws didn't exist. By definition criminals break laws.

[zanne]

42. So do you support gun regulation? nt

[zanne]

53. I'm assuming that your silence means "no". nt

[zanne]

43. It's alot easier to BECOME a criminal with a gun. nt

[jmg257]

66. And it's alot easier to BE a helpless victim without one.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. zanne is displaying a certain amount of cognitive dissonance here..

She lives in a state with some of the loosest gun laws in the country, and yet it was
recently listed as one of the safest in the country.

She also lives next to Vermont, the Vermont of Howard Dean and Bernie Saunders -and damn near no gun laws and still pretty tranquil.

She *also* lives next to Massachusetts, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US and a much higher violent crime rate than New Hampshire or Vermont.

Now she tells us gun laws shouldn't be loosened.

[zanne]

74. NH is getting more VIOLENT...

I live in the city and the number of shooting deaths has skyrocketed here. A few years ago, I was awakened by gunshots just outside my window. Last year, my brother was driving to a meeting and had his passenger side window shot out. Yeah. NH is really safe from gun violence.

And please let me bring this up once again. You're not interested in just owning handguns. You want to have MORE rights than other people do. You're not superior because you have a gun. Other people don't agree with your philosophy and they have the right to be safe from irresponsible people with guns everywhere they look.

Also, it is against DU rules to call out another poster. Next time, ADDRESS ME DIRECTLY.

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. OK- zanne, you don't have "the right to feel safe". No one does

Let's go over your post, point by point:

"I live in the city and the number of shooting deaths has skyrocketed here. A few years ago, I was awakened by gunshots just outside my window. Last year, my brother was driving to a meeting and had his passenger side window shot out. Yeah. NH is really safe from gun violence."

I can't argue with your experience, and I'm sorry you and yours have gone through
this. Nevertheless: New Hampshire with its (relatively) lax gun laws is safer
than Massachusetts and its tough gun laws, your experiences notwithstanding.

"And please let me bring this up once again. You're not interested in just owning handguns. You want to have MORE rights than other people do"

And what extra rights would those be? You, zanne, and everyone else in New Hampshire
have more rights than I do because you live there and not here (Massachusetts).
If *you* choose not to exercise this right, it is *your* choice, not mine or anyone
else, and I don't think anyone should make that decision for you- or me.

"You're not superior because you have a gun."

No, I'd be an American citizen equal to any other- just like Harriet Tubman, Eleanor
Roosevelt were, or Dianne Feinstein is . I don't own a gun BTW, I just support my right (and EVERYBODY else who is not legally disqualified) to own and bear GCA 1968-legal weapons.

"Other people don't agree with your philosophy and they have the right to be safe from irresponsible people with guns everywhere they look"

Guess what, I've got the same right. And the Supreme Court is (I believe) about to
hold that everyone else (save convicted felons and those adjudged mentally incompetent) does, too. So, barring a Bureau of Precrime, the law *should*
have to wait until someone breaks the law with a gun to take it away from him or her.
Just like we do with child pornography or running a botnet, no one licenses computers
because some people commit crimes with them.

[zanne]

79. I do have every right to FEEL safe.

You have your rights and I have mine. You FEEL you need guns, don't you? You support gun ownership because that's the way you FEEL, isn't it? Do you really think I'm stupid enough to fall for a false argument?

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. Believe me, I'd like you to feel safe too...

...but the fact remains, you *are* statistically safer than I am, simply by virtue of
your being resident in New Hampshire and me being resident in Massachusetts. You
don't have to take my word on this, the Department of Justice statistics are available on the net and will bear me out.

Now I know you have related the incidents that have caused you to feel less safe, and
this is a natural reaction. I was nearly mugged a couple of weeks ago, and had I not
displayed a knife I LEGALLY carry to the four young strangers who were following me demanding (with many expletives thrown in) that I let them my apartment building.

My knees are too wrecked from osteoarthritis for me to run (which is the first thing
any sane person should attempt to do) and I'm too old to relish the thought of a
four-on-one beatdown. So I walked around the corner of the building, unfolded my
multitool and my cellphone and waited.

Two of the yoots ran around the corner, saw me with my 3" bladed multitool and cellphone and said: "Shit, he's carrying" and proceeded to run back around the corner. I thank my judo instructor many, many years ago (Sensei Yun Bok Yun) for teaching me:

1: Never start a fight 2: Avoid fights whenever possible 3: If you are forced to fight,
fight to win.

I mention all this because, thanks to the Supreme Court we havecome to know this about public safety in the US:
There is currenly held to be no "right" to police protection, and (very probably) there is a personal right
to bear arms. I followed the laws of my state, I bore (and bear) arms- albeit not a
gun, I defended myself, and *NO ONE GOT HURT*.

Did I want to shiv the little turds? Hell no, my ex used to work in an
emergency room and I got enough graphic descriptions of stab wounds to last me a lifetime. As it was, I had trouble sleeping for a week.

Would I have used the knife? Yes, if I had been pursued and cornered I would have done
my utmost to stop my atttacker(s) and if I had survived the encounter, I would now
be in the throes of PTSD. I'm sorry, I value my life more than a mugger's.

Do people get hurt or killed by knives and guns? Yes, too damn many.

People also upload child porn, run botnets and attempt to crack other people's
computers. We don't register our computers or get government permission to
get on the Net because some people do bad things with a Net connection.

We should not have to freely give our "papers and effects" to government agents
simply beacuse they ask. But that's what the government is attempting to do,
and they used a climate of fear to con the public into thinking that Constitutional
rights are fungible. The Bush administration attempted to do to the Second Amendment
what they have already done to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Brady Campaign, (founded by Republicans and run by a Republican) et al. cheered them on. You have been the victim of an stage-managed "moral panic"

[zanne]

82. It also has to do with the culture of the people in certain states. nt

[sergeiAK]

2. 1994 != this month -nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. Tupac this month????

Sean Combs was implicated in that shooting in 1994. A lot of idiots and criminals on this list, security guard shoots an 11 y.o. what a moron. I wouldn't mind making, passing an intelligence test a requirement to buy a gun and to vote. I'd say the cut off should be IQ greater than or equal to 110 to buy a gun or to vote.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. Your outrage is evident.

Since it seems you just cut and pasted this list without actually reading it. Nothing like a little insincere righteous indignation.



David

[benEzra]

18. We live in a nation of 300 MILLION people. You appear not to grasp the statistical implicati

We live in a nation of 300 million people. You appear not to grasp the statistical implications of that fact as it relates to low-probability incidents. That does not make any of the tragedies you cite any less tragic, but you do fail to grasp just how rare such incidents are. For example, in the same month, between 5000 and 8300 people were killed by alcohol (the CDC says 273 per day, though that is inflated slightly by skewed NHTSA numbers).

All of the incidents you cited are tragedies, but they do not mitigate the fact that in the SAME MONTH, 80 million lawful gun owners did NOT hurt anyone, around 300 million lawfully owned guns were NOT used criminally or irresponsibly, and a quarter of a BILLION rounds were fired lawfully and responsibly in recreational and competitive shooting (my wife and I contributed two or three hundred rounds to that total).

Our family's guns have never killed anyone and likely never will, and we are keeping them. You may not like that fact, and you are certainly free to choose differently for your home, but the contents of our gun safe do not exist for your approval or for your permission. Our home, our choice.

[iverglas]

20. how on earth did you get so omnicient?

in the SAME MONTH, 80 million lawful gun owners did NOT hurt anyone, around 300 million lawfully owned guns were NOT used criminally or irresponsibly

Do you actually think that these claims can be extrapolated from homicide reports or even statistics?

I know you like to pretend that homicide statistics mean a lot more than they actually mean (e.g. total homicides in which long arms were used, to support the assertion that long arms are not used for unlawful/harmful purposes). I'm sure you know they only mean what they actually say, though.

How exactly do you know that any one of those 80 million people in lawful possession of firarms did not hurt anyone? Do newspapers where you're at routinely report on accidental or intentional firearms injuries that do not result in death?

How exactly do you know that any one of those 300 million lawfully possessed firearms was not used criminally or irresponsibly? Do your newspapers report every incident in which someone shoots at a stop sign or into the air? Or leaves a firearm on the coffee table in a home with children? Or uses a firearm to intimidate his/her spouse? Are your newspapers omnicient?

You have absolutely no idea how many people in lawful possession of firearms did or did not hurt someone, or how many lawfully possessed firearms were or were not used criminally or irresponsibly, in point of actual fact.

[smb]

21. Oh, Puh-leeze

"How exactly do you know that any one of those 300 million lawfully possessed firearms was not used criminally or irresponsibly? Do your newspapers report every incident in which someone shoots at a stop sign or into the air? Or leaves a firearm on the coffee table in a home with children? Or uses a firearm to intimidate his/her spouse? Are your newspapers omnicient?"


"Can you PROVE that it DIDN'T happen?

[iverglas]

23. oh, yer wellllcommmme.

"Can you PROVE that it DIDN'T happen?

Can you tell me who has the onus of proving a claim that s/he made?

I'll help you out: it's the person who made the claim.

Can you tell me who made a claim in this instance?

I'll help you out, but you'll have to do a wee bit of the work for yourself this time: it wasn't me.

If you want somebody to prove something, go bother benEzra. He's made some big claims, so I'm sure he's got some big proof to back them up. That should make you happy.

[smb]

24. Answer

"Can you tell me who has the onus of proving a claim that s/he made?"

In a dispute where one side says "So-and-So is a law-abiding citizen" and the other side says "So-and-So committed a crime", the onus is on the latter. That would be you.

What do I win?

[iverglas]

27. a trip to kindergarten, I think

In a dispute where one side says "So-and-So is a law-abiding citizen" and the other side says "So-and-So committed a crime", the onus is on the latter. That would be you.

Dear me. I'm seeing quotation marks, but I'm just not seeing a quotation.

Maybe what you actually need is a lesson in cut and paste.

You take your mouse. You click the left button at the beginning of what you want to copy, and hold it down, and move the cursor to the end of what you want to copy. When you get to the end, you release it. Then you click the right button and select "copy". Then you go to where you want to put what you've copied, and put your cursor there. You click on the right button, and select "paste". And vOIlà.

This time, I'll do it for you. This is what I said.

How exactly do you know that any one of those 80 million people in lawful possession of firarms did not hurt anyone? Do newspapers where you're at routinely report on accidental or intentional firearms injuries that do not result in death?

How exactly do you know that any one of those 300 million lawfully possessed firearms was not used criminally or irresponsibly? Do your newspapers report every incident in which someone shoots at a stop sign or into the air? Or leaves a firearm on the coffee table in a home with children? Or uses a firearm to intimidate his/her spouse? Are your newspapers omnicient?

You have absolutely no idea how many people in lawful possession of firearms did or did not hurt someone, or how many lawfully possessed firearms were or were not used criminally or irresponsibly, in point of actual fact.

So that would be me -- the person who said that.

Now, as to this funny person who said "So-and-So committed a crime" -- well, you tell him/her to get on over here for a spanking if s/he can't tell us who that nasty so-and-so was, 'k?

If you'd rather just take the spanking yourself now, for making that great big fat false statement you made, let me know.

[smb]

33. Yep, That's You, Painted Into The Corner

Shooting someone is a crime.
Failure to report shooting is a crime.
Brandishing a gun to intimidate (outside a self-defense situation) is a crime.

QED

[iverglas]

34. sometimes I just have to wonder

Where am I?

I can only assume: an alternate reality where random assortments of words on a computer monitor mean something ...

What's for dinosaur, dear?

Wordplay



made link work

[MadAndy]

25. You said "You have absolutely no idea how many people in lawful

possession of firearms did or did not hurt someone, or how many lawfully possessed firearms were or were not used criminally or irresponsibly, in point of actual fact."

Neither do you. But there are sources such as the FBI Uniform Crime reports that collect data on criminal use of firearms. Rest assured serious incidents of irresponsible use where where people are killed or injured are reported in the papers and in CDC statistics. And for your information, studies conducted on the number of instances where the use of firearms have prevented death or serious injury show the number of lives saved far outnumber those lost.

[iverglas]

30. yes, yes, I know

studies conducted on the number of instances where the use of firearms have prevented death or serious injury show the number of lives saved far outnumber those lost

If it weren't for the firearms that a tiny minority of the population of the US have within grabbing distance when a homicidal maniac confronts them, there would be TWO MILLION MORE DEAD PEOPLE IN THE U.S. EVERY YEAR than there already are.

It's a horrifying thought, isn't it? (It also just leaves one wondering how such a huge majority of homicidal maniacs in the US managed to pick on such a tiny minority of the population -- i.e. the people with firearms within ready grabbing distance. Didn't anybody ever pick on people who did NOT have a gun in their hand?? Or did they, and there are several million more bodies hidden somewhere that we don't know about? -- i.e. all the people who were picked on by homicidal maniacs and were unable to avoid the fate that so obviously awaited all those TWO MILLION PEOPLE who saved themselves with firearms.)

Even more horrifying is the dishonesty or stupidity that must dwell in the hearts or minds of the people who make up such nonsense. As for those who go around parroting it, well, I won't speculate on their intellectual or moral defects.


Neither do you (have any idea how many people in lawful possession of firearms did or did not hurt someone, or how many lawfully possessed firearms were or were not used criminally or irresponsibly)

No shit, Sherlock. If only I had claimed that I did ...

[zanne]

40. Dear MadAndy...

"And for your information, "studies conducted" on the number of instances where the use of firearms have prevented death or serious injury show the number of lives saved far outnumber those lost."

Sure, I'll believe that statement because somebody called "MadAndy" in DU's Gun Forum said it. :sarcasm:

[MadAndy]

45. A thorough analysis is contained in John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime. I dont expect you

to believe it because I said it, but it will save you alot of time.

[iverglas]

46. is that you,

Mary Rosh???

[zanne]

49. I don't know who Mary Rosh is. nt

[iverglas]

51. If you know who John Lott is

then you know who Mary Rosh is!

googlegooglegoogle

Well, this one should do. ;)

http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/

No need to read anything *by* John Lott Mary Rosh, once you're read all *about* Mary Rosh John Lott. Or did I get that backwards ...

There may be some mixups in posts here. I was asking MadAndy whether he was Mary Rosh, you know.

[zanne]

52. somebody on this forum just recommended John Lott's book to me! nt

[iverglas]

54. I know .....

that's the post I was answering. ;)

Do get John Lott's book if you have a high threshold of tolerance for lying with numbers!

I've just been re-browsing through some links at that site.
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1381

We can't get enough of this guy! There's lots more in the article-- we wish we could point it all out here, but we just don't have the space. Suffice to say that Lott is really a "researcher" just like the guy from the Village People is really a "police officer."

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/02/22/the_gops_loyalty_fetish.php

What is remarkable about John Lott isn’t that he exists, but that despite being exposed more than once as a fraud, he continues to serve as a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and conservatives continue to cite and praise his work (and for some inexplicable reason, the Los Angeles Times continues to regularly publish Lott’s op-eds).

... Contrast John Lott with Bruce Bartlett, a well-regarded conservative thinker, who was fired from his think-tank job because he wrote a book criticizing George W. Bush as insufficiently devoted to the conservative goals of Ronald Reagan. No right-wing think tank will touch Bartlett, despite his long history of devotion to the conservative cause. Meanwhile Lott maintains a cushy sinecure at AEI—one of the right’s premier think-tanks.

Ah, the bedfellows!

[zanne]

59. If he is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute...

Why are all these people defending him as a great liberator of the people? Is it just ignorance? I really don't get it. If this wasn't DU, I'd swear I was reading posts from that other website that-is-not-to-be-named. And all of a sudden, the SCOTUS is a progressive judicial body!

[iverglas]

62. 'tis a question that has oft been asked ...

but the oath of fealty has been taken by all who enter here, so 'tis not ours to wonder why! (Of course, a tour of the graveyard of old threads in this forum is kind of like ... well, a tour of a graveyard. Fun for genealogy buffs like myself, trying to trace the ancestors and offspring through the months.)

It's just a little idiosyncracy some folks have. They don't see AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (or BUSH v. GORE, or "partial birth abortion") and think RUN! QUICK! THEY'RE OUT TO GET YOU!! No, they see those things and think hey, good buddy, join me a beer.

Just like you or I would if we saw Phyllis Schlafly on the street, y'know. Hey, never mind that she and every group she's associated with are dedicated to making women's lives a living hell. She bakes damned fine cookies! So lunch it is.

We all have our little quirks. Some people think that right-wing incompetents and academic frauds are great scholars speaking the truth. Some people think that George W. Bush's judicial appointees have somehow, by some strange fluke of the universe, turned out to have the people's interests at heart. It's just an endearing little blind spot some people have.

[gorfle]

76. It does suck.

Some people think that George W. Bush's judicial appointees have somehow, by some strange fluke of the universe, turned out to have the people's interests at heart. It's just an endearing little blind spot some people have.

It does suck that it is Bush's regime and judicial appointees that are the ones standing up for the right to keep and bear arms, given all the other garbage we've had to put up with and continue to put up with from them. I wish the Democratic party were more favorable to the right to keep and bear arms, and it is their past stance on the RKBA that I am most skeptical about. I was a life-long Republican voter until the 2006 elections, when I voted a straight Democratic ticket, largely because of the firearm issue. I've abandoned the Republican party in favor of the Democratic party in spite of my worries about their stance on firearms because of my disgust at the "war on terror", the pandering to mega-corporations no longer beholden to the welfare of the United States, and the encroaching of hypocritical "family values" into our government. I also feel that the Democratic party is backing away from the gun control issue after the losses in the election after the failed Assault Weapon Ban. It feels like gun legislation is going in the pro-gun favor lately, too.

That said, I'll take my allies on the issue where I can get them. The justices may have ruled to eat babies in the past. They are on my side on this issue now, and I'm glad for it.

[zanne]

48. Would you read a book I recommend to you?

I didn't think so. But if you really want to read it, I'll provide a link so you can buy it.

[MadAndy]

55. I didn't know who Mary Rosh was so I googled it.

It certainly looks like John Lott is a fraud. I honestly had no idea. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

[iverglas]

58. !!!

Well, you're most welcome! A fraud who can provide hours of entertainment, of course. ;)

[Tejas]

69. You're more than welcome

to provide info to the contrary.

[iverglas]

70. oops, back to kindergarten for you too

S/he who makes a claim is more than welcome to substantiate it.

S/he who chooses not to substantiate his/her claim can, of course, demand that someone else disprove it, instead.

S/he will look like somebody spinning like a top, of course, but s/he shouldn't let that bother him/her. Nobody is paying any attention, at that point.

[Tejas]

71. trollish non-answer - no reply

Zanne is a big boy, doesn't need an ankle-biter to do his battles.

[iverglas]

72. so funny

in so many funny ways.

[zanne]

83. Should we let her in on it?

Nah--let her do her research.

[gorfle]

28. Here is how...

You have absolutely no idea how many people in lawful possession of firearms did or did not hurt someone, or how many lawfully possessed firearms were or were not used criminally or irresponsibly, in point of actual fact.

We know that there are something like 235 million firearms in the united states, spread among some 40-80 million owners.

We know that there are some 10,000 firearm murders each year.

If we assume that each firearm murder is committed by one person, and we assume only 40 million firearm owners, this means that each year 99.975% of firearm owners commit no murders each year.

Now this is only for murders, but I'm sure you can go dig up all other bad things done with firearms each year and you will still find that as a percentage of all firearm owners, very very few firearm owners use their arms in bad ways.

[iverglas]

31. can you do that for me?

I'm sure you can go dig up all other bad things done with firearms each year

I'm really kinda busy right now. I just don't have the time to go interview every firearm owner in the U.S. and ask them to, uh, self-report their criminal / negligent / irresponsible misdeeds with firearms last year.

Maybe you could administer the MMPI while you're at it, so we can identify all the crazy people and thus kill two birds with one stone in this regard.

[gorfle]

35. Yes, later.

I'm busy myself at the moment.

I'll go combine all accidents and suicides along with murders later.

[iverglas]

36. not wanting you to be wasting time

I'll go combine all accidents and suicides along with murders later.

I'll just help out again, since you seem to have lost the train of thought.

I'm not wanting statistics on firearms-related deaths.

I'm wanting what you said: "all other bad things done with firearms each year".

Good luck, and send us a postcard!

[gorfle]

38. Will do!

I'll try to find statistics on as many bad things as I can.

[gorfle]

67. Here is what I was able to find

In 2005, there were 419,640 non-fatal firearm incidents, which accounted for 9% of all violent incidents.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.htm

Also in 2005, there were 368,178 violent firearm incidents - murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults.

Note there is overlap in the two sets of numbers, but I could not figure out how to separate them, so we will just treat them separately.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm

In 2001, there were 928 suicides by firearms

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5322a2.htm

If we sum the above numbers, we come up with about 800,000 bad firearm incidents a year, including suicide, murder, robberies, aggravated assaults, rape, and sexual assault.

If we assume there are some 50 million firearm owners in the US, this means that in a given year only 1.6% of firearm owners commit crimes or commit suicide with their firearms. The other 98.4%, or 49,200,000 firearm owners do not. In fact, though, since robberies and aggravated assaults were counted twice, as I noted above, the actual percentage of firearm owners who commit crimes is lower.

While certainly not all-inclusive, I believe this data is sufficient to give pretty good insight as to how many people in lawful possession of firearms did or did not hurt someone with firearms, and how many lawfully possessed firearms were or were not used criminally or irresponsibly.

[iverglas]

68. "While certainly not all-inclusive"

Hey, no shit.

Would you say that the voluntary reporting system for people doing stupid / negligent / illegal things for firearms is an excellent one?

"I'm calling to report that I leave my loaded handgun in the drawer of my bedside table where my six-year-old has access to it."

"I am writing this letter to inform you that the other day I was cleaning my gun and suddenly realized I had forgotten to check whether it was loaded."

"I would like to inform you that last night I had a few beers and the wife started nagging me again so I went to the closet and got out the trusty shotgun and told her she'd better settle down or she might regret it."

Yes, I'm sure there's an agency somewhere that accepts and tabulates these reports and submits them all, in aggregate form, to the proper statistical branch of a government department somewhere ... on the dark side of the moon.


The assertion on the table (not yours, so you should feel no obligation to substantiate it, unless you adopt it):

All of the incidents you cited are tragedies, but they do not mitigate the fact that in the SAME MONTH, 80 million lawful gun owners did NOT hurt anyone, around 300 million lawfully owned guns were NOT used criminally or irresponsibly

Of your attempt to substantiate it, you say:

While certainly not all-inclusive ...

And you're sure right, there.


What have we actually learned?

It's a bullshit assertion. Neither provable nor disprovable by any means known to humanity.

Which is why I asked how the author of it got to be so omniscient. Even though I managed to spell the word wrong *twice*.

[gorfle]

75. I knew it.

I knew whatever I came up with you'd poo-poo it. :)

"I'm calling to report that I leave my loaded handgun in the drawer of my bedside table where my six-year-old has access to it."

"I am writing this letter to inform you that the other day I was cleaning my gun and suddenly realized I had forgotten to check whether it was loaded."

I wouldn't qualify either of those events as a "bad thing" compared to actual firearm deaths, assaults, and accidents. While unsafe, nothing bad actually happened as a result.

But you do remind me, I forgot to include firearm accidents (not surprising, I suppose, given that I've never had one myself in my 30+ years of shooting). In 2007, there were .2 firearm accidents per 100,000 people, so for 300 million people that would equate to an additional 600 bad things happening every year. But since I rounded up the 800,000 "bad thing" figure from some 789,000 bad things, the additional 600 bad things won't make any difference in my numbers.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=120

I know you'll hate the source but it was the quickest firearm accident data that Google turned up.

"I would like to inform you that last night I had a few beers and the wife started nagging me again so I went to the closet and got out the trusty shotgun and told her she'd better settle down or she might regret it."

Of course while we are speculating about unreported crime we might also wonder how many times he had a few beers and just beat her up with his fists, or threatened her with a knife. In fact, given the fact that in 2006 "trusty old shotguns" were used half as often to commit murder as hands and feet, and three times less often as knives, I'd say my speculation is more likely than yours.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

Yes, I'm sure there's an agency somewhere that accepts and tabulates these reports and submits them all, in aggregate form, to the proper statistical branch of a government department somewhere ... on the dark side of the moon.

So I assume, then, that you do not believe the statistics I presented accurately portray the number of times firearms are used for bad things by firearm owners? I assume also that you believe things are actually much worse than the data I provided shows? Do you have any data to support your belief?

The assertion on the table (not yours, so you should feel no obligation to substantiate it, unless you adopt it):

All of the incidents you cited are tragedies, but they do not mitigate the fact that in the SAME MONTH, 80 million lawful gun owners did NOT hurt anyone, around 300 million lawfully owned guns were NOT used criminally or irresponsibly

I believe the assertion is reasonably accurate, and available data seems to support the assertion. I used a lower estimate of firearm owners (50 million instead of 80 million), so my percentage of bad firearm owners is roughly 1.6 times higher than you'd get with his numbers, but I believe from the data I have uncovered so far that the assertion is basically true.

While certainly not all-inclusive ...

And you're sure right, there.

I welcome the inclusion of any other data you might provide. I think I've covered enough situations to give a pretty accurate picture of the reported bad firearm things that happen every year, including suicide, murder, robberies, aggravated assaults, rape, sexual assault, and accidents.

It's a bullshit assertion. Neither provable nor disprovable by any means known to humanity.

Very little in life is scientifically provable or disprovable to 100% certainty, Iverglas. We try to make enough observations to be able to accurately infer things about a situation. Even without 100% observation or accuracy we very often can make accurate inferences.

I assert that the data I have come up with provides a pretty clear picture to the amount of times firearms have been reported to be used in bad things. I don't deny that there are undoubtedly bad things that happen with firearms that are not reported. If you have any data for unreported firearm incidents I'd be happy to see them.

I did some Googling on "unreported firearm crime" and came up with this from Minnesota:

http://server.admin.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=2406

According to it, some 60%-70% of crimes in general go unreported. My guess is for firearm crimes where someone actually gets shot the reporting must be pretty high, since you are almost certainly going to go to the hospital and get medical care, not to mention the attention that gunfire usually draws.

[zanne]

39. Um.....You have no idea, either. nt

[iverglas]

44. what point can you think you have made?

I made no claim. I did not claim anything. Someone made a claim that he has no basis for making. But I said nothing about that claim other than that it was made with out any basis, and asked a few questions to demonstrate to just what extent it had no basis. I don't have to have any idea about anything. I didn't make a claim.

Isn't this kind of stuff something they teach in secondary school at some point? Or for those too busy playing video games, maybe that people get an inkling of if they spend a bit of time at internet discussion boards?

Person X says: blah blah this is a fact.
Person Y says: what basis do you have for saying that?

Then here's what comes next. Please, class, pay attention. A couple of things are possible.

(a) Person X comes back with some verifiable facts, and perhaps some argument demonstrating the relevance of the facts and how the facts back up the original assertion; what is offered may not be "proof", but it may give reasonable grounds to believe. Person X and Person Y then discuss the merits of what has been offered and the conclusions drawn from it by Person X, with perhaps further facts brought in on one or both sides, etc. etc.

(b) Person X says "well that's my opinion and if you don't like it tough shit I'm entitled to my opinion and I don't have to prove anything to you." At that point, Person Y laughs.

But Person X, or one of Person X's little chums, may also chime in and say to Person Y: WHERES YOUR PROOF HOW DO U KNOW THAT YOUR THE ONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT blah blah.

Whe all Person Y said was: what basis do you have for saying that?

The thing is, one doesn't even have to have gone to secondary school to know that Person Y hasn't said anything that needs to be proved. You just can't prove a question. (Unless it was a loaded question, with a premise that needed proving. But then Person Y doesn't ask questions like that.)

No rational person would look at a question and demand proof of it. So it kinda looks like while some people know kind of innately that what they're saying is total crap, they've learned either

(a) that what they're saying makes sense, which is contrary to reality, or

(b) that saying it even though they know it makes no sense will serve a useful purpose for them.

I can't always be sure which, i.e. whether to pity or to scorn.

[WWFZD]

63. Claim

Claim:
The majority of Americans and Canadians do not like to have their faces rubbed in shit, nose first.

Iverglass response:
The hubris of the great unwashed knows no bounds. Do you have any verifiable statistical documentation to back up your insular, provincial claims? I thought as much. I, me, once spent a week motoring through the wasteland you vulgarians call the "US of A". I, me, encountered sights and scents that would revile the Lord of the flies himself. Fleh.

[iverglas]

64. but no

Revile the Lord of the Flies? Surely not. Of course, those sights and scents doing it couldn't really be expected to own dictionaries, I guess.

I'll bet you signed on for another tour just especially so you could talk to me!

[WWFZD]

65. Oh the dictionary owners

Gazing south stains the lenses. Me? Oh yes me. Greasy fingers stabbing flimsy keyboards. I found my peers on the gunboards?

[zanne]

81. Trust me on this one...

Psychiatric meds these days can work wonders.

[jmg257]

22. Just a few defensive uses...

"The men, who were white, pounded on the truck and tried to yank Labidou, who is black, out of the truck through the door. One of them was armed with a knife. "Expetive, get the out of the truck!" they screamed. Labidou, a concealed carry permit holder, was in fear of his life. He drew a handgun & shot both men twice" Miami Herald 12/19/07

"Pierce was walking to dinner when two men, one a self-proclaimed Crips gang member accosted him. Pierce was dragged across the street to a dimly lit area, and told he was about to be killed. Pierce, a concealed-carry permit holder, drew a .357 revolver and shot the suspects, causing both to flee" Morning Call 12/06/07

"Foshee sat on the back deck with his wife and grandson. The armed suspects demanded money and forced Foshee and his wife inside the home. The grandson ran next door and alerted his uncle, Ronnie Foshee, to the situation. Ronnie grabbed a gun and ran to the scene. Finding a man holding a knife to his mother's throat, he fired a shot and the suspect fled. The other suspect was in the bedroom severly beating Ken Foshee. Ronnie shot his father's assailant, killing him" Macon Telegraph 12/20/07

"Three men knocked on the door. The men forced their way into the home and begain burgalrizing the residence. The teen garbbed a .410 shotgun and shot one of the intruders. The men fled, but the inhured suspect collapesed and died."
Vicksburg Post 12/31/07

"911 Call Records Self-defense Shooting: A woman, who has had many problems with a stalker, called 911 as he was trying to break in through the back door of her home on November 12th of last year. He succeeded in breaking in, and as he cornered the 51-year-old woman in an upstairs bedroom closet capped a month of escalating terror -- chronicled in a series of police reports filed by the woman -- which included break-ins, vandalism and assaults in her workplace. Since the police had not gotten there in time, she defended herself. Lake County Prosecutor said on Wednesday he was turning down any charges against the woman in the death of Bergner, considering her actions to be in self-defense and defense of property."

[SteveM]

26. This beats any crime blotter, but how did suspects flee after taking a .357?

The instances you have cited cover most of the main contingencies one faces in armed self-defense: home, car, attack on the street. Very few gun-controllers would deny that the would-be victims had a right to use the force described; yet they continue to try and restrict the rights which led up to these instances of self-defense.

[jmg257]

37. "It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not

be used." Thomas Jefferson, 1792.

[Wcross]

29. Two armed individuals confronted this fall on my property.

I was forced to confront two intoxicated men on an ATV who were trespassing on my property this fall. It was near 10pm & I heard an ATV blow by my house into the back forty. My dogs were giving chase, I was concerned they could be injured. They were on my posted property. They were there without permission & for reasons unknown. I drove back there in my pickup to inquire what their intentions were. They had a change of attitude when they saw I was armed. They claimed they were "looking for a deer they had shot", I asked why they thought they would find it on my property and why they felt it was ok to enter posted property without permission. They apologized & left.
I was armed with a handgun & a rifle. I am not disarming myself because there is a problem with gang bangers & criminals using guns to commit crimes. As a matter of fact that is all the more reason to remain armed.

[zanne]

41. Do you yell at kids who walk on your lawn, too?

Dramatic little guy, aren't you?

[Wcross]

47. So you are ok with armed poachers on your land sparky?

No, I will not tolerate people who disregard my posted signs and ride their ATV while drunk and armed late at night on my property. What if they had decided to shoot at my dogs? Oh, by the way scooter, they had cut my fence to gain entry. Hardly as innocent as children cutting across the yard.
By the way, I am 6'6", 250lbs & a former Marine. You could call me a "big dumbass" but little guy doesn't fit.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[EricTeri]

56. Do you have ANY proof for that?

Or are you once again simply speaking out of your ass?

[Wcross]

57. I guess you would have let them do whatever?

Shoot or run over my dogs? Cut another fence getting out? The fact that I was armed allowed me to go out there and ask them to leave. What would you have done in my position Dorothy? I guess you would click your ruby slippers three times & "poof" no more guns? Personally I enjoy being armed. It allows me to be on an equal footing with criminals & trespassers.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Wcross]

61. You did address me as "little guy" , didn't you?

I gave you the option of referring to me as "big dumb ass" as opposed to something that doesn't fit. In the same spirit I will refrain from calling you "sparky" ever again. Obviously you are not that bright.

[L1A1Rocker]

78. HaHaHaHa. Funny post.

[zanne]

80. If you can go running to the mods, so can I, cupcake.

Funny how your guns don't protect you from criticism, isn't it?

[Wcross]

84. I did not "run to the mods".

Perhaps you could contact a moderator and inquire as to why your posts were deleted? Oh, you can criticize me all you wish. It doesn't matter to me whatsoever.

Lets start over. I used my firearms in a defensive situation last fall. Had I not had the right to be armed I might not have went out to ask the drunken, armed poachers to leave. I was not only protecting my property (cut fences) but I was also protecting my dogs from possible injury or death. It was a successful gun self defense because there were no shots fired & the trespassers left the area. My dogs survived & I only had to repair one section of fence as opposed to several. Had I not been armed they might have had a different attitude, I am not willing to experiment in that area as I only have one life to live.

I know you have a hatred for firearms & it is your right to have that opinion. I find firearms to be handy to have in my possession. I am able to defend myself & my property with a firearm. People like you are forced to call for help from someone with a firearm (the police) when trouble comes your way. In your situation it may be a viable option. In my case, being a person who resides in a rural area with less police protection sometimes you can't wait for help. As I mentioned in a previous post I am a former Marine with extensive firearms training, I am also sober & level headed. To think that my possession of firearms is the cause of gun violence is ludicrous. Good day sir.

[gorfle]

32. Crime is tragic. But...

Firearm crime is tragic, but it is no reason to sacrifice the tools of liberty.