Well I think this is a little analysis that deserves airing. The Daily Caller complied 200+ instances where firearms were used to 'save lives' in a one year period. There's a national map where you can drill down to each specific instance and see the documentation on what happened.

 

And here's one rub: the state of New Jersey had a big fat ZERO total of interventions by legally armed citizens. And we all know why. So the corollary is also true: all assaults, robberies, carjackings, murders etc. proceeded unimpeded in the Garden State, courtesy of our legislature.

 

See what you think. I'm bookmarking this one, and using it elsewhere.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/05/gun-control-owners-criminals/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

 

More grist for the mill - take your choice as to which study is more or less valid - they all indicate positive aspects of gun ownership and carry.

If you look at the stats it is clear that guns save many more lives than they take, possibly orders of magnitudes greater. Many people are so misled by the media they don't open their minds to reality.

I think it was the Institute of Medicine that cited some other stats indicating that guns are used to prevent upwards of 2.5 million crimes per year. Sounds kind of high to me, 50,000 times per year per state. 

 

Here's a great recent article on the subject: http://bit.ly/1OOMBkn

 

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu

Overwhelmingly only normal people stop crimes with guns. The 2.5 million figure is undoubtedly high. But even if it's off by 90% that's still 250,000 crimes or worse averted. That, as Joe Biden said of Obamacare, is "a big f*****g deal."

 

But who are, overwhelmingly, the criminals thus thwarted?

 

It's the same ones who are committing 75% of the gun murders in this country, thankfully killing each other but in the process adding to the silly statistics of gun grabbers. It's the "gentle giants," the thugs, the permanent and protected slime that represent the anus of American society, the very people not whose lives, but whose votes matter to the ruling class.

 

BTW there is a racial component to this rant but it's not racist. If the average person who works and raises their kids were allowed to carry in this state the hell holes known as Trenton, Camden, Paterson, Irvington, etc. would be a lot different than they are today. People would feel free to walk outside on hot summer nights and businesses, also armed, would move in. 

 

But I'm dreaming here.

It's the "gentle giants," the thugs, the permanent and protected slime that represent the anus of American society, the very people not whose lives, but whose votes matter to the ruling class.

Channeling your inner Walt Whitman there.

 

BTW there is a racial component to this rant but it's not racist. If the average person who works and raises their kids were allowed to carry in this state the hell holes known as Trenton, Camden, Paterson, Irvington, etc. would be a lot different than they are today. People would feel free to walk outside on hot summer nights and businesses, also armed, would move in.

That would be interesting to see.

It's the "gentle giants," the thugs, the permanent and protected slime that represent the anus of American society...

Post of the year. You're such a poetic soul! Ha, ha, ha!

Post of the year. You're such a poetic soul! Ha, ha, ha!

I had to look up the word "anus" but yes, pure poetry. 

Well I think this is a little analysis that deserves airing. The Daily Caller complied 200+ instances where firearms were used to 'save lives' in a one year period. There's a national map where you can drill down to each specific instance and see the documentation on what happened.

 

And here's one rub: the state of New Jersey had a big fat ZERO total of interventions by legally armed citizens. And we all know why. So the corollary is also true: all assaults, robberies, carjackings, murders etc. proceeded unimpeded in the Garden State, courtesy of our legislature.

 

See what you think. I'm bookmarking this one, and using it elsewhere.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/05/gun-control-owners-criminals/

how is thatr so? i seem to recall reading several news articles where legally armed business owners did prevent crimes......

how is thatr so? i seem to recall reading several news articles where legally armed business owners did prevent crimes......

Perhaps they were outside the time period of the sample, or were overlooked. But you get the drift. There definitely were no CCW citizens doing the job in public places, or perhaps even in the home.

It's the same ones who are committing 75% of the gun murders in this country, thankfully killing each other but in the process adding to the silly statistics of gun grabbers. It's the "gentle giants," the thugs, the permanent and protected slime that represent the anus of American society, the very people not whose lives, but whose votes matter to the ruling class.

.

 

Indeed, a nice turn of phrase!

...the permanent and protected slime that represent the anus of American society

...the permanent and protected slime that represent the anus of American society

:wacko::wacko:

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-and-crime-prevention/#note-97-3   Myth: Private ownership of guns is not effective in preventing crime

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. ¹  Of these instances, 15.7% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they “almost certainly” saved their lives by doing so.

Fact: Even the governments estimate, which has a major methodology problem, ² estimates people defend themselves 235,700 times each year with guns. ³

Fact: The number of times per year an American uses a firearm to deter a home invasion alone is 498,000. ⁴

Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

Fact: The rate of defensive gun use (DGU) is six times that of criminal gun use. ⁵

Fact:  Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. ⁶

Fact:  In most of the remaining 8% of defensive gun uses does a citizen wound his or her attacker (they fire warning shots), and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed. ⁷

Fact: In one local review of firearm homicide, more than 12% were civilian legal defensive homicides. ⁸

Fact: For every accidental death (802), suicide (16,869) or homicide (11,348) ⁹ with a firearm (29,019), 13 lives (390,000)¹⁰ are preserved through defensive use.

Fact: When using guns in self-defense, 91.1% of the time, not a single shot is fired. ¹¹

Fact: After the implementation of Canada’s 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possessio n for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate. ¹²

Myth: Only police should have guns

Fact: “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.” ¹³

Fact: For kids in schools, police end such attacks only 27% of the time. ¹⁴

Fact: 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person — about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. ¹⁵

Fact: Police have trouble keeping their own guns.  Hundreds of firearms are missing from the FBI and 449 of them have been involved in crimes. ¹⁶

Fact: People who saw the helplessness of the L.A. Police Department during the 1992 King Riots or the looting and violence in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina know that citizens need guns to defend themselves.

Fact: “In actual shootings, citizens do far better than law enforcement on hit potential. They hit their targets and they don’t hit other people. I wish I could say the same for cops. We train more, they do better.” ¹⁷

  Myth: You are more likely to be injured or killed using a gun for self-defense

Fact: You are far more likely to survive violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. ¹⁸

Myth: Guns are not effective in preventing crime against women

Fact: Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% (192,500) are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

Fact: When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks were completed, compared to 32% when the woman was unarmed. ¹⁹

                                 

Fact: The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with guns. Men also benefit from using guns, but the benefits are smaller: Men are 1.4 times more likely to receive a serious injury. ²⁰

Fact: 28.5% of women have one or more guns in the house. ²¹

Fact: 41.7% of women either own or have convenient access to guns. ²²

Fact: In 1966, the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms training classes to women. Rapes dropped by nearly 90% the following year.

Fact: Firearm availability appears to be particularly useful in avoiding rape. The United Kingdom virtually banned handgun ownership. During the same period handgun ownership in the United States steadily rose. Yet the rate of rape decreased in the United States and skyrocketed in the other countries, as shown in the table.

Fact: More Americans believe having a gun in the home makes them safer. This belief grows every year the survey is taken. ²³

Fact: Arthur Kellerman, a researcher whose work is often cited by gun control groups, said “If you’ve got to resist, your chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah.” ²⁴

Notes:

+1

The press doesn't have to know these facts it just spoils their arguments.

Not going to link it for a tenth time.

 

Check Obama's CDC contracted study in 2013 that was in response to the Connecticut school murders. #1 on his list of executive actions after the tragedy.

 

Don't remember it? Yeah, he didn't like the results, the media didn't discuss it. It said guns are used by civilians 12-78x more often to prevent or stop violent crimes than they are to commit them, or no doubt, "at least as often."

 

I'm willing to rely on Obamanumbers in this case.

The report itself is here:

 

PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#x

 

and an analysis is here:

 

CDC Gun Research Backfires on Obama

http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/

 

The key findings were:

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker

2. Defensive uses of guns are common

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” result

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides

 

And we all know this report was covered extensively in the media 

Well I think this is a little analysis that deserves airing. The Daily Caller complied 200+ instances where firearms were used to 'save lives' in a one year period. There's a national map where you can drill down to each specific instance and see the documentation on what happened.

 

And here's one rub: the state of New Jersey had a big fat ZERO total of interventions by legally armed citizens. And we all know why. So the corollary is also true: all assaults, robberies, carjackings, murders etc. proceeded unimpeded in the Garden State, courtesy of our legislature.

 

See what you think. I'm bookmarking this one, and using it elsewhere.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/05/gun-control-owners-criminals/

Is this 200+ instances total in one year? They gotta be kidding. 

Is this 200+ instances total in one year? They gotta be kidding. 

They did not propose these were the only instances in that time period. It's just the 200+ they documented.

They did not propose these were the only instances in that time period. It's just the 200+ they documented.

But the numbers are extremely misleading. Anti-gun people could say that "according to wildly pro-gun website Daily Caller guns prevented only 250 crimes in the U.S. during their one-year study period, compared with 30,000 gun deaths. Clearly..."

 

The writer didn't even bother to disclose the underlying methodology, or explain that national figures are estimated at 10,000 times higher.

 

It doesn't matter if the factoid is true or not, it will live and grow and be quoted 15 years from now. Ever try arguing with someone who believes that criminals will steal your guns and murder everyone on your block?

 

As I said I think the 2.5 million number is total B.S., as it would amount to 50,000 instances per state per year, or ONE THOUSAND per week. Frankly I don't believe our criminal class is capable of controlling its consumption of heroin and crack to the extent required to engage in that level of activity (plus all their successful rapes, robberies, burglaries, murders, etc.).

 

But even 10%, 250,000 of that figure is tremendous. Shit even 1%, 25,000, represents the best non-constitutional argument you can make for keeping and bearing.

Well OK, but anti-gun zealots say and distort whatever they want regardless of how any facts add up or are presented. I was just glad to see 200+ documented cases with map and reporting references in one place. I can make use of that sample.

 

There is no perfect, all encompassing, data driven, reality based argument that will convince progressive hoplophobes. They 'feel' they're right, that's all they need, and no one is going to change their mind. And from their point of view we're the (fill-in-your-blank).

 

They didn't even accept Obama's own CDC commissioned report.

Well OK, but anti-gun zealots say and distort whatever they want regardless of how any facts add up or are presented. I was just glad to see 200+ documented cases with map and reporting references in one place. I can make use of that sample.

 

There is no perfect, all encompassing, data driven, reality based argument that will convince progressive hoplophobes. They 'feel' they're right, that's all they need, and no one is going to change their mind. And from their point of view we're the (fill-in-your-blank).

 

They didn't even accept Obama's own CDC commissioned report.

No this is serious. This writer alleged that just under 300 crimes were thwarted by individuals with firearms. Without qualifying how they got to those numbers this is perhaps the most egregious anti-gun article you'll see in a long time because it seriously understates the practical (and I'll add again non-constitutional) justifications for gun ownership. 

 

I don't see self-defense, hunting, sport-shooting, or cockroach extermination in the 2nd Amendment, As for national defense if you understand the English language you'll realize that "A well-regulated militia, being necessary..." could just as easily have read "The oysters at Fraunces Tavern, being especially fresh on Thursdays..."

 

I just see a right. Subject to reasonable regulation but nevertheless "inalienable."

If you want a number, when the fbi was compiling such, they had numbers around the 80,000 mark. The methodology made it extremely safe to assume that grossly under counted number of defensive uses.

If you want a number, when the fbi was compiling such, they had numbers around the 80,000 mark. The methodology made it extremely safe to assume that grossly under counted number of defensive uses.

 

Do you have a link to their findings?

With yesterdays liquor store robbery gone wrong with 2 dead perps, I would say quite well.

death photo is on leveleak

Well OK, but anti-gun zealots say and distort whatever they want regardless of how any facts add up or are presented. I was just glad to see 200+ documented cases with map and reporting references in one place. I can make use of that sample.

 

There is no perfect, all encompassing, data driven, reality based argument that will convince progressive hoplophobes. They 'feel' they're right, that's all they need, and no one is going to change their mind. And from their point of view we're the (fill-in-your-blank).

 

They didn't even accept Obama's own CDC commissioned report.

Please don't use that article for anything. <300 instances would be like the CDC posting a map showing the residences of all 13 individuals in Fort Lauderdale who got drunk during the most recent Spring Break. 

When facts don't work (typically with progressives they don't) ask them why we're forced to have (by law) a fire extinguisher in our home when the chance of a fire is less than .005% . Also, why have fire extinguishers when we have a fire dept? Why have air bags? Why have smoke detectors? Why have an alarm system? We have all these items as precautions, so how is a gun or defending oneself any different?

 

I don't believe I'll ever use my fire extinguisher, but I have 3 of them and replace them every few years. Isn't defending oneself and having the upper hand [even] more critical?

When facts don't work (typically with progressives they don't) ask them why we're forced to have (by law) a fire extinguisher in our home when the chance of a fire is less than .005% . Also, why have fire extinguishers when we have a fire dept? Why have air bags? Why have smoke detectors? Why have an alarm system? We have all these items as precautions, so how is a gun or defending oneself any different?

 

I don't believe I'll ever use my fire extinguisher, but I have 3 of them and replace them every few years. Isn't defending oneself and having the upper hand [even] more critical?

But studies have shown that you're more likely to drown in your fire extinguisher fluid than put out a fire with it. And what if somebody breaks into your home, steals your fire extinguisher, and uses it to split somebody's head open? Only firemen should have fire extinguishers. 

But studies have shown that you're more likely to drown in your fire extinguisher fluid than put out a fire with it. And what if somebody breaks into your home, steals your fire extinguisher, and uses it to split somebody's head open? Only firemen should have fire extinguishers. 

...and why do I need more than one extinguisher?