Defensive use of firearms, using the VPC's numbers...

[virginia mountainman]

I stumbled over a recent article that made this graph, using the Violence Policy Center's numbers (which have the smallest number of defensive gun uses than most other studies) You know run by the same Josh Sugarman that likes to make up new terms, specifically to cause confusion...

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf



...Imagine that....

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. Josh is just so quizzical

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/02/the_quintessenc.php

[virginia mountainman]

2. He really does not care one iota about his hypocrisy..

For him, and folks like him, the end result is all that matters. Even if it means lying, misleading, and cheating.

[beevul]

3. MORE DEFENSIVE USES THAN GUN DEATHS.

Like we have always said.

Start getting the crow ready, and I'll wash up a bunch of plates and set the table for the ammophobes.

[virginia mountainman]

4. yea....and...

Those, are the VPC's numbers...

[scscholar]

29. Except this study is baised so we know it isn't true

They are offensive weapons. You can't stop a bullet with a bullet.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. The idea is to stop the aggressor and they don't always use bullets

Last edited Sun Jul 10, 2016, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)

When they do, they don't always get off the first shot.

[beevul]

5. Kickety kick. N/T

[flamin lib]

6. Where did you find this graph? It's not at your link.

I did find a table that showed that .08% of violent crime was averted by DGU while 43.8% were resolved by offering no resistance, 22.1% were resolved by threatening without a weapon and 22.2% were resolved by non-confrontation methods.

So, from your own posted source 88.1% were resolved without a gun or to be more blunt 1100 times more people resolved a violent confrontation without a gun than with one.

Lie much?

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. "Lie much?" A lie like endorsing something you haven't tested?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=192266

That kind of lie? Or the one that counts only "threatening or attacks with a firearm" as
a defensive gun use? (Page six of the linked document).

Even if the 0.8% by the restricted definition were true, that's still 235,700
defensive gun uses (page 8)

[Kang Colby]

8. K&R!

Even with massive DGU understatement from DGU, it's quite clear that guns save lives.

[beevul]

9. K&R. N/T

[beevul]

10. Kickety kick. N/t

[Eleanors38]

11. The stuff controllers don't like, and will deny even exists.

[DonP]

12. Hell, they can totally ignore the 2013 CDC study and the results

So they can pretty much "overlook" anything that doesn't make them feel all warm and fuzzy or match the bumper stickers they draw their "philosophy" from.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Even if the numbers were 1 DGU to 9,000 criminal homicides that 1 is still justified.

[SCantiGOP]

17. Want to make sure I understand you

If defensive gun uses saved 100
lives a year, but caused 900,000 (or almost a million) 'criminal homicides,' you would consider that 'justified'?

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. How can defensive gun use *cause* criminal homicides (i.e. murder or manslaughter)?

If it's found to be murder or manslaughter, it's by definition not defensive.

[SCantiGOP]

24. I'm pretty sure you understood

Insert the word "guns" in my post between the words "but" and "caused": so question is whether poster is actually saying that he/she would trade 100 lives saved by defensive gun uses for 900,000 gun-related criminal homicides.
Secondary question: does it mean anything if some of those 900,000 were the children of Newtown, Conn?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. If 900,000 murders are occurring

a person would be better off owning a gun.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. In the real world, there are more defensive gun uses than there are murders/manslaughters

Even the decidedly antigun VPC concedes this

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. How many innocent people are protected by the 4th Amendment versus criminals

who escape an otherwise justified conviction?

How many more criminals could we get off the street if only we just abolish the 4th Amendment?

Would it be worth the occasional innocent person being enduing warrantless search and seizure?

[SCantiGOP]

26. I understand

You don't care to answer my direct question.

Let's just put each other on Ignore and move on.
Good bye.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. I answered your question. You just refuse to consider the fact that innocent people have rights.

And those rights should not be disposed of in the name of security.

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. Kicking- because the doctrinaire find it inconvenient

[struggle4progress]

15. From your VPC link:

Introduction

Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.

In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

This report analyzes, on both the national and state levels, the use of firearms in justifiable homicides ...

[beevul]

16. So you should be happy then...

That most defensive gun uses don't involve actual gun violence.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. Since "guns are designed to kill"...

...any incident involving a gun that doesn't result in a death, means that the gun wasn't used. Or at least what I infer from many pro-control comments.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. You do realize that you weren't supposed to notice that?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. Oops........sorry

my mistake

[beevul]

21. Wait, those bloodshirsty gunners aren't actually...bloodthirsty?

*snort*

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. Bloody Mary is about as far as I go

[Kaleva]

31. A gun that holds just a few rounds is adequate then.

The odds that a gun owner will someday have to kill in self defense is incredibly slim.

[virginia mountainman]

32. A few dozen rounds atleast..

Just to be certain I have enough...

[jimmy the one]

34. sloppy OP + bum link = 2ndAmendment Mythology

va mtn man: I stumbled over a recent article that made this graph, using the Violence Policy Center's numbers (which have the smallest number of defensive gun uses than most other studies) You know run by the same Josh Sugarman that likes to make up new terms, specifically to cause confusion...

There appear to be approx 8 times more dgus (defensive gun uses) than murders (presumably gun murders), for one particular unidentified year. What was the year, mtn man?
Since you didn't bother to make any point, but from further progun discourse downthread, it seems you all are thinking that this somehow justifies guns as saving more lives than they cause(??correct me if wrong).

Disabuse yourselves from that absurd thought, for, for that to be true, all of those approx 68,000 dgus would have to have saved a life. That is an impossibility. You're lucky to get away with a couple hundred lives saved due to dgus, in that graph, maybe 10 times higher, or more.
Then you would also need tack on approx 800 firearm accidental deaths for a more valid contrast, as well as make a separate graph which would include gun suicides.
What was the total figure for violent crimes committed with firearms for that year mtn man? & firearms used in property crimes for that year mtn man? Imagine the blue 'murder' bar going about 3 or 4 times higher than the dgu bar.

Your second amendment mythology is so stupid sometimes, yet it is almost always astonishing to see how much support downthread the mythology seems to get.

Fix your link, sloppy mtn man, it is to justifiable homicides vs. non fatal dgus.

SCantiGOP & struggle for progress posters were on the right track, exposing mtn man & his back slapping psycho-fants for their misconceptions.