Reply #26: In the past these points you raise have been argued.

[Glassunion]

As for your statement: “They have not established a primary assumption that stands up to logical scrutiny, namely that the presence of any weapon stops crime.” In fact this point has been argued in the past here. Although you do raise an excellent point that: “One cannot prove something by using an negative example - "it didn't happen because, er, someone had a gun and so, um, someone else who might have shot up the place, ur, didn't, um, shoot, um ... so there!" Contra wise, one cannot use logically the opposite example that "some folks were shot up and none of the victims had a weapon."” However those are not the only arguments that one can use.

Yes it is impossible to say that a crime did not happen because of “A”. Because the crime did not occur, it is speculation to say that the crime did not happen. Hence the logical defect you mentioned. However, on the other hand you do have crimes that did occur or were attempted. The NCVS surveys of 2007 had some interesting data in them about victims that resisted a violent crime and the outcomes of those situations.

Now the survey did not specify what weapons the victims used to defend themselves, however it did show that those that did in fact use a weapon or threaten to use a weapon were more than 2 times more likely to stop the crime after it had begun. The issue with the data is that it goes through great lengths to specify what weapons the bad guy uses, however it does not at all break out the defensive uses of firearms, blunt objects, knives or other. It just states weapons.

Under the topic of self-protective measures, 1.2% of victims of violent crimes actually attacked the offender with a weapon. 2.1% of victims of violent crimes threatened the use of a weapon. Those who actually attacked the offender with a weapon had 2 to 1 odds at being successful at stopping the crime that was being committed. Now those who attacked the offender without a weapon had 1 to 2 odds to remain a victim. Those who threaten the offender with a weapon (but never use it) had 3 to 1 odds at stopping the crime. Those who threaten without a weapon only had about 1 to 1 odds of stopping the crime.

Overall what the report did show was that resistance by the victim or others was the avenue to take. Further resistance with a weapon is the most successful of those avenues. 65% of victims reported that resisting helped the situation. Only 6% stated that it hurt the situation with 11% reporting that it neither helped nor hurt the situation. Over 50% stated that by resisting they avoided injury or greater injury, nearly 20% scared off the offender and 15% were able to escape.

There have been several surveys in the past on defensive gun uses. All with varying results. The bare minimum numbers out of the surveys was that there were over 750 thousand defensive gun uses a year where at the top of the scale a report of up to 4 million a year. I personally believe in the Department of Justice report that there are about 1.5 million a year.

Finally as for: “I am not saying I disagree with those of you who carry concealed, although I will tell you, based on my subjective experience as an officer, that if someone is packing, that they are a danger, either overtly or by omission of duty. I.E. they are more likely to shoot if they have a gun and they are more likely to have a gun taken away from them and used if they have a gun.” You are correct, one cannot shoot a firearm or have one taken away if they do not have one. As a retired officer how often did you notice people, police included, having their gun taken away? This is also a point that has been brought up often, and there is not one statistical claim that I have seen that supports that this happens with any form of frequency. Yes it does happen, however it is quite rare.

http://ncjrs.gov/
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1743