no I mean defensive gun use. That does not mean anyone was killed, shot or even the gun was fired. I just think it would be an interesting comparative. no need to get all bent about it. please continue
You mean, you want to see how many people used a gun to pistol whip in self defense or used a deactivated gun to prevent crime? That's an unmeasureable statistic, and that's the reason why we count death rates because it's a staple measurement of evaluating a particular gun-related crime.
there have indeed been many studies regarding defensive gun uses. Even the Brady Campaign has admitted as many as 60,000+ a year in the US. Other have it higher which is why I believe its really somewhere in the middle. If you want to look at "death rates" only then how do you explain how those very stats (gun deaths) did not drop in the UK after Dunblane? Or In Austrailia after Port Arthur? It has been well over 10 years now and there has been no discernable difference in gun related deaths. Again that is why I said earlier that the next few years will proove very interesting to watch the DC crime stats since they are so huge you should be able to see if there are any effects or not.
firearms don't cause crime of any sort. criminals cause crime. you'd be better off blaming whoever did the shooting, rather than blaming the gun itself.
No, but firearms are related to deaths. That's the point. I'm not blaming anyone or trying to blame a gun for the death of a person. This isn't about blame.
But isnt the point of the thread weather or not there is a relationship between the availability of guns and the number of deaths? Which goes back to my unanswered question above.
so are knives.. look at the out of control knife attacks that are going on in the U.K. by all accounts knife related violence there is rampant.. so do you suggest after guns we ban knives?? then whats next forks?? the point is that its not the gun that kills,its the person behind the gun.. you take away all the guns and those people WILL find another weapon as has been proven in the U.K.. this thread was started with a article on the right to carry a gun for personal protection.. so is it O.K. for people in the U.K. to carry a weapon for protection? ummm,,the answer is NO,,not even a knife or stick,,but yet the knife attacks still happen on a daily basis.. would they decrease if the people of the U.K. were allowed to arm themselves? i dunno.. i do know that a person should have a right to protect themselves with the same weapon as the criminal who is preying on them has.
Either you have problems reading or you intentionally misrepresent my comments. Read them again. You didn't post the facts to which I refer. Your statistics concern gun deaths by all means, suicide, homicide, and accident. They do not breakdown the deaths by these categories. (If you plan to reply read carefully what I say. Thank you.) lol Regarding my comment of not seeing how gun control relates to all of my comments, for example, accidents. Do you plan to ban gun ownership entirely? Most gun control advocates are not that extreme in the United States. They allow for sportsmen to have guns. (Note: I said most, in case you can't read my comments.) Now sportsmen will be pissed. I am not saying all sportsmen may store their guns in a thoughtless manner, but some who hunt do. I have a concealed handgun permit. It is a good idea to carry a gun legally if you go around in Houston at night, sometimes even in daylight. Now the Houston backers will be pissed.
I think you are too kind to yourself. Perhaps someone said cars kill more than handguns. That is nutty. Cars nor handguns kill anyone. People kill using cars and handguns, some by accident, some on purpose, and some to kill themselves. You also might check the meaning of logic.
Use your new found logic on the statement, "we count death rates because it's a staple measurement of evaluating a particular gun-related crime." What, suicide or accident? Pitt means guns may deter someone from killing someone else. Of course, there are no statistics on something like this. They also may be used to save the defensive persons life, while taking the offenders life. How would you morally evaluate that, since morals are what you are really discussing. Whether you realize it or not, you hold human life to be sacred. I don't think a humanistic argument can be used to discount self-defense. However, I have never thought a great deal about it. I think 29,000+ death are quite a lot. One would be too many if it were mine, yours, or people we care about. I'm sure you agree somewhat with this.
Who died and made me Queen of the World? What would the point of posting a break down on accidents, suicides, homicides and miscellaneous, hm? You seem to be trying to point out some flaw in the statistics that I posted, but you have missed the mark. What would the point of viewing statistics on suicide gun deaths be?
Again, who died and made me Queen of the World? The facts are facts. Put people behind many guns = more kills by guns. Whether it's by accident, suicide or homicide. Those are the facts. There is no dispute. And I'm not convinced that carrying a gun can prevent any crime from happening. Where is that statistic, hm???
Ok . Your stats were for Reported Crimes the majority of crimes prevented with a gun go unreported (mainly because of the nature of the business) I don't have (stats) since they're unreported, but my best guesstimate would be 3000-5000 a day.
LINK Not really statistics but rather news stories illustrating defensive uses. Archived stories are on the left of the page.
How many times does someone walk into a police station (or anyplace else they know everyone else is armed) and shoot the place up?
This is the last time I explain something to you, because I don't think you understand what is written. Suicide is a self-inflicted death. Homicide is not, nor is an accident. If a person wants to commit suicide and does not have a gun he/she can use a variety of other methods. My choice would be an overdose of drugs. Might as well go out happy. I suppose you do not favor outlawing all narcotics, do you? Under these circumstances, which seem reasonable, logical, a gun is irrelevant. Suicides contributed to the 29,000 deaths by guns, about half, but that fact doesn't get to the heart of the problem of gun control which is deaths caused by homicide or accident. Gun control advocates promise that if guns are not available murder and accidental death will go down. They can't promise that people will quit committing suicide. Although making suicide a crime has been tried, it is nuts. Why would you want to punish a suicide? If they fail they would be found innocent by reason of insanity, and if you tried a dead person you should be found guilty by reason of insanity. BTW, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that you don't want to understand, that you are getting off by harassing advocates who favor the right to carry a firearm. Whatever rocks your boat, I guess. lol Since I tried to explain my comment to you, please explain to me what your quote about being "Queen of the World" means. I do not understand it. So far as I know no one is trying to make you anything. (I thought of something naughty to say here, but I won't.)
I don't have the stats, probably Balbus does. I've never owned a gun, never wanted to until recently. I think I do now. I've never lived in society with this sort of climate until GW. I don't see it changing anytime soon. It's a society where your home can be invaded without warrant, your reputation ruined by innuendo, your grandparents can be tased multiple times for simply being viewed as presenting a risk to law enforcement, no basic human rights are reserved for citizens...I think I am going to buy a gun. Every citizen is now seen as a potential terrorist first, a citizen only last in the food chain and hardly worth protecting the rights of. Congress continues to allow the outsourcing of primary governmental roles to agencies like Blackwater that have no accountability to anyone...where does the average citizen turn in times like these, when our police departments are trained and armed by private contractors?
Here's the thing I tell people: Regardless if you like guns or not (and I am not particularly keen on them myself), you MUST understand the reasons why there is such an effort being made to demonize any and all guns. It has nothing to do with keeping children safe or any of that nonsense. It's about protecting the government against the people. It's much easier to implement martial law and completely take over if people are not armed and completely at the mercy of their oppressors.
When an old lady can be tased for not watering her lawn, I think it's time to take stock of personal protections.
