Post news reports that show wisdom of citizens carrying guns

Gas

So your arguing that the US suffers from far more crimes than other places with far less gun ownership and/or gun restrictions.
I meanif you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they do not seem that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions.

In those places with far less gun ownership crimes would be reported but you think that in the US those crime are not reported. So therefore in your opinion America has a vastly greater crime rate than countries that have gun restrictions.

Which would seem to imply that’s guns (and the huge number of gun related homicides) are not any good at lowering crime rates and that maybe the US should look to those countries with much lower crime rates as a model.

 

Your logic is screwed and the above post has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I have pointed out.
The OP's question is flawed from the start due to the discrepancies in reporting of crimes committed vs crimes averted.
VERY SIMPLE LOGIC AND CONCEPT.

PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS CALL THE POLICE WHEN THEY HAVE PREVENTED A CRIME FROM BEING COMMITTED, WHETHER THEY USED A GUN TO PREVENT IT OR NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you can not comprehend that, I don't know how to make it clearer.

The OP's and your entire argument in this rests on the number of reported incidents of citizens PREVENTING crime via the use/presence of their firearm.
Because there is a big disparity between the reporting of these incidents, any "results" you may arrive at via statistics will be skewed and not accurately reflect the reality.
That has come up over and over and the same conclusion is always reached, no definitive answer to the SPECIFIC QUESTION THE OP ASKED can be ascertained.

again, the logic you exhibited above is a fucking joke and has nothing to do with the original question.

 

Yeah, let's ask the NRA about gun control myths... no bias in that source

 

True, but the "myths" they list are exactly that, myths with little or no basis in reality.

This is where discernment comes into play and not just dismissing something because of where it came from.

 

Gas

As I’ve said other than the massive hike in US gun related murders other crimes seem at around the same levels as places with gun restrictions.

So are you saying a gun has no real value in preventing crime, I mean if having guns was better at limiting crime then wouldn’t the other countries with limited gun ownership have vastly higher crime figures (not having the guns to stop them).

Or are you saying that being armed with a gun is better at preventing crime indicating that the US has much more crime.

In both cases guns would seem to not be that good at limiting crime while causing a lot of deaths.

 

Well, they start off saying that "surveys" can be worded anyway they want to get the desired results, then they go on to cite surveys that favor their agenda.

And when they start citing the founding fathers, thats where I get off. The weapons they had back then aren't even considered firearms nowadays, they were goddam single-shot blackpowder flintlock muzzle-loaders.

There is practically zero relevance today to what the founding fathers put in that document about guns.

 

*sigh*

twisting shit around again rather than addressing the actual question


I believe we have covered this before as well.
Are you taking into account the enormous differences in overall population??

If memory serves I looked into it once and actually found that a few small European countries with strict gun laws have a much higher per capita crime rate than the U.S.


and isn't there some pressing social problem in the UK that needs your expert counseling?
I notice you are always silent when it comes to the crap in your own yard.

 

Gas

The figures i gave above on crime rates was per 100,000 people therefore taking into account differences in population

 

I accept your challenge!

This one took me less than 5 seconds to find:

Homeowners detain intruder at gunpoint
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2014/01/pinson_neighbors_hold_suspecte.html

They didn't even have to shoot the guy, let alone kill him.


There's lots of stories out there if you took the time to actually look. Problem is the media wants us to think guns are scary and don't promote stories like these very often. And you've fallen for it.

 

In 2011 there were 201 justifiable homicides (firearms, by a private citizen) in the United States.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15

What I find interesting is that there's no data for 2012 and 2013 when there should be.

 

Coffee

But as Noxious Gas has implied that kind of thing can happen in places with low gun ownership and gun restrictions.

Homeowner sits on burglar until police arrive
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Homeowner-sits-burglar-police-arrive/story-20387043-detail/story.html

So it does not show that guns are a good way of lowering crime generally - in fact as I’ve explained they seem to have little effect on general crime while vastly increasing the number of gun related deaths.

 

Thanks. I did not know about this web page.

 

You're welcome.

 

Weakest argument ever!
All your article proves is that some people are physically stronger, and better fighters than others. So what. There are actually people who wouldn't stand a chance pinning down a fully grown 18 year old male bare handed. That includes most women.

 

Coffee

But if you are arguing that large scale gun ownership is a good tool in bringing down general crime rates then that doesn’t seem to be the case as I’ve tried to explain above can you address those criticisms?

 

Murder and crime have been greatly reduced in New York City, not by an armed citizenry though.

 

your comprehension skills are woefully lacking.

If one the obstacles to establishing if gun ownership decreases crime is the LACK of reporting these incidents, then why do you keep wanting to dredge up INACCURATE statistics and think they support your case???????

The data set available is incomplete and inaccurate, therefore any results obtained carry those inaccuracies and need to be considered in that light.

Is that really so difficult for you to comprehend and understand??????

That is the central point I have made, none other, anything beyond that is pure conjecture on your part.

If you have researched this topic as in depth as you claim, then you know I am correct in this.
I have been a gun owner and fan for over 35 years and have been following this topic for the same length of time.
From the time that this issue really heated up with the assignation attempt on Ronny Raygun that left James Brady half a carrot, this inaccuracy in reporting crimes averted has been a known and acknowledged factor.

For you to not acknowledge it just confirms that you are only interested in data that you believe supports your position and approach the entire subject with an abundance of ignorance and the demeanor of a pompous ass.

 

This is a topic that you can go in circles with. Does gun ownership make us safer? Does it increase crime? Etc, etc. In the end, it's nothing more than a debate because guns aren't going anywhere in the US. There are way too many guns to think that we will ever get rid of them. Even if we said "Ok...all guns are now illegal!"....what are you going to do? Wait for people to turn them in? Most law abiding gun owners don't think the gov't should be able to take their guns and the criminals don't give a shit what the law says to begin with. Nobody is going to line up to turn in their guns and going door to door to take them is not advisable.

 

Results of news stories would be easily googleable.

http://gunssavelives.net/tag/tx/


However, stories like those don't prove the thesis there is no need for more gun control, and tragedies don't prove the opposite. If you want to look at less emotional more analytical data, those are available from uniform crime reports. It shows the obvious, that as a country we do have a shooting each other problem.

It seems that people often take that problem to extremes of either proposing complete bans or on the other end, just dismissing it.

I own a gun, and I absolutely do not trust the police to protect me. I'm very skeptical of complete bans. However, I do think some controls aren't a bad thing. Limiting the amount of cartridges a semiauto can hold is not a 2nd amendment thing.

I think the most beneficial thing is to improve mental health services and drug rehabilitation services, and improve access to jobs and opportunities, which are the root causes of most violent acts.

 

Gas

You are saying we should us these statistics but what do you suggest we use – hear say?

We have the statistics we have and they don’t seem to back up the argument that more guns equals less crime in a American context – they seem to suggest that large scale gun ownership in the US just results in a large number of gun related deaths (if you have opposing data then please produce it).

The question that then needs to be asked is why that is so in an American context.