Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have a very narrow view of DGU. Most people share my definition including researchers.
Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either “often” or “regularly” worried that they “[m]ight get shot at by the victim”; and 57% agreed with the statement, “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.” What really scares criminals: Armed citizens - National self-defense | Examiner.com
"Most people"? Most people who are gun rights zealots, I'm sure. "Including researchers"? Dare you to prove that. You can't. Citing "researchers" as if some kind of homogeneous sub-culture is specious nonsense. That you can find "researchers" to support your favorite view in anything on this planet is nothing new - or credible.
You go from Gary Kleck's garbage study to now the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank funded by the Koch's. As for the Wright and Rossi survey, it is probably fairly legit. Yet the way it is quoted is often without contextual balance. For example:
69% saying they knew someone else who had been scared off etc. is hearsay that can't be substantiated in any meaningful way.
34% "worried" they might get shot at by the victim is also not very surprising is it? And pretty meaningless when you consider that anyone commiting a crime is going to be worried about being caught or defeated by anyone or anything in process. I'm surprised the figure was so low. But regardless, how does that support defensive gun use?
57% "more worried about meeting an armed victim than police"? Well of course! If criminals thought that the cops were likely to be around at all, they wouldn't commit the crime, for crying out loud. They're going to worry about being defeated by the victim regardless of guns.
None of this supports the validity of using empty threats of gun possession as DGU. Defensive Gun Use is using an actual gun. Find that statistic. Then we can talk.
"Most people"? Most people who are gun rights zealots, I'm sure. "Including researchers"? Dare you to prove that. You can't. Citing "researchers" as if some kind of homogeneous sub-culture is specious nonsense. That you can find "researchers" to support your favorite view in anything on this planet is nothing new - or credible.
You go from Gary Kleck's garbage study to now the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank funded by the Koch's. As for the Wright and Rossi survey, it is probably fairly legit. Yet the way it is quoted is often without contextual balance. For example:
69% saying they knew someone else who had been scared off etc. is hearsay that can't be substantiated in any meaningful way.
34% "worried" they might get shot at by the victim is also not very surprising is it? And pretty meaningless when you consider that anyone commiting a crime is going to be worried about being caught or defeated by anyone or anything in process. I'm surprised the figure was so low. But regardless, how does that support defensive gun use?
57% "more worried about meeting an armed victim than police"? Well of course! If criminals thought that the cops were likely to be around at all, they wouldn't commit the crime, for crying out loud. They're going to worry about being defeated by the victim regardless of guns.
None of this supports the validity of using empty threats of gun possession as DGU. Defensive Gun Use is using an actual gun. Find that statistic. Then we can talk.
I cannot find a statistic that is not collected. Statistics search for black and white, DGU has many shades of gray, I don't know why you pretend otherwise. They only available information is self reported in surveys but you don't like that. So instead you just pretend like it doesn't happen.
The link I provided has a source, why don't you read the source documents for context. Linking a whole article or sources is frowned apon. Plus you start with ad hominium attacks to ignore the information provided.
I cannot find a statistic that is not collected. Statistics search for black and white, DGU has many shades of gray, I don't know why you pretend otherwise. They only available information is self reported in surveys but you don't like that. So instead you just pretend like it doesn't happen.
The link I provided has a source, why don't you read the source documents for context. Linking a whole article or sources is frowned apon. Plus you start with ad hominium attacks to ignore the information provided.
If a statistic is not reported it, the statistic, doesn't exist. That is not to say the events don't exist. It is to say the statistic doesn't exist. You can't use a non-existent statistic. Self-reporting is bullsh*t. You are arguing points without provable foundation. I don't pretend it doesn't happen. I have said it does. I also say if you can't verifiably show how often something happens it is pointless.
I read some of your source documents. I have seen the Cato report and the Kleck garbage before a number of times.
Furthermore, I have pointed to valid arguments favoring gun ownership several times. What I am contesting is baseless blather. It defeats the supportive intent.
This is still going? The anti-gun crowd is never going to convince the pro-gun crowd that more gun laws and bans are the answer and the pro-gun crowd is never going to convince the anti-gun crowd that there is no need for more gun control. You are all just wasting your time in here.
This is still going? The anti-gun crowd is never going to convince the pro-gun crowd that more gun laws and bans are the answer and the pro-gun crowd is never going to convince the anti-gun crowd that there is no need for more gun control. You are all just wasting your time in here.
I said similar a few posts back. And the point of my discussion is to say that pro-gun advocates do a disservice to their cause by using bad arguments. There are valid reasons for gun ownership. Don't obfuscate them with nonsense.
Wasting time here? Nearly everything on forums is pretty much just leisure blather. Just killing time chatting away.
Ummm, I don't see an issue, I own a couple guns and have a CCW permit that covers two of my pistols. From what I understand this would only affect people perceived as a threat to themselves and others, pending a case before a judge/magistrate. I don't see how this would pose a issue or additional barrier for me or my friends.
Until your ex-wife, exgirlfriend, et al wants to ********* over and makes claims against you. Remember, In a court of law, its your word against theirs. And when Domestic Violence is involved, or alleged to be involved, the accused is automatically wrong.
Oh, your ex wife won't do that? Uh, maybe. But her family will; especially when you bring your new girlfriend to some sort of family gathering.
Not too mention, your neighbor could make such allegations against you and you will lose your guns, because he/she is upset your dog barks too loud.
Until your ex-wife, exgirlfriend, et al wants to ********* over and makes claims against you. Remember, In a court of law, its your word against theirs. And when Domestic Violence is involved, or alleged to be involved, the accused is automatically wrong.
Oh, your ex wife won't do that? Uh, maybe. But her family will; especially when you bring your new girlfriend to some sort of family gathering.
Not too mention, your neighbor could make such allegations against you and you will lose your guns, because he/she is upset your dog barks too loud.
The public's ignorance is truly astounding.
The ignorance of ALL people is outstanding. The courts. And the cops as well. Friend of mine's wife was arrested for DUI. She is Deaf. When the cop stopped her for a minor traffic infraction she handed him her license and gestured she was deaf. Cop thought the deaf aren't allowed to have driver's licenses (even though they have been driving with licenses for a hundred years) so she must be faking to hide something. When she kept gesturing with her hands he thought that was weird behavior so she MUST be drunk, right? Even though he couldn't smell any booze. So he threw her in handcuffs and jail. She went to trial. The jury convicted her without even a breath test for evidence (she refused to take test without interpreter present - her ADA right). Three years, $50k and three lawyers later, with a dozen affidavits from the class full of students she had been teaching, sober, 10 minutes prior to being stopped, and others, the court finally overturned the conviction.
So yeah, everybody's stupid. Cops. Courts. The public. and yeah, stupid people do believe stupid people. And stupid people also do stupid things with guns. Stupid is stupid. There is no answer to stupid.
Good thing there wasn't a ccw gun in her purse. Stupid cop mighta shot her. Gesturing woman and all.
Until your ex-wife, exgirlfriend, et al wants to ********* over and makes claims against you. Remember, In a court of law, its your word against theirs. And when Domestic Violence is involved, or alleged to be involved, the accused is automatically wrong.
Oh, your ex wife won't do that? Uh, maybe. But her family will; especially when you bring your new girlfriend to some sort of family gathering.
Not too mention, your neighbor could make such allegations against you and you will lose your guns, because he/she is upset your dog barks too loud.
The public's ignorance is truly astounding.
First: I have no exes, I been happily married for 11 years.
Second: what an idiotic post that your whole basis for believing this law is faulty is based on a hypothetical domestic dispute?!
There is something called facts and evidence, they are required for things to happen it is not a simple he said/she said.
Third: my wife has been a sheriff dispatcher for the last 7 years, we hear about/discuss these calls all the time, but unlike you, actually understand the laws and how things would go. When in doubt I can ask the sheriff or chief of police directly.
Fourth: I am done with this thread so you can say whatever you want without fear of logic coming back at you, "never argue with a idiot, they will drag you down to their level then beat you with their experience."
First: I have no exes, I been happily married for 11 years.
Second: what an idiotic post that your whole basis for believing this law is faulty is based on a hypothetical domestic dispute?!
There is something called facts and evidence, they are required for things to happen it is not a simple he said/she said.
Third: my wife has been a sheriff dispatcher for the last 7 years, we hear about/discuss these calls all the time, but unlike you, actually understand the laws and how things would go. When in doubt I can ask the sheriff or chief of police directly.
Fourth: I am done with this thread so you can say whatever you want without fear of logic coming back at you, "never argue with a idiot, they will drag you down to their level then beat you with their experience."
If you think the standard for getting a TRO requires proof and evidence then you are not involved in that part of the justice system. The system is abused constantly by vindictive spouses trying to gain leverage in divorce proceedings.
First: I have no exes, I been happily married for 11 years.
Second: what an idiotic post that your whole basis for believing this law is faulty is based on a hypothetical domestic dispute?!
There is something called facts and evidence, they are required for things to happen it is not a simple he said/she said.
Third: my wife has been a sheriff dispatcher for the last 7 years, we hear about/discuss these calls all the time, but unlike you, actually understand the laws and how things would go. When in doubt I can ask the sheriff or chief of police directly.
Fourth: I am done with this thread so you can say whatever you want without fear of logic coming back at you, "never argue with a idiot, they will drag you down to their level then beat you with their experience."
Facts and evidence? Your wife is a police dispatcher? Oh how wonderful. I'm a police officer and have been for 25 years. I see with and deal with false claims all the time. Facts and evidence mean NOTHING in the real world. A judge and others, error on the side of caution. Someone makes allegations against you, right wrong or indifferent, and they run with it. Sure, you MAY win in a long, very long court battle; however, that will take you years and lots of money to "win."
You are not seeing, nor realizing the bigger picture here. The California Government is looking for ways, anyway, to take guns away from the general population. This "scheme" is one of those ways. Merely accusing someone of something is enough for the police to take guns from people and tie it up in court for years. See, most people won't even fight the criminal justice system to get their guns back and that is what they are banking on.
You maybe done with this thread, which is a good thing: Your logic and police dispatcher wife, which means nothing, is flawed and basically stupid/ignorant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
