Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads.
You've asked for statistics. On the chance that you are sincere, I suggest you check into the work of Gary Kleck, a criminologist from Florida State University. A lot of the studies of Defensive Gun Use (DGU) start with Kleck's study. The 2 million DGU number is from way back in 1993. You can also check out John Lott's book, as others have mentioned.
After Kleck's study, the DoJ came out with a survey in 1994 that estimated 1.5 million DGUs annually. The DOJ survey used a smaller sample size than Kleck's study and, again, that was back in 1994.
One survey that is usually quoted by gun control advocates is the National Crime Victimization Survey, where they estimated that there were only 108,000 DGUs back in 1993. When asked about the huge discrepancy between the Kleck survey and the The NCVS survey, Kleck had this to say:
Quote:
"Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."
"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."
So much for the NCVS. It's unclear (to me) whether the DoJ survey was as flawed as the NCVS.
Like a lot of gun control advocates, you seem to be going on and on about gun crimes - as if the crime would not have been committed if the criminal did not have a gun. You also quote suicide gun numbers, as if the suicides would not have been committed were there not a gun. That's a logic 101 error there. Think twice before you use it again. For suicides specifically, here's a link: WHO: Suicide rates that shows per-capita worldwide suicide figures. Look at the Unites States (lots of guns) vs. Japan (no guns) for just one example. People in Japan seem to be able to commit suicide without a gun.
There's a LOT of information out there and I'm not going to do any more of the work for you. If you truly are interested in accurate information, you'll dig it up yourself. If you're not, then no amount of links would convince you otherwise.
I'm with Gunluvver2. Although I personally keep my guns locked up, if I was going to keep one handy for home defense I'd want a shorty 12 gauge w/ a pistol grip. If I'm sleeping and wake up to funny noises that I feel I need a gun to investigate, I'd rather do my dark, bleary eyed investigating behind the barrel of a shotgun. Less accuracy required and more intimidating to any perp. I hadn't previously thought about GL2's point about penetration but I like his thinking on that too.
I keep my pistol loaded and hidden but quick to get at (and where I'd be most likely to wind up were I subject to a home invasion, but about the last place anyone would look for a gun, and you won't see it if you don't know to look there). I keep my shotgun behind the front door, unloaded but shells in easy reach. You won't see it amid the general clutter unless you're actually looking for it.
Good points about penetration -- at close range a shotgun will make a major hole, and your aim can be barely good enough for horseshoes and still be adequate for protection, but those little pellets won't go through a wall, which is a big advantage if there are other innocent folks in range.
I use #4 goose loads in my little 20ga. -- enough power to sting a coyote at a fair distance or take down anything it needs to close up, but still won't go through an average wall. It's also so simple it's absolutely foolproof -- single shot, single action, nothing to go wrong in an emergency.
Like a lot of gun control advocates, you seem to be going on and on about gun crimes - as if the crime would not have been committed if the criminal did not have a gun. You also quote suicide gun numbers, as if the suicides would not have been committed were there not a gun. That's a logic 101 error there. Think twice before you use it again. For suicides specifically, here's a link: WHO: Suicide rates that shows per-capita worldwide suicide figures. Look at the Unites States (lots of guns) vs. Japan (no guns) for just one example. People in Japan seem to be able to commit suicide without a gun.
So do people in Sri Lanka and Lithuania, not exactly hotbeds of gun ownership. Interesting stats -- I don't see any correlation to anything, not guns, not booze/drugs, not poverty, not location, not religion. For every country that has a high [insert supposed trigger here] there's another that has the opposite, but the same per capita suicide stats. Tends to indicate it's actually fairly random, and that the methods available have no bearing on whether someone does the act.
As to guns encouraging crime, now that no honest citizen is armed in Britain, criminals feel no need to carry guns either -- baseball bats will suffice, and are more than adequate as a threat to the unarmed victims.
How bad is the recoil on a 12 gauge? I remember shooting a shotgun years ago that kicked like a mule and left a nasty bruise. Any brand names favored over others?
************************************************
Snowdreamer,
In magnum hunting loads a 12 gauge can have quite a kick. However most modern 12 gauge shotguns can handle ammo with varying power. A 2-3/4" shotshell loaded with #8 shot would be deadly to any intruder within 20 feet or less, the most likely distance in a home defense situation. Even with the light 2-2/4" loads you would not want to hold the shotgun like you would a handgun. If you hold it against your hip with your off hand gripping the forestock the recoil should not bother you. However you would need to get a couple boxes of shotshells and a qualified instructor and head to a range and get in some practice. A full 3-1/2" magnum load in the same shotgun that seemed pretty tame with the shorter 2-3/4" loads will leave a bruise on your shoulder if not held properly.
Get a qualified instructor to help you and have a plan in place for several different scenarios that you might encounter and If/When you ever need to use a weapon to defend yourself so you will automatically know what to do. Hopefully you will never need to use any kind of weapon to protect yourself but the shooting sports can be a lot of fun and the same weapon you bought for protection can give you hours of fun.
The most intelligent thing we can do is........just consider the source of "opinions" such as these...................and hope some day, some place, some time..........he'll be in a situation where he'd "give anything" to have a weapon in his hand....."to save his a$$".
thats an amazingly nice thing to wish upon someone. i hope you never have to use your gun.
Forgive me....I have violated one of my own "rules to live by":
"Never argue with the uneducated and misinformed.......they will drag you down to their level.....and then beat you with experience."
Oh, and by the way..... would you please proof-read your posts before submitting......you have 6 grammatical and spelling errors in your post.
Perhaps this relates to your attention to detail and accuracy?
Sorry i did not realize i was getting a grade for post ............. I am not misinformed, again you all throw s**T out there with no back up. I provided you with gun death statistics.
For the 3rd time I am not telling you to not own guns. I am simply stating they present dangers. Where did the kids from columbine get there guns? oh family members
Get it through your head that guns have dangers and stop clinging to this concept that you needs guns to survive. Mt has the 12th highest rate of accidental shootings.
I agree with you Organic, there are times a gun being brought into a situation can make the situation worse. I'm an open minded person, I'm not going to blindly argue one side just because its my side. Guns are not the be all end all. I also like the fact that you have the balls to stand there and argue with us all... even if you are wrong.
Don't you read the whole post? I have said several times you have all the right in the world to own a gun. But they also present dangers and at times hurt innocent people or escalate situations to a deadly point that would not otherwise occur. I am not arguing that you can't own guns.
Organick what is your point? Are you assuming we are ignorant, inexperienced, lacking your nuanced large view of the universe in such a way we are unable to make risk-reward calculations? Are you the person at lunch who argues against seat belts because you once saw a story on Oprah about a person trapped in a car by a malfunctioning seatbelt? Do you imagine those of us who have used guns in war, hunting, law enforcement, daily news consumption, research incl. reading the scientific literature (you apparently have not) have not taken the fact all tools are subject to misuse?
What exactly is the new insight you imagine you've brought to this discussion?
Don't you read the whole post? I have said several times you have all the right in the world to own a gun. But they also present dangers and at times hurt innocent people or escalate situations to a deadly point that would not otherwise occur. I am not arguing that you can't own guns.
Would u please stop beating that dead horse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. 
Thanks GL2! I do hope to use whatever gun/s I end up with for pleasure as well as defense.
Linear Mode
