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.
Do you have any documentation of that "million times a year" number beyond that John Lott character whose credibility has been dealt some fairly serious blows?
Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995.
Do you have any documentation of that "million times a year" number beyond that John Lott character whose credibility has been dealt some fairly serious blows?
A study done by the U.S. Dept. of Justice in 1997, under Atty Gen. Janet Reno in the administration of Bill Clinton.
They conducted a survey called the National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF). They concluded that 3.1 million times in one year, private citizens had used firearms to ward off a crime.
The Justice Dept.'s figure turned out to be slightly higher than that from a separate study done by Florida State professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz, who arrived at a figure of 2.5 million uses of firearms in one year to deter crimes.
Guns are used FAR more frequently, by a couple orders of magnitude, to deter crimes than to kill people. And of the people killed, a large percentage of them are criminals killed while committing crimes, by someone (police or civilian) defending themselves.
Let's just flush the Constitution down the toilet for a moment and pretend it doesn't matter. I am really curious to know:
1. To save lives?
OK, guns are used for self-defense in the magnitude of millions times a year, a fact that even Brady Campaign doesn't deny but only used in homicide about 30,000 a year. In order to 'save" these lives - let alone the fact that bad people won't stop killing just because there's no gun, we have to let millions including many children die, raped, harmed etc.
2. It's worthy it if it saves one child.
See #1
If you really care about children, we can ban swimming pools. Swimming pools, especially private swimming pools, kill more people, particularly children less than 14 every year. In this case, swimming pool actually KILL people while with guns, you need to pull the trigger. There's not any legitimate reason for anybody to own a private swimming pool.
3. Assault weapon have no legitimate use for civilians
I won't argue the definition of "assault weapon" or their legitimate use etc. How about banning alcohol? Yes, I know we tried that. Yes, alcohol actually kills far more people each year. What's the legitimate use of alcohol besides getting drunk and being a danger to others and to yourself?
4. To reduce crime
Really? Let's forget for a sec that as of today, gun ownership is at all time high but the crime rate is at historical low, and let's also forget that gun ban you propose only applies to law abiding citizens not criminals.
We all know recidivists commit most crimes, a whopping 70%. How about instate a two-strike law to get them off the street? There goes 70% of crimes.
5. Nobody needs high capacity magazines
OK, here's a simple math for you. The average police accuracy is 25%, 1 hit in 4 bullets fired. To stop a typically bad guy, you need 2 hits at minimal. How many would you need at the minimal when facing 2 criminals?
The answer is 16 minimal, and yes, criminals often work in teams as large as ... have you seen LA Riots? Do you shoot better than police?
6. We have to do something
How about getting tough on gun crimes? How about anybody who commits a felony gets a mandatory life?
That will get gun crimes down FAST. Short for a few true maniacs, which criminal is going to touch a gun?
6. ... I just don't like it.
OK, there's a lot of things I don't like. Can we ban them all? I may not like what you do or own but as least I respect and DEFEND your right to do the things you like and own the stuff legally.
You don't care about saving life, saving children, reducing crime, or respecting people's right...
So... what's the real reason?
That's TOO MUCH woman for these bed wetter men to handle....
Do you have any documentation of that "million times a year" number beyond that John Lott character whose credibility has been dealt some fairly serious blows?
Pro-gun-control law professor and criminologist Marvin Wolfgang, of Northwestern University, examined [Gary] Kleck's data and methodology. Just how pro-gun control is Wolfgang? He wrote: "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of 'Brave New World,' I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns — ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people."
But of Kleck's claim that 2.5 million Americans yearly use guns for self-defense? Wolfgang wrote: "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ... I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
In a word, the paranoid gun-haters want to feel they have "done something about" the problem of mass shootings, murders etc.
Note that feeling good about having "done something", is very different from actually doing something that helped.
Especially in these cases, since the things the gun-haters have proposed, have all been tried in the past, and have failed. Gun crimes, mass shootings, etc. have conintued to occur regularly, and some people say they are even getting worse. And that is with repeated gun bans, gun restrictions, waiting periods, laws, etc.
The gun-haters want to feel better. That's all.
Actually reducing the horrible crimes and murders? Naw, not interested.
In a word, the paranoid gun-haters want to feel they have "done something about" the problem of mass shootings, murders etc.
Note that feeling good about having "done something", is very different from actually doing something that helped.
Especially in these cases, since the things the gun-haters have proposed, have all been tried in the past, and have failed. Gun crimes, mass shootings, etc. have conintued to occur regularly, and some people say they are even getting worse. And that is with repeated gun bans, gun restrictions, waiting periods, laws, etc.
The gun-haters want to feel better. That's all.
Actually reducing the horrible crimes and murders? Naw, not interested.
Is there any chance that the Department of Justice you showed us is, in fact, the Department of Injustice, as I refer to that of our present AG? Just wondering.
I was accusing leaners of using their liberal shields long before they came up with their tin foil hat crap. I guess you don't even know when you have your shield up. Of course, it is when you refuse to read anything not written by one of your people.
They conducted a survey called the National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF). They concluded that 3.1 million times in one year, private citizens had used firearms to ward off a crime.
The Justice Dept.'s figure turned out to be slightly higher than that from a separate study done by Florida State professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz, who arrived at a figure of 2.5 million uses of firearms in one year to deter crimes.
Guns are used FAR more frequently, by a couple orders of magnitude, to deter crimes than to kill people. And of the people killed, a large percentage of them are criminals killed while committing crimes, by someone (police or civilian) defending themselves.
Thanks. I was looking for the exact survey. Dr. Kleck's study is excellent too.
Banning guns will do exactly the same thing. Violent gun crime will skyrocket. A new black market will evolve. The streets will be loaded with armed criminals, free to do whatever they want, to whomever they want.
Not to mention that we love our Bill of Rights. We are protected from nimrods who are willing to exchange our freedoms for their security.
Common sense and history are your friend.
There's not a whole lot of that common sense on the side of the left that Obama is trying to get in control of us and damned sure no sense of history.
They conducted a survey called the National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF). They concluded that 3.1 million times in one year, private citizens had used firearms to ward off a crime.
The Justice Dept.'s figure turned out to be slightly higher than that from a separate study done by Florida State professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz, who arrived at a figure of 2.5 million uses of firearms in one year to deter crimes.
Guns are used FAR more frequently, by a couple orders of magnitude, to deter crimes than to kill people. And of the people killed, a large percentage of them are criminals killed while committing crimes, by someone (police or civilian) defending themselves.
How do we weigh one against the other? For instance, how many instances of brandishing a gun to stop a property crime does it take to equal a fatal drive-by shooting?
.
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.
