Maybe it is OK to defend yourself....

[merphie]

sigh....you really don't get it do you. A survey that ask people who carry guns to tell you stories about how they have been saved by the gun you may learn a lot about gun carriers attitudes towards the issue.

You don't get it and apparently didn't read the article either. The survey didn't target just gun owners. I don't know where you got such a ridiculous idea and that's why I don't understand what you are talking about.

This is a clear cut example of a biased opinion on a subject you obviously know little about. You go off on some personal crusade and accuse legal gun owners in the USA as being some crazy, irresponsible nut with visions of bringing back some version of the "Wild West". The Wild West wasn't even the "Wild West". Legal gun owners in the United States are some of the most responsible people in this country. We even contribute more money to wild life conservation than any other group.

I find the idea that you would even suggest such ignorance offensive and far from the truth of the matter.

 

[The Fool]

You don't get it and apparently didn't read the article either. The survey didn't target just gun owners. I don't know where you got such a ridiculous idea and that's why I don't understand what you are talking about.

so they asked people who have no guns to tell them about times they were saved by thier guns????



This is a clear cut example of a biased opinion on a subject you obviously know little about. You go off on some personal crusade and accuse legal gun owners in the USA as being some crazy, irresponsible nut with visions of bringing back some version of the "Wild West". The Wild West wasn't even the "Wild West". Legal gun owners in the United States are some of the most responsible people in this country. We even contribute more money to wild life conservation than any other group.

I find the idea that you would even suggest such ignorance offensive and far from the truth of the matter.
I give up....honestly i don't care...carry as many guns as you like, store one in every drawer and cupboard of your house, keep 2 in the car...convince yourself that machines that dispence hypersonic projectiles make your house, family and community safer.... Convince yourself that you are one of the responsible ones, one that does not have accidents.....pat yourself on the back about conservation issues...have a nice day.

 

[merphie]

so they asked people who have no guns to tell them about times they were saved by thier guns????

Why don't you read the article first.

I give up....honestly i don't care...carry as many guns as you like, store one in every drawer and cupboard of your house, keep 2 in the car...convince yourself that machines that dispence hypersonic projectiles make your house, family and community safer.... Convince yourself that you are one of the responsible ones, one that does not have accidents.....pat yourself on the back about conservation issues...have a nice day.

As you wish. You are clearly prejudice and don't understand the topic. You can sling all the insults you wish. You are the fool.

 

[CFLarsen]

You can suggest any information you would like to use in this discussion. I asked that you provide links so I may review the information.

No, no: You bring your own data to the table. You are the one with the claim, you provide your evidence. Is that article really all you got?

To clarify, I never said gun ownership would prevent all crime. The article never said that 2.3 Million resulted in death of the offender. My article gave no figure for deaths. You are trying to misrepresent the information from the article.

Not at all. I am trying to explain that with all these DGU, we should have a mountain of dead people. We don't.

I would bet any dead bodies would be taken to the morgue. I assume you could find total figures from the CDC. That would probably include all gun deaths and not just ones from a DGU. Since a DGU is not considered a crime it would not show in crime statistics.

Huh?? You shoot someone, it goes in the statistics, regardless of whether it is a "crime" or not.

What is your point?

You know what my point is. With all these "defensive gun uses", we should have a massive pile of dead bodies lying around. We should have an insane amount of people with bullet wounds.

But we don't, not even in a country such as the US. Either people are really, really good at burying all these dead bodies, or the number is far, far too high.

What does Occam have to say about that?

 

[Beerina]

There are plenty of cases of people killing in self defense, and the judgement agreeing the 'reasonable force' argument. Exacting your own punishment is what will get you in trouble.

Seriously, though. What is "unreasonable force" in such a situation? Someone kicks the door in, I shoot my Marvin the Martion disintegration ray, turning him into quarks and electrons which dissipate, causing bizarre burn marks on the walls. That's as much unreasonable as you could possibly get, but why would it be wrong?

 

[Beerina]

No, you're right. I was in a pub hotel once, and someone kicked my door in, and it wasn't Santa Claus making a delivery.

Mind you, it wasn't a burglar out to kill/rape (or, for that matter, burgle) me, either. It was a drunk dude who couldn't figure out why the key didn't fit to his room. The reason it didn't fit, of course, was because he had the wrong room.

I didn't hear him trying to put his key in the lock. If I'd been an armed idiot, the guy would have been dead. Does he deserve to die for being a moron? The way I see it, a life has been saved for having stricter gun laws.

No he doesn't "deserve" to die for being a drunk ass. But his right to not get shot for being drunk and kicking a door in does not outweigh your right to defend yourself.

I have no problem with the following: In today's local news, a drunk was shot to death when he kicked in the door to the wrong hotel room. His key wouldn't fit because he had the wrong room, and, being drunk, kicking in the door seemed like a good option at the time. Turns out he was wrong because someone else in there shot him in self defense, thinking him an assailant. Police did not press charges.


That is much better than: In today's local news, a man in a hotel was murdered by a thief who kicked in his door. The victim had his gun stolen because, by law, he couldn't shoot the assailant until after the assailant had demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a threat. Sadly, that legal point only became true as the knife plunged into his gut. Police grumbled, but local politicians stated, "See? The system is working as intended. Imagine if that guy had just been some drunk."

 

[merphie]

No, no: You bring your own data to the table. You are the one with the claim, you provide your evidence. Is that article really all you got?

It's all I need at this point in time.

Not at all. I am trying to explain that with all these DGU, we should have a mountain of dead people. We don't.

It's an assumption on your part with no basis in fact.

Huh?? You shoot someone, it goes in the statistics, regardless of whether it is a "crime" or not.

This maybe hard for you to understand. Since it is not a crime the figures would not be included in crime statistics. Since it is a death the CDC (Center for Disease control) probably has statistics on it. Two different agencies collecting data on two different things.

You know what my point is. With all these "defensive gun uses", we should have a massive pile of dead bodies lying around. We should have an insane amount of people with bullet wounds.

Assumption not based on fact.

But we don't, not even in a country such as the US. Either people are really, really good at burying all these dead bodies, or the number is far, far too high.

What does Occam have to say about that?

Your assumptions are wrong.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's all I need at this point in time.

I see. You have found a study that supports your beliefs, and you are not in the slightest interested in finding out if there are other data that contradicts it.

It's an assumption on your part with no basis in fact.

Is it an assumption that if you use a gun a great number of times, there is bound to be dead people at some point? Or is it your position that defensive gun uses are completely without casualties?

This maybe hard for you to understand. Since it is not a crime the figures would not be included in crime statistics. Since it is a death the CDC (Center for Disease control) probably has statistics on it. Two different agencies collecting data on two different things.

Intriguing. Yet, you are not interested in finding out the consequences of your study.

I hope you are not referring to yourself as a skeptic.

 

[merphie]

I see. You have found a study that supports your beliefs, and you are not in the slightest interested in finding out if there are other data that contradicts it.

That's just assumption on your part. I have done lots of research. You appear to have done very little. The most you have done is found one article and cherry picked the data to support some ignorant conclusion.

Is it an assumption that if you use a gun a great number of times, there is bound to be dead people at some point? Or is it your position that defensive gun uses are completely without casualties?

There are probably deaths involved. I will not mourn the death of a criminal attempting to do harm to another human. I don't see where you are getting with all of this. We have already been down this path before. The only thing you have done in this area is question the guilt of the offender which is against the very definition of a DGU in the first place. Then you start on some crazy idea that is an assumption based on no facts.

Intriguing. Yet, you are not interested in finding out the consequences of your study.

I hope you are not referring to yourself as a skeptic.

I am a better skeptic than you. So far all you have done is presented wild accusations and opinions with no facts to support the view.

I have done lots of research in this area and this is nothing more than an attempt at character assassination on your part or Ad Hominem. You've gone down this path in every discussion because you have no basis for your beliefs and no tolerance for anything that contradicts your little world.

I would be happy to consider any facts you can present on the subject.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's just assumption on your part. I have done lots of research. You appear to have done very little. The most you have done is found one article and cherry picked the data to support some ignorant conclusion.

Assumption? The article was all you needed at this moment. Your own words.

There are probably deaths involved.

"Probably"? Come now, you cannot possibly claim that guns were used 2.3 million times without some deaths. How many? Not interested? Why not?

I will not mourn the death of a criminal attempting to do harm to another human.

How do you know that all DGUs is about a criminal attempting to do harm to another human? All you have is a survey. You have no actual court cases.

I don't see where you are getting with all of this. We have already been down this path before. The only thing you have done in this area is question the guilt of the offender which is against the very definition of a DGU in the first place. Then you start on some crazy idea that is an assumption based on no facts.

Oh, I know you are perfectly aware of where this is going, mostly because it has been pointed out to you many times now.

I am a better skeptic than you.

So far all you have done is presented wild accusations and opinions with no facts to support the view.

What you have is one survey that means a pile of dead bodies, unaccounted for in the statistics. You got a big problem.

I have done lots of research in this area and this is nothing more than an attempt at character assassination on your part or Ad Hominem. You've gone down this path in every discussion because you have no basis for your beliefs and no tolerance for anything that contradicts your little world.

I would be happy to consider any facts you can present on the subject.

You make the claim, you provide the evidence.

 

[merphie]

Assumption? The article was all you needed at this moment. Your own words.

Yes, but your assumption is not supported in the data I referenced.

"Probably"? Come now, you cannot possibly claim that guns were used 2.3 million times without some deaths. How many? Not interested? Why not?

The article I referenced doesn't give that data.

How do you know that all DGUs is about a criminal attempting to do harm to another human? All you have is a survey. You have no actual court cases.

They wouldn't be DGU if they were a criminal act.

Oh, I know you are perfectly aware of where this is going, mostly because it has been pointed out to you many times now.

Yes, your opinion which I am not interested in.

What you have is one survey that means a pile of dead bodies, unaccounted for in the statistics. You got a big problem.

And what is that assumption based on?

You make the claim, you provide the evidence.

Already did. The data is there. You are cherry picking to support your beliefs.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, but your assumption is not supported in the data I referenced.

The article I referenced doesn't give that data.

They wouldn't be DGU if they were a criminal act.

Yes, your opinion which I am not interested in.

And what is that assumption based on?

Already did. The data is there. You are cherry picking to support your beliefs.

OK. I think it is time for definitions.

Just what the heck is a "defensive gun use"? What crimes does it prevent?

And please, please, please don't say that you don't know.

 

[merphie]

OK. I think it is time for definitions.

Just what the heck is a "defensive gun use"? What crimes does it prevent?

And please, please, please don't say that you don't know.

Do you actually read any of the post? This has been covered many times. On page 2 I gave this definition.

Two of the conditions needed for incidents to qualify as genuine DGUs were that (1) there had to have been an actual confrontation between the defender and an adversary, and (2) the defender had to have actually used the gun in some way, some as pointing it at their adversary in a threatening manner, or using it in a verbal threat (e.g. 'Stop, I've got a gun.") None of the cases that went into our estimation of 2.5 million annual DGUs involved person who merely owned or carried a gun for protection

Have you read any post on this thread? This information has been covered many times.

A gun is used defensively in any situation where a person has reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

 

[CFLarsen]

Time to clear up a few things.

A gun is used defensively in any situation where a person has reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

No, this is not correct. People were asked:

"Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard."
Source: Kleck

We can see that in almost half the cases (46.8%), the defender was not threatened or attacked.

We can also see that in 8.3%, the defender wounded or killed the offender. That gives 190,900 cases of someone being wounded or killed. We cannot recognize this high number in any statistics.

However, contrary to what you have claimed, the police does record such deaths:

And even when a DGU is reported, it will not necessarily be recorded by the police, who ordinarily do not keep statistics on matters other than DGUs resulting in a death
Source: Kleck

You give a false definition of a DGU. You falsely claim that people shot during a DGU is not reported. You have clearly not read the study. If you have, then you are grossly misrepresenting its contents.

Do you admit your errors? Just yes or no, please.

 

[merphie]

No, this is not correct. People were asked:

Yes it is the same thing. My definition was an elaboration of the terms in the article. It was taken from Kleck's own words.

We can see that in almost half the cases (46.8%), the defender was not threatened or attacked.

We can also see that in 8.3%, the defender wounded or killed the offender. That gives 190,900 cases of someone being wounded or killed. We cannot recognize this high number in any statistics.

The 8% was probably a high figure according to the article.

However, contrary to what you have claimed, the police does record such deaths:

I said DGU is not a crime. Where are you getting the idea the police track these figuress? This article was from a survey not the police.

I never said they didn't track the information. In fact, I gave you the exact system of recording (NIBRS) and the exact codes to represent a DGU event (20, 21) on what part of the form. (Homicide Circumstances)

You give a false definition of a DGU. You falsely claim that people shot during a DGU is not reported. You have clearly not read the study. If you have, then you are grossly misrepresenting its contents.

I gave you a more detailed explaination of a DGU from Kleck's own words. He elaborated on the definition of a DGU in response to the complaints about the article. On page 2, I even gave you the link which you didn't read.

I never said no one was ever shot. I gave you that 8% figure a long time ago.

Do you admit your errors? Just yes or no, please.

I don't have any errors to admit. This is yet another attempt by you at character assassination. You have been completely inconsistent on your position.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes it is the same thing. My definition was an elaboration of the terms in the article. It was taken from Kleck's own words.

I am sorry, but we have to go with what people were actually asked. You - or Kleck - cannot redefine it afterwards. That is plainly dishonest.

The 8% was probably a high figure according to the article.

Which means that the numbers are inflated? We cannot trust them?

I said DGU is not a crime. Where are you getting the idea the police track these figuress? This article was from a survey not the police.

The article clearly states that the police record the deaths.

I never said they didn't track the information.

Yes, you did:

Since a DGU is not considered a crime it would not show in crime statistics.

I gave you a more detailed explaination of a DGU from Kleck's own words. He elaborated on the definition of a DGU in response to the complaints about the article. On page 2, I even gave you the link which you didn't read.

But it doesn't matter how he explains it. What matters is how people were explained what a DGU was, because they based their answers on that. Not a post-hoc explanation.

I never said no one was ever shot. I gave you that 8% figure a long time ago.

But you have to admit that there have to be a substantial amount of dead people, totally unaccounted for?

I don't have any errors to admit. This is yet another attempt by you at character assassination. You have been completely inconsistent on your position.

It's telling that you refuse to admit your errors. It is quite telling that you see it as a character assassination to point out that you have made errors.

 

[merphie]

I am sorry, but we have to go with what people were actually asked. You - or Kleck - cannot redefine it afterwards. That is plainly dishonest.

That is your theory. The questions go hand in hand with the specifications. They asked the question and if the person didn't fall with in the guidelines then they were not included in the data because it would have tainted the data. Do I have to explain a proper experiment to you now?

Which means that the numbers are inflated? We cannot trust them?

It means they are an estimate and he gives the reasons he thinks the number is too high. Try reading the entire article instead of cherry picking.

The article clearly states that the police record the deaths.

Yes, you did:

I will say it slowly so you can understand. J-U-S-T-I-F-I-A-B-L-E H-O-M-I-C-D-E. I said they don't generate statistics on it because it is not a crime. So this means that crime statistics would not include non-crimes.

But it doesn't matter how he explains it. What matters is how people were explained what a DGU was, because they based their answers on that. Not a post-hoc explanation.

It's called controls. So are you saying they shouldn't have controls?

If he hadn't explained the controls used in the survey people like you would go to the other end and say his data is tainted because he didn't have proper controls. Now you say that the controls are not needed. It's "post-hoc" nothing.

But you have to admit that there have to be a substantial amount of dead people, totally unaccounted for?

I don't have to admit anything because the data clearly doesn't support and amount of dead people. I don't recognize you guess. The 8% was from people who claimed they fired and injured the offender. It's all in the article.

I have already told you where to find gun related deaths. However you would not be able to reasonably tell which deaths are related to DGU. The problem is probably mainly due to the NIBRS reporting system used by the FBI. For Justifiable homicide the codes are:

20 - Criminal Killed by Police Officer
21 - Criminal Killed by Private Citizen.

Neither are considered a crime and they don't do statistics on it.

It's telling that you refuse to admit your errors. It is quite telling that you see it as a character assassination to point out that you have made errors.

It's quite telling that you constantly make up errors after I debunk your previous errors. You ignore fact based explainations for the data to keep your beliefs in check. You clearly don't understand the subject and you cherry pick and make it up as you go along. Some skeptic.

 

[CFLarsen]

That is your theory. The questions go hand in hand with the specifications. They asked the question and if the person didn't fall with in the guidelines then they were not included in the data because it would have tainted the data. Do I have to explain a proper experiment to you now?

My "theory"? You cannot change the meaning of the question after the survey is done!

It means they are an estimate and he gives the reasons he thinks the number is too high. Try reading the entire article instead of cherry picking.

I have read it, but you clearly haven't. Why would he include a number that was wrong? What does that say about his research?

I will say it slowly so you can understand. J-U-S-T-I-F-I-A-B-L-E H-O-M-I-C-D-E. I said they don't generate statistics on it because it is not a crime. So this means that crime statistics would not include non-crimes.

I am talking about bodies. The police records dead bodies. Where are they?

It's called controls. So are you saying they shouldn't have controls?

If he hadn't explained the controls used in the survey people like you would go to the other end and say his data is tainted because he didn't have proper controls. Now you say that the controls are not needed. It's "post-hoc" nothing.

Look at how you described it:

A gun is used defensively in any situation where a person has reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

That is not how people were asked. It's not "controls". You change the meaning. You can't do that. It's dishonest.

I don't have to admit anything because the data clearly doesn't support and amount of dead people. I don't recognize you guess. The 8% was from people who claimed they fired and injured the offender. It's all in the article.

I know. However, this amounts to almost 200,000 cases annually from defensive gun use only. Which we cannot find in the statistics.

I have already told you where to find gun related deaths. However you would not be able to reasonably tell which deaths are related to DGU. The problem is probably mainly due to the NIBRS reporting system used by the FBI. For Justifiable homicide the codes are:

20 - Criminal Killed by Police Officer
21 - Criminal Killed by Private Citizen.

Neither are considered a crime and they don't do statistics on it.

Again, you avoid the issue: Dead bodies, no matter if it is a crime or not.

It's quite telling that you constantly make up errors after I debunk your previous errors. You ignore fact based explainations for the data to keep your beliefs in check. You clearly don't understand the subject and you cherry pick and make it up as you go along. Some skeptic.

"Make up" errors? Tsk, tsk....that is demonstrably a lie.

I can understand why you don't want to talk about all these dead bodies, totally unaccounted for. It completely destroys your argument.

 

[merphie]

My "theory"? You cannot change the meaning of the question after the survey is done!

The questions have nothing to do with the controls.

I have read it, but you clearly haven't. Why would he include a number that was wrong? What does that say about his research?

Apparently you ignored the parts explaining the number.

I am talking about bodies. The police records dead bodies. Where are they?

You would probably have to look at police records.

Look at how you described it:

That definition is mine taken from Oklahoma law. You are cherry picking again.

That is not how people were asked. It's not "controls". You change the meaning. You can't do that. It's dishonest.

That's not what I was talking about. You asked what a DGu was. I provided this quote.

Two of the conditions needed for incidents to qualify as genuine DGUs were that (1) there had to have been an actual confrontation between the defender and an adversary, and (2) the defender had to have actually used the gun in some way, some as pointing it at their adversary in a threatening manner, or using it in a verbal threat (e.g. 'Stop, I've got a gun.") None of the cases that went into our estimation of 2.5 million annual DGUs involved person who merely owned or carried a gun for protection

Now I have posted it 3 times. Are you going to ignore this one as well? The comment you are talking about was in reference to your question about what crimes a DGU can prevent.

I know. However, this amounts to almost 200,000 cases annually from defensive gun use only. Which we cannot find in the statistics.

"we"? I know you probably haven't even looked. I told you were to find the numbers. You won't find them in crime statistics.

Again, you avoid the issue: Dead bodies, no matter if it is a crime or not.

Again you ignore the answer.

"Make up" errors? Tsk, tsk....that is demonstrably a lie.

Yes you make up errors and cherry pick data because you are not capable of a meaningful debate.

I can understand why you don't want to talk about all these dead bodies, totally unaccounted for. It completely destroys your argument.

It doesnt' destroy any argument because this is an issue you made up. The article in reference doesn't mention deaths. I've told you this several times and provided answers.

You ignore the answers to continue your Ad-nauseum.

 

[CFLarsen]

The questions have nothing to do with the controls.

But we are talking about the questions, because those give us the answers to how people see a DGU.

Apparently you ignored the parts explaining the number.

I did not ignore anything, quite contrary. I would just like to know why you consider this study trustworthy, if you can't trust the numbers.

You would probably have to look at police records.

Why don't you? Why are you not interested in this consequence of this huge number of DGUs?

That definition is mine taken from Oklahoma law. You are cherry picking again.

Oh, now it's from "Oklahoma law". Was it used when it was explained to people what a DGU was? No. Ergo, it is irrelevant, and flat out wrong to use it.

Now I have posted it 3 times. Are you going to ignore this one as well? The comment you are talking about was in reference to your question about what crimes a DGU can prevent.

Again, I am not ignoring anything, quite contrary. I am pointing out that your explanation (be it from Oklahoma or not) was not the explanation people got.

"we"? I know you probably haven't even looked. I told you were to find the numbers. You won't find them in crime statistics.

Are you really that afraid to look into this?

Again you ignore the answer.

Not at all. We can't find these dead bodies. That's the key issue here.

Yes you make up errors and cherry pick data because you are not capable of a meaningful debate.

Yes, yes, you keep repeating things (even demonstrably false) instead of engaging in a debate.

It doesnt' destroy any argument because this is an issue you made up. The article in reference doesn't mention deaths. I've told you this several times and provided answers.

You ignore the answers to continue your Ad-nauseum.

As is obvious, I don't ignore anything. You, OTOH, ignore the missing pile of bodies that we should have, were the number of DGUs correct.

If you don't want to investigate this issue, fine. But it does raise serious questions about your ability to look at an issue from a skeptical POV.