What armed self defense really looks like.

You mean the Department of Justice run by Holder is not biased? The same DOJ that obfuscates and fails to follow the law when Congress investigates and demands cooperation? The same DOJ that sent its Community Relations Service personnel to stir up trouble in the Trayvon Martin incident by coaching members of the community and threatening the investigators?

The same DOJ run by Eric Holder who is an unabashed banner?

But lets look at your link anyway.

On violent crimes, 0.8% of victims used a firearm to threaten or attack the criminal. How many of all victims had a firearm to use? Unknown. Maybe that 0.8% were also the only ones that had a firearm to use, in which case 100% of people with a firearm successfully defended themselves. Without the data, who knows?

But we do know that firearms deter crime, as I described in the other post/thread. Another unknown factor in the effectiveness of firearms.

On property crime, the same argument can be made as to violent crime - how many of those incidents involved victims who had a firearm? Unknown. Since criminals try to avoid victims who are armed, it makes sense that the victimization data is skewed to minimize the effectiveness of firearms. If the criminal did not burglarize a home because he suspected the owner had a firearm, and instead burglarized a different house he suspected the owners were unarmed, then the data is naturally skewed.

86% of victims were not present. So what? The burglar was smart and waited until the house was empty.

 

In other words:

- Any source that doesn't agree with you is invalid
- You claim that a large segment of the population is armed, but want to believe that somehow only only 0.8% of victims are owners.​

This reeks of confirmation bias fallacy.

 

I'll try to keep it simple.........

I stated that the FBI and CDC does not collect data regarding the shooter in accidental shootings. There is no way to quantitatively determine how many toddlers shoot someone or themselves.

Unless there is an effort to collect such data (which would require a manual effort of sifting through newspapers, tv, other media and actual police reports), then the number of toddlers shooting people is unknown.

But, since we do know how many toddlers are killed by firearms, we have a measure of how often toddlers are around firearms and can get a guess as to the size of the problem. Since very few children are accidentally killed by a firearm, the problem is small.

Defensive gun uses.............
are quantified and tracked to a degree that allows public policy to be formulated. There is an abundance of data on defensive gun uses.

And on the 11 year old defending herself with a shotgun........

That was an example. I never advocate formulating public policy based on anecdotal evidence or specific single incidents, and have argued that in multiple threads.

 

Criminals are not stupid, they try to avoid people who are armed.

Crime is concentrated in big cities, its a very strong correlation. The cities with the highest crime rates are also the cities with the strictest gun control laws, some bordering on gun bans.

The above 2 facts mean that simplistic conclusions such as you just made are invalid. I think you just say "confirmation bias!" when you have nothing of substance to write.

 

This would almost be valid, if we weren't talking about toddlers who kill/injure others.

If that were true, there wouldn't be a range of DGU estimations.

Sure, there has been for years... but for just as long there have been questions regarding the subjective assessment of these incidents.
The following study illustrates that this issue has been around for awhile: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

"Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective."​

Oh, did I say that the examples I provided should be the sole foundation for formulating public policy? That was not my intent, I simply meant them to challenge your notion that these types of events rarely occur - in much the same way you raised that single anecdotal example to illustrate a defensive gun use.

 

Unless all gun owners are openly carrying, your suggestion is moronic.

Putting the cart before the horse.

Actually, I point out confirmation bias when you demonstrate confirmation bias... You choose only to accept information that supports your position, rather than basing your position on the available information.

 

Then explain why most mass shootings tend to be in "gun free zones".

Tell us all about the gun show massacres. You would be amazed at how nice and polite the people are in a crowded gun show.

 

I only see one person on this thread getting emotional (hint: that'd be you).
And it must "eat you up inside" that accepting this single anecdotal example means you also have to accept the handful of anecdotal examples I provided where toddlers used firearms to shoot themselves or family members... unless you're a hypocrite (which I'm sure you wouldn't want to admit to).

 

Ok.
You seem to be implying that mass shooters select their targets on the basis of whether or not they are likely to encounter an "armed hero". In the cases of most mass shootings, there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, workplace shootings, involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues.
A gun owner working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008... This is not uncommon.

Of consider the documented school shootings, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck.

Your argument also ignores that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Most killers took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (aka "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. After all, how many mass shootings we documented was stopped this way?
The only examples I can recall this even being attempted were cases in Washington state and Texas in 2005, when would-be heroes tried to take action with licensed firearms and were gravely wounded or killed. In the mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person — one of the bystanders who had helped tackle and subdue the actual killer.

How many gun shows allow the weapons to be loaded? Clearly, an area where people can only carry unloaded weapons is no different to a gun-free zone. Duh.

 

You can buy a gun at a gun show and you can buy ammo. I've done it.
I've also carried mine, unloaded into the show..... With the ammo from the gun in my pocket.

 

If someone who had a death wish (as I've already illustrated is the case with most mass shooters) walked in and immediately started shooting into crowds, how many rounds would he get off before someone took cover, loaded, identified who was the shooter, and returned fire? Would any other "heroes" mistake the first person to return fire for the shooter? Could get messy...

But of course, that assumes "lawful citizens" don't actually walk around the show with loaded weapons, when the reality is these "lawful citizens" do load their firearms... which is why there are periodically accidental shootings, right?

 

You know I was talking about people who kill because they are crazy and not jilted lovers or fired employees with an ax to grind with a particular person. I'm talking about terrorists and serial killers or people who want to go out in a "blaze of glory" supporting their twisted cause. Many choose gun free targets so they can maximize the carnage to make their "point" if they don't want to get away..

I've carried in every gun show I've been to in TX. There was a small zip tie in the action of the gun, but it would take less than 5 seconds to break the zip tie, load a magazine, and fire. If somebody were to try to start killing people or rob a vendor, they will be shot down within 5-10 seconds. There is also a large police presence at gun shows.

 

Everyone who intentionally shoots someone without justification is labelled "crazy" (unless they're black, then they're "thugs").

You believe you'd break a zip tie, load a magazine, identify your target, take aim, and fire within 10 seconds while under fire and being jostled by a panicking crowd? Truly you are a hero.
Interesting that you mention the large police presense, but never wonder if that deters mass shooters.

 

The mode and method of the real anti-America:
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

Usually followed with this:
"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things." Author unknown.

only a criminal will want to disarm you. They shroud their intentions with such platitudes as soft words of tyranny.
"What issues do you have with registration?"
Who's business is it what you own?
Answer:
A criminal government with support from people who desire to impose their will upon you.

 

Your are great at changing the goal posts..... You said gun shows are effectively gun free zones. I proved you wrong. Now your changed the argument to lawful citizens having accidental shootings.
To respond to your mass shooter at a gun show...... Police would most likely handle it because that are always several police at gun show entrances making sure no loaded weapons enter. No need to call them.

 

Back to our thread topic.

Copper thievery is big business here. It can be sold for $3lb. These thieves must have been glad to see the police arrive and are lucky they aren't dead.
http://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/...798-ad5b-11e4-a548-9759b8704b6b.html?mode=jqm

 

copper's big money. But it's getting tougher to sell it legitimately, if it's stolen.

 

Wow, what ignorance. Criminals don't have to see a firearm on your hip to think you might be a gun owner. When newspapers publish gun ownership rates, criminals avoid those areas of high firearm ownership - as the MIT study I referenced shows. There are many indications of firearm ownership - an NRA sticker on a car, a "Protected by Smith & Wesson" sign, a shooting pile in the yard. I live in a rural area, crime is almost nonexistent because its just assumed everyone has a gun (everyone does) in these backwoods areas.

LOL, what a joke that one is, in these gun threads I always provide solid data from first sources such as the CDC, FBI, and various national (US, AUS, UK, whatever is appropriate) law enforcement crime reports and databases, and you provide the wildly political Violence Policy Center.

 

don't ferget dey ever-lovin' Mama Jones and Snope's as their academic proof. Neither one would qualify as a reputable source for any university research paper much less make good birdcage liner

 

The trouble here is that Logician deals with the hypothetical and imaginary, like some of our other gun haters. We deal with the facts that pertain to our lives, through actual experience, and choices we've made because of what we've learned for real.

 

Talk about moving the goal posts, you claim to have "proven" that there are loaded weapons at gun shows, then indicate that there are police there to ensure this isn't the case...
As for police being a deterrent, you seem completely unaware that "suicide by cop" has been demonstrated as desireable by most mass shooters, and that police are increasingly a target of these loons.

- - - Updated - - -

You have heard of a "psychologist's fallacy", right?

 

Cops check for loaded guns at the door. Guns and ammo are plentiful inside.
Why are suicides by cop or otherwise not really heard of in gun shows?

 

So you're saying cops are simply wasting their time at the door?

Are you suggesting that most mass shooters do not intend to die at the scene?
It's fairly clear police stations are not "gun free zones", and there have been several cases of loonies shooting those up.
http://ktla.com/2014/04/07/lapd-officer-wounded-in-shooting-at-police-station/

 

OMG. You reveal yourself, and attempt to use this as a response. What does this have to do with my post? Your ONLY reference is the crap you've read, and you think it's valid against the experience that we live, every single day. It's a shame that anyone responds to you.

 

..............yep. I don't and wont..........