A recent piece in my local paper shows just how rare self defense shootings are these days in Minnesota.
Even though a record number of Minnesotans have permits to carry firearms, only a tiny number ever have pulled the trigger in self-defense.
Five instances of justifiable use of a firearm by a permit holder have been reported to the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) since 2003, although some recent self-defense shootings haven’t been counted.
And the other side of the story that gun rights folks don't like to talk about?
The annual BCA gun reports also show that permit holders have been convicted of 124 crimes using a firearm since 2003. Gun control advocates say the rarity of justifiable uses points to a need to more tightly restrict access to firearms.
“I think it does undermine the argument that there’s a tremendous need for self-defense, to carry weapons,” said Jennifer Green, an associate professor and director of human rights litigation with the University of Minnesota Law School. “It shows that we may still have some problems as to who is carrying guns.”
Hmm...let me see if I can guess the response on this one...
Fuck you! Don't take my gun, Hitler!!
15 comments:
The BCA recorded no such cases in 2010 and 2011, but permit-holders in Minneapolis shot three people during that period in cases ruled justifiable.
It appears that reporting to this state agency is even more rare than the actual shootings!
Not to mention the cases that don't result in a shooting (let alone a death).
You have to be pretty retarded to use this to make the argument you do.
Fuck you! Don't take my gun, Hitler!!
You've clearly been listening to those Voices In Your Head again, because that's not the response. This is:
The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.
The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.
The one survey that is clearly not suitable for estimating the total number of defensive gun uses is the National Crime Victimization Survey. This is the only survey that has ever generated results implying an annual defensive-gun-use estimate under 700,000. Not surprisingly, it is a favorite of academic gun-control supporters. If one is to make even a pretense of empirically supporting the claim that defensive gun use is rare in America, one must rely on the National Crime Victimization Survey, warts and all.
That the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate is radically wrong is now beyond serious dispute. Ultimately, the only foundation one ever has for knowing that a measurement is wrong is that it is inconsistent with other measurements of the same phenomenon. There are now at least 15 other independent estimates of the frequency of defensive gun uses and every one of them is enormously larger than the National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate. Unanimity is rare in studies of crime, but this is one of those rare cases.
(continued from the same article)
Most uses of guns for either criminal or defensive purposes are less dramatic or consequential than one might think. Only 3% of criminal gun assaults involves anyone actually being wounded, even nonfatally, and the same is true of defensive gun uses. More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps only referred to ("I've got a gun") or displayed, and this is sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user, whether criminal or non- criminal. Nevertheless, most gun owners questioned in surveys assert that they would be willing to shoot criminals under the right circumstances. A 1989 Time/CNN survey found that 78% of gun owners said they would shoot a burglar if they felt threatened by that person.
Despite this stated willingness of gun owners to shoot under certain circumstances, most defensive uses of guns do not in fact involve shooting anyone. Data from the National Self-Defense Survey indicate that no more than 8% of the 2.5 million annual defensive gun uses involved a defender who claimed to have shot their adversaries, or about 200,000 total. The 8% figure, however, should be taken with a grain of salt because it is based on a sample of only 213 cases, 17 of whom reported a wounding, and because the respondants were not asked how they knew they had wounded the criminals. In cases where the criminal escaped, these reports may often have been based on favorable guesses about the shooter?s marksmanship skills. As Marc Gertz and I noted, the claimed ?hit rate? of shooters in the National-Self-Defense-Survey-reported incidents was higher than that of police officers, an unlikely level of shooting skill under stress.
And this:
Tough Targets
Outside of criminology circles, relatively few people can reasonably estimate how often people use guns to fend off criminal attacks. If policymakers are truly interested in harm reduction, they should pause to consider how many crimes—murders, rapes, assaults, robberies—are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns. The estimates of defensive gun use range between the tens of thousands to as high as two million each year.
This paper uses a collection of news reports of self-defense with guns over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America.
Federal and state lawmakers often oppose repealing or amending laws governing the ownership or carrying of guns. That opposition is typically based on assumptions that the average citizen is incapable of successfully employing a gun in self-defense or that possession of a gun in public will tempt people to violence in “road rage” or other contentious situations. Those assumptions are false. The vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent. That means tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns.
Simple questions Mark refuses to answer:
What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written? (124 days and counting — actually more than a year, but I'm limiting the count to this specific wording.)
Is the Constitution law? (64 days and counting)
Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? (50 days and counting)
Do you think it's okay to punish a child for the parent's crime? (48 days and counting)
Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country? (32 days and counting)
Is "false" equal to "truth"? (26 days and counting, see here for background)
Since the leaders of the Democrat's effort to implement universal background checks say that "any bill without a records provision would be as toothless as an honor system", do you still assert that "[n]o one is talking about universal registration" and/or that it can be implemented without registration? (17 days and counting)
Faith in what? (16 days and counting)
(Questions in bold directly relate to this topic.)
Bubble Boys
I wonder if NMN can answer any of his own questions:)
God is unable question: That is about YOUR view, therefore only YOU can answer it.
Constitution law question: I've already answered it. The question now is YOUR view, which again, only YOU can answer.
Why do it question: It's asking about your motivations, which, again, only YOU can answer.
Punishing a child question: Again, it's asking "what is your view", which only YOU can answer.
Tyranny not possible question: It's YOUR claim. Only YOU can give YOUR reasons for making that claim.
Truth/False question: My answer is clear. The question is, what is YOUR view, which only YOU can answer.
Background checks question: It's a version of "What are YOU going to do about these facts?" Therefore, only YOU can answer that question.
Faith in what question: YOU made the faith claim, therefore only YOU can answer what YOU think that faith should be in.
Do you see a pattern yet?
You see, Mark, I don't claim to be able to read your mind and divine motivations with absolute certainty as you claim to be able to do to me. I can make guesses and inferences, but only YOU can legitimately state your own reasoning with authority.
Well? What are your answers?
As I have stated previously, the reason why I won't answer your questions (and I have actually answered some of them but you ignored what I wrote and continued with your psychosis) is because you're an asshole. You don't really want to have a serious debate on this stuff so you act like a 12 year old and frame the questions in a very childishly dishonest way. Everything is geared towards a "win" via semantics and traps. But that's what you conservatives are all about these days because you don't have anything to stand behind of your own. It's all about commentary or dissent...dysentery, if you will:)
You refuse to elaborate on your own questions and continue to answer my questions with more questions. That's why cowardly dickheads do, NMN. Usually, I don't go in for such personal and pointed statements directed at one person but it really does seem to matter to you what I think and write so now you and all the imaginary people that you think read the comments section (and are hoping to sway into the bubble) know where I am at.
http://www.ma-rooned.com/search/label/Dead%20Goblin%20Count
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
It's fascinating how Mark doesn't say a word about any of the facts relating to his post. Instead, he resorts to name calling.
Classic Markadelphia:
#4 The "How 'bout that anthrax, eh?" response. He simply tries to change the subject. This is also known as the "Hey, look! A pony!" response.
It's almost funny how angry he gets when I take away Standard Response #1.
I have actually answered some of them
Links?
You did try to answer the tyranny question, then undermined your own answer within a week. That's as close as you've gotten.
So, any thoughts on the facts of this topic? (In case you've forgotten, that's defensive uses of guns.)
Links?
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10123622&postID=3931545006217675239
I take that's still a "No" on debate.org? Consider it an open challenge...any time, NMN.
Here's my issue with your questions. Take a look again at the definition of troll.
Online it originally meant the act of posting a message in a newsgroup (and later on a blog) that is obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic hoping to trick a newbie into posting a follow-up article that points out the mistake.
That's are all your questions in a nutshell. You begin with your hubris (as most right wing douches do) by assuming that all liberals are naive idiots. That's why you asked the questions the way you did. Take the Constitution question, for example. If I answer "yes," you can then proceed on to the next phase of your trollness and "show me" how all the laws that liberals have passed violate the Constitution (gun laws, health care etc). By answering "no" (and one can, given how you worded the question), you can then accuse me of being a traitor or some other bit of psychotic nonsense. Of course, what's interesting here is how someone who believes so strongly in state's rights is taking such an absolutist position on federal power. What happened? But I really don't think you've thought it through that much. Nor have you likely thought about how things like a photo ID law or laws against gay marriage (two laws you do support) are in violation of the document that is absolute law, given the nature of those laws. So, your contention that the Constitution is absolute law rings completely hollow considering your previously stated ideology. That's why answering this question leads to more madness.
It's the same thing with Joe Biden (a Fox news like characterization of his statements), the tyranny question (any answer allows you to continue your trollness), the false-truth question (again, I recently heard a 10 year old ask this question), and the ER question (I answer that we have to treat everyone, you say it's really the government's fault, then, I ask you if you would let people die, you ignore that and then spout latin or some dime store logic and the madness continues). Sadly, I have no doubt that even this engagement will perpetuate the psychosis.
As I have said previously, you're very predictable. It's not the questions that I refuse to answer, NMN. It's you I refuse to answer. You are the problem in that your behavior is very poor, troll like, and well, we're getting close to this, aren't we?
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.795
Specifically, #3. I'm a nice guy so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and state that we aren't quite there yet but you are treading pretty close.
In addition to making conservatives look just plain awful, continuing to allow you to post here serves this purpose as well. The way I see it, you have a choice. You can continue as you have been doing which only serves to hinder, not help, your cause, or you can change. This means no more Boaz's 14 points and you contributing 50 percent of whatever we discuss rather than the troll-like behavior.
M chooses to emulate a U.S. Senator. Sadly it is Dianne Feinstein.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.795
Specifically, #3. I'm a nice guy so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and state that we aren't quite there yet but you are treading pretty close.
Hahahahaha!
Not even close Mark, not even close.
First, and most important: Mark is still saying, "Look! A pony! No, don't look there! Really, a pony! Stop looking over there! Look at the pony, dammit!" Not a word on the FACT that a gun does not need to be fired to be useful for self-defense. Once again, he's working really, really hard to ignore simple facts that undermine his fragile fantasy world.
Keep that death grip on #4, Marky. It just provides more proof that you have no intellectual integrity.
As for your link to "answers": Nope, no answers to the questions there, just a really, really roundabout way of saying "I don't want to deal with those facts. My mind is made up." or "I don't wanna talk to you no more."
Interestingly, that link also contained guardduck's excellent exposure of Mark's latest attempt to squirm away from facing facts as the fatuous excuse it is.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.795
Specifically, #3.
Which says:
with the intent to abuse, disturb, or cause distress, repeatedly mails or delivers or causes the delivery by any means, including electronically, of letters, telegrams, or packages.
Like I said, apparently taking away Standard Response #1 is really getting Mark wrapped around the axle; enough that he's thinking of pulling a Brett Kimberlin.
Enough with Mark's attempted diversion. Time to get back to the main topic:
Mark, what is your response to the FACT that "most defensive uses of guns do not in fact involve shooting anyone"?
Passerby with concealed carry in Wisconsin saves woman’s life
We hear plenty from gun-control advocates that firearms don’t prevent or stop attacks, and how they’re more likely to end up being used against victims instead. Tell that to Charlie Blackmore, who recently acquired a concealed-carry permit in Wisconsin after the legislature recently made them legal. Blackmore, a Marine Corps veteran, wasn’t being attacked himself, but was driving down the street early in the morning when he saw a large man kicking something in the sidewalk. When Blackmore realized the “something” was in fact a woman, he stopped the attack without firing a shot — and probably saved the woman’s life:
…
If you think that the woman couldn’t have been killed with the man’s feet, think again. In 2011, more than twice as many murder victims died from “personal weapons” — hands, feet — as did from rifles of all kinds, not just “assault weapons.” In this case, the man was the woman’s jilted ex-boyfriend who had been stalking her. She might be considering a concealed-carry permit next, if the boyfriend isn’t put away for a very long time.
Post a Comment