|
How many instances of defensive gun use are there each year?
The number of DGUs, as these incidents are commonly known, is hard to pin down. Law enforcement agencies don’t typically classify DGUs as a standalone category. The FBI tracks justifiable homicides, but states aren’t required to submit those figures, so the data is incomplete. And the FBI figures omit defensive assaults, in which someone fights off an attack, and brandishing's. According to the survey, firearms were used defensively in 166,900 nonfatal violent crimes between 2014 and 2018, which works out to an average of 33,380 per year. Over the same period, defensive gun use was reported in 183,300 property crimes, or an average of 36,660 per year. Taken together, that’s 70,040 instances of defensive gun use per year. https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/def...uys-with-guns/ |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Whoever has a majority block should just tax at 10000% anything the other side does that they don’t like. Great idea. Anyone support a 10000% tax rate on any tool that be used to communicate your first amendment rights? Even left-wing courts are not going to uphold an effective 10000% tax on constitutional rights. This is lunacy. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Its amazing how little media coverage this story got.
Why is that, I wonder? Does it not fit a certain narrative and fall in line with their virtue signaling about gun control? Alabama school resource officer kills man trying to enter school Man tried to break into elementary school, police said. https://torontosun.com/news/world/al...o-enter-school |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Fixed: https://torontosun.com/news/world/al...o-enter-school |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I bet he’s glad he wasn’t restricted to having a 5 shot or less single action revolver from 1873. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But okay. Let’s say we ban guns and there are not good guys with guns anymore. When a criminal who doesn’t care about the law stages a massacre, how will they possibly be stopped? There’s no good guy with a gun to shoot them, as these normally end now. So what happens? The next time I experience an attempted home invasion from multiple men, what am I supposed to do? Fight them with a knife? Call the cops to show up and clean up my corpse in 15 minutes? Shrug and go back to bed and hope my family is still alive in the morning? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The main issue with trying to advance this forward seems to be but that’s not perfect because what about this or that. Well, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. |
Quote:
So, the next best thing is to figure out how to deal with them (capture and incarcerate, or kill them.) One usually needs a gun to do this. |
Quote:
May I refer you to the FBI report studying active shooters from 2000-2013 that showed that of the 160 active shooter incidents:https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/fbi...oter-incidents In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide. The individuals involved in these shootings included a citizen with a valid firearms permit and armed security guards at a church, an airline counter, a federally managed museum, and a school board meeting. In 2 incidents (1.3%), 2 armed, off-duty police officers engaged the shooters, resulting in the death of the shooters. In 1 of those incidents, the off-duty officer assisted a responding officer to end the threat. Again, not good odds. |
Quote:
We are just trying to find ways to REDUCE gun crimes. And the idea that laws will be broken by bad guys so we shouldn't have stricter laws is maybe the weakest argument of all. With that reasoning why have laws at all? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
1) Laws that punish the perpetrator of a specific, wrong act, rooted in tradition (like theft, murder, assault, etc.). and 2) Laws that punish half of the country and seize commonly owned items or overturn long-standing traditional rights. No serious person objects to 1. Almost everyone objects to 2, when it is being weaponized against them instead of them doing the weaponizing of the law. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You are asking to me propose only some kind of gun ban and removing any pro-gun or non-gun control option. Criminals do not follow the law. No gun ban disarms psycho's, gang members, and other violent criminals. No law that is passed is going to disarm them to then reduce mass shootings. I do not support a ban. I do not think there is any rational reason to believe criminals will follow this gun ban for some magical reason. Address the actually guilty. Address why people do this. Stop blaming 50% of America. |
Quote:
Reality: If you're a gang member, or other violent criminal, sitting there with your weapons of choice and large capacity magazines, you would LOVE to have stricter gun control laws that your law abiding victims will have to follow. Fantasy you seem to be living in: Gang Member #1: Whatcha doing? Gang Member #2: Loading up so I can jack a car and knock off a gas station. Getting a little low on funds. Gang Member #1: Yeah, that's cool, but don't you know, that magazine you're still using is now illegal. Gang Member #2: Oh, man, thanks for reminding me! I'll stop by the police station to turn it in on my way, and use a compliant magazine. Gang Member #1: It'll save me a trip if you'll turn in my clips too. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
According to almost every major study on the issue, Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. The first month of 2020 provided still more examples of citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights in defense of themselves and others. we highlighted some of the stories of average, everyday Americans who used their guns to protect their lives and livelihoods from criminals. The first month of 2020 provided still more examples of citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights in defense of themselves and others. Here are 12: I also assume you didn't read the first story I linked? The FBI tracks justifiable homicides, but states aren’t required to submit those figures, so the data is incomplete. And the FBI figures omit defensive assaults, in which someone fights off an attack, and brandishings. It doesn't matter what you wish for or how you try to spin it, criminals will always have weapons and will always disobey the law no matter what laws are implemented. To think otherwise is foolish, plain and simple. Mental health is the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge or address. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Post an article from the left leaning MSM where they discuss mental health issues instead of guns primarily? The virtue signaling is over the top, and guess what is going to be used the most this coming fall? They are rallying the troops already and, just like usual, they will say things like the other side doesn't care about your children, gramma or any other thing they can use to make them look like they care, guaranteed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0iCBLhO7rs https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sts-washington https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/11/u...-protests.html |
Quote:
|
Quote:
His point that people want to only spend time banning guns and eroding the Bill of Rights instead of addressing mental health seems in accord with your own platform. |
America has many problems. Mental health is one. Mass execution of schoolchildren via guns is another. These two things intersect but are not the same. If America is going to survive as a country much longer, we need to deal with both of these things–not deflect, not blame the bogeyman of "the other side", not defend our positions as "it's just common sense", and most of all, not talk about one of these intersecting issues while dancing around the other.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Cars don't typically run people over without someone driving them. But there are driver's tests, speed limits, etc. Drugs don't typically snort themselves, but its probably not a great idea to make fentanyl easily accessible. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The proposition to criminalize half the country for possessing post civil war common-use technology or to effectively eradicate the 2nd for non-billionaires by instituting a tax 10,000 times the cost of the item, which are the last proposals presented, is extreme.
I’d still love to hear why some think criminals (I understand not all, but apparently the belief is many of them) will simply not use illegal items that are common place. There’s many magazines-over-5 for every person. They are everywhere. What am I supposed to do if I am restricted to pre-Civil War firearms technology (or none at all, due to a 10,000x tax) if I have a home invasion, as absolutely happens, again? This ban is going to make the criminal just give up his gun and we’re back to an even footing? I sure hope the guy(s) breaking in mean no harm, as it’s going to take me a few minutes to remove my Flintlock from the safe and push a ball down the muzzle. How does criminalizing half the country actually make anyone safer? I see the obvious political gain of doing so. Guns exist. No law is getting rid of most or even many of the 400,000,000 guns. How do we think they are going to just disappear? |
Quote:
If you ban future 18 year-olds from purchasing a semi-automatic weapon, that does not criminalize people that already own such weapons. While I think that having a mandatory buyback of semi-automatic weapons would help make our country safer, no one is proposing this. We are not Australia--there just isn't the political will for such a measure and I think almost everyone knows it. You are correct that no law is getting rid of most or even many of the 400 million guns in our country. And no proposed law is attempting to. No one thinks all guns are going to disappear. I imagine you are going to come back with the slippery slope argument, that if we given an inch, anti-gun people will take a mile. But I just don't that's politically possible or even realistic to consider. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This would not make it illegal for people that already own these guns/magazines to continue to own them. Do you actually think someone has proposed a law that requires people to give up their pistols that have 5 rounds? |
Quote:
You can keep trying to solve the problem by fitting a square peg into a triangular hole, but it's not going to work. There is all sorts of legislation and law out there to prevent stuff that STILL HAPPENS. Drugs, for example. We have a massive drug problem in this country, despite laws that ban those drugs. Drunk Driving, despite laws that make drunk driving illegal. It's been said before, but murder is illegal, yet no matter the weapon, it's still committed - car, knife, rope, plane, firearm, fire, hands, etc. I'm ready to have the discussion about the threat of Big Pharma, our public education system, the media, our politicians (both sides), our work life balance, our broken homes, the lack of accountability in society anymore, etc. I'm ready for that conversation. Solving those issues, figuring out how to be better people, that's the long term solution. Then, when the inevitable trigger is pulled and one bullet comes out, it'll be at a paper target like 99% of gun owners shoot at. Look at that, the weapon isn't the problem. |
Quote:
I specified quite explicitly in 491 that I am talking about the gun control proposals in this thread. People are discussing here what they think, not solely or even mostly pending legislation. Almost nothing has been said about the vague 'framework' in the Senate or the House bill. |
Quote:
By the way, typically, legislative "Bans" are not retroactive. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And hopefully the expansive ruling in Heller doesn't doom us all to continued excessive cycles of gun violence. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:54 PM. |