StreetScooby 5 #51 June 27, 2008 Quote Do they keep a database of crimes that were NOT prevented when the person had a gun on them or in the house? The data is one sided if there is nothing to compare it to. Not picking a fight with you John, but you need both sets of data to make a valid point. Otherwise it's just NRA fluff. Huh? Quote An “outraged” Mayor Daley this morning denounced a U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Washington D.C.’s handgun ban as a “frightening decision” and a “return to the days of the Wild West.” Why is this frightening? He thinks law abiding citizens with registered guns are going to start causing problems? How little faith he must have in the law abiding citizens of Chicago. Quote Daley predicted that Chicago’s 1982 handgun freeze would be next in the crosshairs of the powerful gun lobby and that gun violence will surge if they’e successful. Yes, indeed Quote “This is a very frightening decision for America. …Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society? " Unless you're a convicted felon, or so, that'll be an individual choice. Quote If they think that’s the answer, then they’re greatly mistaken. Why? Govt has a better answer? Wait for the cops to get there after the fact? Even in your own home? Quote Then, why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? Because we actually are a nation of law abiding citizens, by and large. Maybe he's not too familiar with that concept, or hasn't had enough personal experience with that? Quote You have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle in the streets,” Daley told reporters at Navy Pier. Absolutely not. Guns are last resort, in your home. No trigger guards.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #52 June 27, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I'm not sure a camera would have done you much good had you been there professor. We DO know FOR SURE that a whole shopful of guns and ammunition didn't help the shop owner. We do? You mind providing a link about how it went down because I'd really like to take your word for it but yeah...I'm not going to. Calling me a liar? www.gunsnet.net/forums/showthread.php?t=55431 The local paper's online records don't go back that far, but I'm sure you'll beliei\ve GUNSNET I wasn't doubting your claim the two were killed. I was doubting your claim that the guns didn't help them. Did they get ambushed? Was it someone they knew and they got shot in the back? Was there a firefight and they lost? THAT'S why I wanted details. I'm progun but I'm also a realist and realize that firearms are not the end all be all of self defense. Well, I've given you the victims' names, the gun shop address, and the date of the shooting - maybe you can turn up something I couldn't find. However, my point remains, a shop full of guns and ammunition did them no good. Well i couldn't find any details so your point remains to be unfounded, emotionally based, and insulting. Good day sir. No, it's factually based. Being in their own shop stocked with guns an ammunition did not prevent their being shot dead. Nw, if you can't deal with facts it's not my problem. All the gun shops I have been in have ALL the weapons locked up with trigger locks. So, your analogy here is crap (most likely) However, most of those I have been in the owner and employees have weapon holstered on thier belts. Was this the case in your example?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #53 June 27, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote However, my point remains, a shop full of guns and ammunition did them no good. So, you admit that a weapon that is not immediately accessible is as bad as no weapon at all? That's a start... You have information on the accessibility of their guns? Please post the link. The gun shops that I'm familiar with don't have loaded guns on the walls or in cabinets. Fascinating but irrelevant. Please provide a link that proves the victims of the Glenwood Gun Shop shootings did not have access to any loaded guns. YOU implied that they did!! You have been caught with shit in your pants yet again"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #54 June 27, 2008 QuoteDo they keep a database of crimes that were NOT prevented when the person had a gun on them or in the house? The data is one sided if there is nothing to compare it to. Not picking a fight with you John, but you need both sets of data to make a valid point. Otherwise it's just NRA fluff. Anecdotes about how an armed citizen stopped a crime is "NRA fluff"? What would reports of a crime that was NOT stopped by an armed citizen be - "Brady fluff"? The statistics about the effectiveness of a gun in regards to chance of injury IS supported by stats - I believe it's in one of the DOJ reports.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #55 June 27, 2008 Another thread totally derailed. Why are you guys so damned gullible?!?! "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #56 June 27, 2008 QuoteThe statistics about the effectiveness of a gun in regards to chance of injury IS supported by stats - I believe it's in one of the DOJ reports. Here's a good source: Rates of Injury by Victim's Method of Protection: Robbery Assault Physical force ............................ 51% 52% Tried to get help or frighten attacker .... 49% 40% Knife ..................................... 40% 30% Non-violent resistance/evasion ............ 35% 26% Threatened or reasoned with attacker ...... 31% 25% Other measures ............................ 27% 21% No self protection ........................ 25% 27% Other weapon .............................. 22% 25% Gun ....................................... 17% 12% From: Kleck G, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America", Table 4.4. Source: Analysis of incident files of 1979-1985 National Crime Survey public use computer tapes (ICPSR,1987b). Note: Percentages do not total to 100% since any single criminal incident can involve several different types of self-protection methods. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #57 June 27, 2008 QuoteAnecdotes about how an armed citizen stopped a crime is "NRA fluff"? What would reports of a crime that was NOT stopped by an armed citizen be - "Brady fluff"? Yes, it would be fluff if it stands alone. I would like to see comparisons and empirical conclusions. Just showing one side is, well, one sided._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #58 June 27, 2008 QuoteQuoteAnecdotes about how an armed citizen stopped a crime is "NRA fluff"? What would reports of a crime that was NOT stopped by an armed citizen be - "Brady fluff"? Yes, it would be fluff if it stands alone. I would like to see comparisons and empirical conclusions. Just showing one side is, well, one sided. Perhaps you should look for a site whose purpose is to make that comparison, then, instead of demanding it from a site whose purpose is to show examples of armed self-defense.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #59 June 27, 2008 QuotePerhaps you should look for a site whose purpose is to make that comparison, then, instead of demanding it from a site whose purpose is to show examples of armed self-defense. I'm asking because every time someone starts to toss out real world examples, they are accused of cherry picking and some NRA sponsored numbers are tossed out. I personally cannot make an informed, very well educated opinion without all the facts. Now, I've not dedicated as much time to pursue the numbers like the fanatics on this website and figured they would know of such a pool of information. If not, it makes me wonder how people toss around only half the story. It makes me think that if those numbers exist and are not presented that this is all spin. But if those numbers don't exist I have to wonder why the research hasn't been put up yet, especially when there is a chance they can help your argument. Am I making sense or just rambling...._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #60 June 27, 2008 QuoteI'm asking because every time someone starts to toss out real world examples, they are accused of cherry picking and some NRA sponsored numbers are tossed out. Actually, every time someone gives examples, they're ACCUSED of being NRA-sponsored and cherry-picking. A small difference, but important nonetheless. The fact of the matter is that you are NOT going to find these types of examples on a site that doesn't support the individual interpretation of the 2nd - it doesn't help their cause. The Brady folks do the same thing - they count all deaths as murders, when roughly half (I don't recall the exact numbers) are suicides. They also count 17, 18 and 19 year olds as "children" for their news releases. QuoteAm I making sense or just rambling.... No, you're making sense... you're just looking for the data you seek in the wrong places. Your best bet for finding comparisons like you seek (*IF* they exist) would be through criminologists such as Kleck (which JR mentioned above) or Mustard. The downside of that (if there is one) is that, again, you are going to have to go to pro-2nd websites to find the links...because Brady folks aren't going to list them. Here's a start. There's some good information here, as well.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #61 June 27, 2008 More on this Daley article... This guy wants to take care of you himself... Quote "But, how do you get a gun into your house? Does it fly in by a stork? You purchase a gun. You carry the gun in a car. You come to your home. And we’ve shown time and time again how many children have been killed in their homes by guns. Parents are away, they get the guns….The child takes the gun, runs out in the street, has an argument, comes back and shoots somebody.” Parent with guns in their homes need to educate the kids about such things. It's a culture thing. Quote At a time when Chicago’s homicide rate is rising by nearly 13 percent and children are being gunned down on city streets, Daley said the Supreme Court has “changed the rules” in a way that will make it far more difficult to protect law-abiding citizens. Why can't law abiding citizens protect themselves in their homes? There's a distinct lack of education happening somewhere in the streets of Chicago. Who's fault is that? Quote “The Supreme Court and Congress have no obligation to keep our country safe. It falls on the backs of mayors and local officials. That’s who say, ‘I want my street, my parks, my school, my church, mosque and synagogues — I want everything to be safe.’…They’re changing the rules….Why should we as a city not be able to protect ourselves from those who want guns in our society?” the mayor said. Actually, it falls on the backs of people in their homes to keep their homes safe. Its up to the local cops to make the other places safe. Quote Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis today said that 75 percent of Chicago’s murders involve firearms. So far this year, Chicago Police have responded to 15,000 “man with a gun” calls and 27,000 calls of “shots fired.” How many of those calls involved legally registered handguns? Apparently none Quote “Today’s recent decision by the Supreme Court will have to be looked at by a lot of the lawyers to see how it truly will impact upon law enforcement,” Weis said at police headquarters. “However, if the result of this ruling are that more guns come on the street, it’s going to make it more challenging for law enforcement.” Again, no trust for law abiding citizens in Chicago? They actually think registered gun owners are going to start running amok in the street? Guess so, because the only experience they can possible have is all those unregistered gun owners running amok in the street. Quote You cannot carry a gun into a federal building. You cannot carry a gun into a federal court. So, they’re setting themselves aside. They’re saying to the rest of America that the answer to all of the constitutional issues is that we can carry guns. I just don’t understand how they came to this thinking. I’m very, very disappointed.” This guy has his head in his ass. People can now legally keep guns in their homes. Nothing I've seen says you can start packing in the street at will.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #62 June 27, 2008 QuoteQuotePerhaps you should look for a site whose purpose is to make that comparison, then, instead of demanding it from a site whose purpose is to show examples of armed self-defense. I'm asking because every time someone starts to toss out real world examples, they are accused of cherry picking and some NRA sponsored numbers are tossed out. The numbers being cited by Kleck and Lott originate from the US government Executive Branch Department of Justice Bureau of Statistics. Currently the source is the National Crime Victimization Survey, formerly this was called the National Crime Survey. Summaries remain similar regardless of whether you have liberal or conservative executives in power. The NRA and other pro-gun sources just like to cite them for obvious reasons. The other side likes to cite Kelerman which only examines homes in which homcides have occurred, only looks at a small subset of data (hundreds out of nearly two thousand reports), and only considers defensive gun use in which the trigger was pulled (brandishing is usually enough). It's not a random sampling and nothing is done to establish causality. You can sift through the original data if you really want to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm#ncvs More recent numbers suggest it's slightly safer to run away than to threaten your attacker with a gun, but the gun is still your best option when you're being assaulted and a better choice than everything other than running away when you're being robbed. Personally, I worry a lot more about people over 16 having access to suburban assault vehicles and people over 21 having legal access to cheap beer. As a white guy with no involvement in street gangs or love triangles I'm a lot more likely to be done in by a drunk driver (about 20,000 people are killed by drunk drivers while only 5,000 white people are murdered with guns assuming average chances of being a thugs, drug users, philanderers, etc) than some one else with a gun. When living in Seattle where any law abiding citizen could buy a handgun and get a license to cary it concealed I was statistically safer than when I travelled across the border to Vancouver, Canada with much more restrictive laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #63 June 27, 2008 The problem with running away is we all can't run. Particularly the elderly and they deserve the opportunity to be able to defend themselves as much as the next person.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbonecrusher 0 #64 June 27, 2008 The problem that I have with the Chicago Mayor and anybody that is for the banning of the right to bear arms, is that they never over accept the fact that gun crimes are committed by criminals using unregistered and illegal fireams. How many times are legally owned guns used in a crime by their legal owner? Very rarely does this ever occur. It is really quite sad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #65 June 27, 2008 Quote You too could read the thread for context. I didn't bring this up out of the blue. I'd wait until you state your opinion. It really doesn't make any sense to guess what you are trying to say by pointing out this particular case.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #66 June 27, 2008 Quote Do they keep a database of crimes that were NOT prevented when the person had a gun on them or in the house? The data is one sided if there is nothing to compare it to. Like what? There was a study published in Russia when they thought about relaxing gun control laws. It said that after the guns become available for self-defence, the crime statistics changes in the way when the chance of confrontation with a criminal is much less - i.e. we have less robberies but more burglaries. Note that guns could only prevent very limited types of crimes - the gun cannot help in preventing itentity theft or fraud. And of course the gun will not help you if you're a target for a killer - it didn't help assassinated Mafia leaders with all their security either. Therefore it's very hard to find data to compare to.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #67 June 27, 2008 http://www.largo.org/effects.htmlwww.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #68 June 27, 2008 QuoteThe problem that I have with the Chicago Mayor and anybody that is for the banning of the right to bear arms, is that they never over accept the fact that gun crimes are committed by criminals using unregistered and illegal fireams. How many times are legally owned guns used in a crime by their legal owner? Very rarely does this ever occur. It is really quite sad. Problem I have with the mayor is that he's a fascist masquerading as a liberal.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #69 June 27, 2008 QuoteQuoteBeing in their own shop stocked with guns an ammunition did not prevent their being shot dead. Your playing your silly games again. If you are trying to make some point by cherry-picking this one incident, then have the guts to state it. Quit playing around with your silly veiled implications. This "one incident" happened in my local gun shop, one where I have shopped, and where I had dealt with the murdered owner. I hardly think that counts as "cherry picking". It is a personal experience.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #70 June 27, 2008 QuoteQuoteFascinating but irrelevant. Please provide a link that proves the victims of the Glenwood Gun Shop shootings did not have access to any loaded guns. You are the one making the assertion. Why don't you prove that they DID have access to loaded guns. You don't get a free pass on your assumption. Your one-line highlight from the story proves absolutely nothing except that they died in a robbery. If you expect that to mean something, then: 1) State whatever point it is that you think you're proving, and; 2) Provide the details of the robbery for public examination and critique. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke in a strong wind. As usual. NO JOHN, I made NO CLAIM AT ALL about the accessibilty of loaded guns. That was someone else. I wrote: "Being in their own shop stocked with guns and ammunition did not prevent their being shot dead.". Nothing there about accessibility. My statement was factually correct. The person who brought up accessibilty (or lack thereof) is the one who should prove HIS point.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #71 June 27, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote However, my point remains, a shop full of guns and ammunition did them no good. So, you admit that a weapon that is not immediately accessible is as bad as no weapon at all? That's a start... You have information on the accessibility of their guns? Please post the link. The gun shops that I'm familiar with don't have loaded guns on the walls or in cabinets. Fascinating but irrelevant. Please provide a link that proves the victims of the Glenwood Gun Shop shootings did not have access to any loaded guns. YOU implied that they did!! You have been caught with shit in your pants yet again You may have inferred it, but I implied no such thing. And there's no need to be vulgar, I'm sure your mother didn't teach you to write like that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #72 June 27, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteBeing in their own shop stocked with guns an ammunition did not prevent their being shot dead. Your playing your silly games again. If you are trying to make some point by cherry-picking this one incident, then have the guts to state it. Quit playing around with your silly veiled implications. This "one incident" happened in my local gun shop, one where I have shopped, and where I had dealt with the murdered owner. I hardly think that counts as "cherry picking". It is a personal experience. A reminder.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #73 June 27, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBeing in their own shop stocked with guns an ammunition did not prevent their being shot dead. Your playing your silly games again. If you are trying to make some point by cherry-picking this one incident, then have the guts to state it. Quit playing around with your silly veiled implications. This "one incident" happened in my local gun shop, one where I have shopped, and where I had dealt with the murdered owner. I hardly think that counts as "cherry picking". It is a personal experience. A reminder. Of course all he said was that being in a shop full of guns and ammo didn't prevent the owner and his son from being shot. He did not suggest the story was anything other than anecdotal. There's a reason I rarely argue with Kallend. With the exception of when he's really worked up, his statements and arguments are usually pretty solid. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #74 June 27, 2008 QuoteThere's a reason I rarely argue with Kallend. With the exception of when he's really worked up, his statements and arguments are usually pretty solid. Blues, Dave I'd say "consistent" rather than solid. Ordinarily, he tries to blame crime on the availability of guns ("DC crime due to VA guns"). This time, he's trying to say that the availability of guns failed to prevent the crime. It's a strawman argument that fails on a couple of different points. a) Sales stock in a gun shop isn't laying around locked and loaded. b) Given that the gunshop is in Chicago, it's HIGHLY unlikely that the owners were carrying any sort of self-defense weapon.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #75 June 27, 2008 QuoteQuoteThere's a reason I rarely argue with Kallend. With the exception of when he's really worked up, his statements and arguments are usually pretty solid. Blues, Dave I'd say "consistent" rather than solid. Ordinarily, he tries to blame crime on the availability of guns ("DC crime due to VA guns"). This time, he's trying to say that the availability of guns failed to prevent the crime. It's a strawman argument that fails on a couple of different points. a) Sales stock in a gun shop isn't laying around locked and loaded. b) Given that the gunshop is in Chicago, it's HIGHLY unlikely that the owners were carrying any sort of self-defense weapon. The strawman you're suggesting is not one he submitted. That a store full of guns and ammo were insufficient for the shopkeeper to defend himself is factual. There could be many reasons WHY that was the case (you've given two good ones above), but he didn't opine on those so any argument about them is simply arguing with yourself. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
