jcd11235 0 #101 October 7, 2009 QuoteWithout the gun, they still get shot at and killed Based on what data do you draw such a conclusion?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #102 October 7, 2009 >It suggests that conclusion, but doesn't prove it. Agreed. It offers proof only during a narrow time window in one city in the US. >Yet again, these people had guns for a reason. Without the gun, >they still get shot at and killed. Right. What the study DOES show is that people who were involved in assaults (i.e. people who _were_ attacked, shot at, killed etc) were a lot more likely to be injured or killed if they had a gun. > Their conclusions also suggest that the guns were not useful for defense . . Well, it suggests that they are not useful for defense against assaults. There are many other kinds of defense they may well be more useful for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #103 October 7, 2009 >You would have to compare the percent that carried and *were shot* >to the percentage that *carried and were not shot*. You could indeed do that - that would be a different study with a different hypothesis (and very likely a different result.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #104 October 7, 2009 Quote> Their conclusions also suggest that the guns were not useful for defense . . Well, it suggests that they are not useful for defense against assaults. There are many other kinds of defense they may well be more useful for. It only suggests that once the assault has actually taken place. If the assault never happened (i.e. the gun was brandished to prevent the assault), then the data are excluded from the study, as no shooting took place. In other words, they're not useful for defense against assaults--but only if you consider avoiding the assault altogether not to be a successful defense.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #105 October 7, 2009 Quotei.e. the gun was brandished to prevent the assault Wouldn't brandishing a firearm be considered assault in many cases?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #106 October 7, 2009 QuoteQuotei.e. the gun was brandished to prevent the assault Wouldn't brandishing a firearm be considered assault in many cases? Not if it was done by a legal carrier to prevent an assault. In that case, no shooting occurs, so the data is excluded from the study. In the case that the weapon is legally brandished, and then a shooting does occur--I think Bill is saying that's the excluded 1.5% of incidents.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #107 October 7, 2009 >In other words, they're not useful for defense against assaults--but only >if you consider avoiding the assault altogether not to be a successful >defense. And if you consider that avoiding an assault by NOT brandishing a gun to not be a successful defense as well. Both cases are excluded - both the person that prevents an assault by pulling out a gun, and the person who prevents an assault by simply leaving the area (or avoiding the area to begin with.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #108 October 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotei.e. the gun was brandished to prevent the assault Wouldn't brandishing a firearm be considered assault in many cases? Not if it was done by a legal carrier to prevent an assault. In that case, no shooting occurs, so the data is excluded from the study. In the case that the weapon is legally brandished, and then a shooting does occur--I think Bill is saying that's the excluded 1.5% of incidents. Perhaps you should clarify what you are considering to be assault.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 2 #109 October 7, 2009 Collation does not equal cause for starters.... They looked at cases where people had been shot. It would not be surprising to find that most people that were shot also had guns. Thats not a big surprise. Also, did they consider the situation of the individuals? If its mostly gang related or something like that then that statistic cant be applied to someone like me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #110 October 7, 2009 QuoteQuotei.e. the gun was brandished to prevent the assault Wouldn't brandishing a firearm be considered assault in many cases? It depends on the circumstances. Yes, pointing a gun at someone is considered "Assault With a Deadly Weapon" in many juridictions. But if someone (or a group of someones) approaches me with intent to assault, or rob or whatever, and I point a gun at them - then I am acting in self-defense. I may or may not be detained or arrested, go to jail, be charged, and very possibly be convicted if the local authorities decide that my claim of self-defense is not valid. (Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6). One of the many reasons that a CCW permit and the exercise of it is a very serious decision to make. In any case, the incident wouldn't have been applied to this study and is one reason that I think this study is a load of anti-gun propaganda. And thanks for clearing that up about the percentages Billvon. I found it hard to beleive they'd be that ridiculous."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #111 October 7, 2009 >It would not be surprising to find that most people that were shot >also had guns. Thats not a big surprise. While I agree, it goes against some people's stated beliefs that a gun will help _prevent_ them from being shot in such a situation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #112 October 7, 2009 QuoteBut if someone (or a group of someones) approaches me with intent to assault, or rob or whatever, and I point a gun at them - then I am acting in self-defense. Intent to assault? What, exactly, is that? (I know what intent means. I'm still waiting for someone to post the definition of assault.)Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #113 October 7, 2009 Quote>It would not be surprising to find that most people that were shot >also had guns. Thats not a big surprise. While I agree, it goes against some people's stated beliefs that a gun will help _prevent_ them from being shot in such a situation. No, it doesn't. The situations in which I might choose to carry (illegally outside, or just within the home) are very different from the ones of the (mostly) criminals in this examination of case studies. I'm not competing with others for drug money, I didn't shoot their brother last week. I'm not in an opposing gang. These are all situations where the target having a gun is irrelevant to the attacker, and if anything, having the gun would be likely to deter rather than encourage the attack. Now I'm sure a few of those shootings were ones where the 'victim' initiated the conflict and lost to the 'attacker,' but that doesn't advance the thesis either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #114 October 7, 2009 QuoteWhile I agree, it goes against some people's stated beliefs that a gun will help _prevent_ them from being shot in such a situation. How so?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #115 October 7, 2009 >>it goes against some people's stated beliefs that a gun will help >>_prevent_ them from being shot in such a situation. >How so? If you are involved in an assault, and you have a gun, you are 5 times more likely to be shot than if you do not have a gun. That's the (narrow) conclusion of this study. As you (and others) have pointed out, it doesn't say anything _outside_ assaults, and there are many other ways to avoid them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #116 October 7, 2009 Quote>>it goes against some people's stated beliefs that a gun will help >>_prevent_ them from being shot in such a situation. >How so? If you are involved in an assault, and you have a gun, you are 5 times more likely to be shot than if you do not have a gun. And you are a subject of this study. Lots of people live in different situations, have different backgrounds, and behave differently from the average subject of this study. It says nothing at all about any specific person who might hold any particular beliefs, because it's not examining them, relative to their preparation and training, their other habits, etc, etc, etc.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #117 October 7, 2009 > It says nothing at all about any specific person who might hold any >particular beliefs, because it's not examining them, relative to their >preparation and training, their other habits, etc, etc, etc. Exactly! It doesn't say that you will find yourself in such a situation. It doesn't say that a bulletproof vest will help or hinder you. It doesn't say that you're irresponsible or that guns are bad or that gun training is flawed or the Second Amendment is not valid. It says that, on average, in one US city, during a certain time period, if you were involved in an assault, if you were carrying a gun, you were 5 times more likely to be shot than if you did not have a gun. That's it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #118 October 7, 2009 Quote It says that, on average, in one US city, during a certain time period, if you were involved in an assault, if you were carrying a gun, you were 5 times more likely to be shot than if you did not have a gun. That's it. However, the union of those two details (assault and carrying) is being understated and instead, it is presented as seen in the article: "Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found." And that's the problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #119 October 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteBut if someone (or a group of someones) approaches me with intent to assault, or rob or whatever, and I point a gun at them - then I am acting in self-defense. Intent to assault? What, exactly, is that? (I know what intent means. I'm still waiting for someone to post the definition of assault.) Wiki:assault Basically attacking, hurting or (under some circumstances) scaring someone. A person (or group) approching in a menacing manner, perhaps voicing threats ("Give me your wallet or I'll...) or brandishing weapons (a raised fist could constitute a weapon under certain conditions) could all be interpreted as "intent to assault". Or not. Which is why the victim of the assault may go to jail for defending himself. And Billvon is absolutly right in his comment that having a gun won't always protect you under these kind of circumstances. It isn't a magic wand that makes the bad guys go away. The trick is avoiding these kind of situations by staying out of certain areas, paying attention to what is going on around you and stopping the attack before it really gets going."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #120 October 7, 2009 QuoteA person (or group) approching in a menacing manner, perhaps voicing threats ("Give me your wallet or I'll...) or brandishing weapons (a raised fist could constitute a weapon under certain conditions) could all be interpreted as "intent to assault". In most places, those actions would be considered assault, not merely attempt to assault. Brandish a firearm before the assault is committed (or, in some circumstances, while/after it is committed), and suddenly, you're the one guilty of assault.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #121 October 7, 2009 > it is presented as seen in the article . . . In the New Scientist article, I agree - they did not qualify their statement, which makes it overly broad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #122 October 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteA person (or group) approching in a menacing manner, perhaps voicing threats ("Give me your wallet or I'll...) or brandishing weapons (a raised fist could constitute a weapon under certain conditions) could all be interpreted as "intent to assault". In most places, those actions would be considered assault, not merely attempt to assault. Brandish a firearm before the assault is committed (or, in some circumstances, while/after it is committed), and suddenly, you're the one guilty of assault. Remember that you have to be convicted. I doubt that most courts are going to convict someone who brandishes in self-defense of assault. It could happen, of course, but I think it's unlikely.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #123 October 7, 2009 QuoteRemember that you have to be convicted. I doubt that most courts are going to convict someone who brandishes in self-defense of assault. It could happen, of course, but I think it's unlikely. Brandish before the assault is committed, and you're the one committing assault unlawfully. Brandish during or afterwards, and you've increased your chances of being shot and/or killed. Sounds like a losing proposition to me.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #124 October 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteA person (or group) approching in a menacing manner, perhaps voicing threats ("Give me your wallet or I'll...) or brandishing weapons (a raised fist could constitute a weapon under certain conditions) could all be interpreted as "intent to assault". In most places, those actions would be considered assault, not merely attempt to assault. Brandish a firearm before the assault is committed (or, in some circumstances, while/after it is committed), and suddenly, you're the one guilty of assault. Right. That's what I said. Self-defense is rarely cut and dried. Most CCW classes teach that pulling the gun out will get you arrested and cost about $5000. Actually shooting someone will cost around $20k. (not including the lawsuit the guy you shoot files). The use of deadly force isn't a joke or a game. It is (literally) a matter of life and death. The only time I can justify it is when my (or someone I can legally defend - that's a BIG can of worms) is at risk. I am fairly passionate about defending my rights to self defense, but I also realize that this is real life, not some movie or book. There are potentially very serious consequences to carrying a gun."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #125 October 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteA person (or group) approching in a menacing manner, perhaps voicing threats ("Give me your wallet or I'll...) or brandishing weapons (a raised fist could constitute a weapon under certain conditions) could all be interpreted as "intent to assault". In most places, those actions would be considered assault, not merely attempt to assault. Brandish a firearm before the assault is committed (or, in some circumstances, while/after it is committed), and suddenly, you're the one guilty of assault. Remember that you have to be convicted. I doubt that most courts are going to convict someone who brandishes in self-defense of assault. It could happen, of course, but I think it's unlikely. I took some time composing my last response, so this one and the one below popped up while I was thinking. Tom - don't bet on it. Do some reading. There are a lot of people tried and quite a few convicted for situations that were self defense. It isn't fair, or right, but it often is up to the prosecutor and his views on self defense. FWIW, in Minneapolis, the written policy is to "arrest the gun". In any confrontation, anyone holding a gun gets arrested. Self-defense or not."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
