The problem is: The 2 million figure — often inflated to 2.5 million in N.R.A. literature — is bogus. Defensive gun use is actually quite rare.A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.
Let's say you are right, that's still 6 x the number of people killed with a firearm. So for every victim you "save" by getting rid of firearms, you create 6.
note that it say property crime too, read further down, but here's the larger point:a 71 year old former cop has a CWP presumably for "self defense." There should be no REASONABLE reason to think you need a gun for defense in a suburban movie theater at an afternoon movie.
That makes no attempt to answer the question at all.
The problem is: The 2 million figure — often inflated to 2.5 million in N.R.A. literature — is bogus. Defensive gun use is actually quite rare.A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.
Let's say you are right, that's still 6 x the number of people killed with a firearm. So for every victim you "save" by getting rid of firearms, you create 6.
note that it say property crime too, read further down, but here's the larger point:a 71 year old former cop has a CWP presumably for "self defense." There should be no REASONABLE reason to think you need a gun for defense in a suburban movie theater at an afternoon movie.
That makes no attempt to answer the question at all.
there was no question, unless I am missing something?
This is the point where the usual pro gun guys will really go off with the nonsense . .. . .lmao, have fun
page 21 . . .lol
The problem is: The 2 million figure — often inflated to 2.5 million in N.R.A. literature — is bogus. Defensive gun use is actually quite rare.A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.
Let's say you are right, that's still 6 x the number of people killed with a firearm. So for every victim you "save" by getting rid of firearms, you create 6.
note that it say property crime too, read further down, but here's the larger point:a 71 year old former cop has a CWP presumably for "self defense." There should be no REASONABLE reason to think you need a gun for defense in a suburban movie theater at an afternoon movie.
That makes no attempt to answer the question at all.
there was no question, unless I am missing something?
I think the obvious question was "How does creating six times the number of victims count as a viable solution?"The answer is an obvious "it doesn't", but we all know you aren't going to admit to that.
The problem is: The 2 million figure — often inflated to 2.5 million in N.R.A. literature — is bogus. Defensive gun use is actually quite rare.A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.
Let's say you are right, that's still 6 x the number of people killed with a firearm. So for every victim you "save" by getting rid of firearms, you create 6.
note that it say property crime too, read further down, but here's the larger point:a 71 year old former cop has a CWP presumably for "self defense." There should be no REASONABLE reason to think you need a gun for defense in a suburban movie theater at an afternoon movie.
That makes no attempt to answer the question at all.
there was no question, unless I am missing something?
I think the obvious question was "How does creating six times the number of victims count as a viable solution?"The answer is an obvious "it doesn't", but we all know you aren't going to admit to that.
I did respond to that, I said Spartan was reading only part of the quote and not accounting for the actual words "property". Here it is again:"The National Rifle Association maintains a blog called The Armed Citizen, which highlights defensive gun use. The latest entry, from April 9, describes three incidents: Two from 2013 and one archival example from 1969. It’s not hard to see what the NRA’s getting at, but just in case, a sidebar on the site states: “Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances.” In other words, as Wayne LaPierre put it after Newtown, “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”That’s almost as catchy as “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The problem is: The 2 million figure — often inflated to 2.5 million in N.R.A. literature — is bogus. Defensive gun use is actually quite rare.A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.Readers can judge for themselves whether the V.P.C. or the N.R.A. is likely to have better numbers. The V.P.C. used data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The N.R.A.’s estimate is the result of a telephone survey conducted by a Florida State University criminologist.The V.P.C. also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of criminal gun homicides in the same year: 8,275. (That’s not counting gun suicides or unintentional shootings.) Or compare it with the number of Americans killed by guns since Newtown: 3,458.As the V.P.C. paper states, “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.”
Note this: "self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes" "Self-protective behaviors" -- that does not just mean self-defense, that means use of a firearm in a number of ways, such as simply "brandishing," and it also goes on to include PROPERTY CRIMES . . . so "I thought someone was going to steal my bicycle and so I waved my gun at them" is included. I don't think those types of property crimes offset the gun violence in the country, which is the part both of you guys left out, so here it is again . . The V.P.C. also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of criminal gun homicides in the same year: 8,275. (That’s not counting gun suicides or unintentional shootings.) Or compare it with the number of Americans killed by guns since Newtown: 3,458.The same entity that reported the part you two jumped on ALSO reported that in 2010 there were 210 justifiable homicides to 8275 non-justifiable gun homicides PLUS suicides PLUS unintentional shootings.In short, the [part you two are quoting is comparing an apple to an orange and THEN leaving out the direct comparison that was right below it . . in BOLD and in BLUE . . .lol. We don't know that the "victims" in the part you quote could not have just easily protected the "property" with the "self-protective behavior" of waving a baseball bat or a knife . . . but we do know that 8,275 unjustified homicides is MUCH, MUCH GREATER than the 230 justifiable homicides . . and that is before even accounting for suicides and unintentional shootings
