Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Yeah, a link to this ‘CDC study on self-defense use of firearms’ would be helpful.

@Baldimo,

Read the constitution. Guns are there for militisa, because the FF didn't want a standing army because of the way the Brits had used one against them. Says nothing about self defense. That's purely SCOTUS interpretation and interpretations, like Plessy can change. As ex chief justice Berger said, that was the NRA influencing an ultra conservative court to create out of whle cloth an alleged new right. The CDC study is suspect on several grounds. It's based on shaky extrapolation of shaky estimates, statistically with that wide a variation in e3stimated cases, statistically they 're not very sure of the actuality. /What is very sure is the number of gun cssualties, year after year, and the fact that theyare due to misuse of guns, and that is inherent in the nature of guns. They are lethal. That is purely a fact. It's not a fear of an inanimate object. It's unwillingness to accept as they are actually used. By people. And as usual you're fear of the left is totally unfounded. It's the right that's authoritarian.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Read the constitution. Guns are there for militisa, because the FF didn't want a standing army because of the way the Brits had used one against them.

If you want to extend Heller to cover militia-capable weapons, I'm with you.

That would mean everyone gets to keep modern combat weapons in our homes. No more constraining our guns to semi-auto-only.

40mm grenade launchers and 40mm grenades will be on the menu too. And hand-thrown grenades.

And best of all, 84mm bazookas:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4

If you succeed in extending Heller to cover militia-capable weapons, I plan to get a whole closet full of 84mm bazookas. Let's see personal body armor withstand a direct hit from one of those. If any armored bad guys come knocking at my door, the coroner will have to sponge their remains off from my walls. 😎

MontereyJack wrote:

Says nothing about self defense. That's purely SCOTUS interpretation and interpretations, like Plessy can change.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects a preexisting right. It does not define the scope of that right.

The judicial record clearly shows that this preexisting right includes people having guns in their home for private self defense.

MontereyJack wrote:

As ex chief justice Berger said, that was the NRA influencing an ultra conservative court to create out of whle cloth an alleged new right.

Berger clearly acknowledged that people have a right to have guns in their home for private self defense.

Since he acknowledged people's right to have guns in their home for private self defense, it is unclear to me what he was attacking the NRA for. I assume that he was just virtue signaling and was attacking some sort of straw man that he had created.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Sorry. "Berger" should be "Burger".

He still acknowledged people's right to have guns in their homes for private self defense though.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Out of curiousity -do you have a link to such? And do they include police officer use, or just civilian use? (To me it seems abnormally high for civilian use, but what do I really know about the US)

Just civilian.

vikorr wrote:

And I thought CDC stood for Centre of Disease Control, or some such.

The Democrats have this dream that the CDC should stop protecting the nation from deadly illnesses and start producing biased studies against gun ownership. It is a source of eternal frustration to the left that the Republicans have ensured that the CDC remains focused on protecting us against deadly diseases.

Anyway, you were wondering about a link.

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15

Quote:

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

Out of curiousity -do you have a link to such?

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf

Quote:

And do they include police officer use, or just civilian use? (To me it seems abnormally high for civilian use, but what do I really know about the US)

Considering we have over 250 million people and the amount of crime we have across the US, it actually makes sense.

Quote:

And I thought CDC stood for Centre of Disease Control, or some such.

Which has always been a part of my confusion on why the CDC was researching gun violence in the first place. Nothing in their name or mission statement strikes me as a place to study gun violence.

Here's a Forbes article on the 2013 study:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#1740d67c299a

Quote:

In particular, a 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

This study didn't say what the anti-gun left wanted it to say, it's the reason you never hear it mentioned by gun-control advocates or the media. They treat it like it doesn't even exist. I have mentioned this study dozens of times on this site, but it gets ignored because it doesn't fit the anti-gun propaganda.

1 Reply

@snood,

Quote:

Yeah, a link to this ‘CDC study on self-defense use of firearms’ would be helpful.

It's actually been posted many times, but you and your buddies always ignore it because it didn't meet your propaganda to ban guns. Try not to ignore the study this time.
http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Read the constitution. Guns are there for militisa, because the FF didn't want a standing army because of the way the Brits had used one against them.

You've already lost this debate, the SCOTUS already ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to citizens of the US. No stipulation about a militia. You need to stop the BS, the courts have ruled against you twice in the last 15 years, and will be ruling against you again in this session when they take on the New York anti-gun law.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

They still have to decide whether to go forward with hearing the case -- a decision that will come in a few weeks.

The left is already so hysterical that a group of progressive senators actually tried threatening the Supreme Court:

http://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/democratic-senators-threaten-supreme-court/

0 Replies

@oralloy,

So tell me how "home" covers walmarts churches synagogues schools bars clubs festivals offices businesses public streets all those places shooters love to shoot at.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

That's covered by the court case that is quoted in my signature line.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I dont receive sig l i nes nut whatevrr the court vases may day its clear theyre foing damnall to protect peoples lives. Thats the problem thats not going away.

0 Replies

Rex v. Dewhurst (1820):
"A man has a clear right to arms to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he is travelling or going for the ordinary purposes of business. But I have no difficulties in saying you have no right to carry arms to a public meeting, if the number of arms which are so carried are calculated to produce terror and alarm."

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Thanks for the links

Quote:

Considering we have over 250 million people and the amount of crime we have across the US, it actually makes sense.

Maybe in the U.S. I would say that in Australia, there'd only be a handful of such situations per year...though perhaps there's be a larger number of unreported such instances in the world of drug dealing.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

That's because Australians are not free, and do not have the right to have guns for self defense.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

By the way, many Australians have used guns for self defence over the years. Some haven't been charged (again, it's quite rare here), some have been charged, and gotten off, even when they shouldn't have - a female security guard in NSW shooting a robber in the back as he was running away comes to mind (he'd hit her first, before she pulled her gun, then he ran away - then she shot him - if I remember right). You rarely hear of people being charged with murder for such...recidivist criminals /drug dealers aside.

Point is, our laws relating to self defence are fairly clear. It's when you try to go beyond what's reasonable that it becomes problematic for the gun user.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Using a gun for self-defense more often that not does not require anyone to be shot. I've used a gun for self-defense and didn't have to shoot the person. Someone was trying to break into my garage one early morning. I went and got my gun, opened the sliding glass door up a few inches and stuck the gun our the door and told the dude to leave my property. He fled and the break in's in my neighborhood stopped after that. No one shot and I didn't call the police either. I was admonished by a local cop for not reporting it, but that was also how I found out the break-in's stopped.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Yes, I realised that.

I'd say that is highly unusual here because people are meant their firearms in safes. And as far as I'm aware, armed burglaries are quite rare here - drug dealing related stuff aside. It's certainly rare enough that any of these instances makes the news, and at that, infrequently.

Though to be clear, here, you can only use a firearm in defence of life (not just to protect property or against minor injury).

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

Though to be clear, here, you can only use a firearm in defence of life (not just to protect property or against minor injury).

Here is the US, it is dependent on what your state, country or city laws are. CO has the "castle doctrine", which has been expanded to your personal property, to include your vehicle. States like New York have no such self-defense laws and shooting someone breaking into your home will lead you to jail and court.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Thanks for the info. I was wondering about that a little. I'd read about your States that have stand your ground laws, and was vaguely aware of the castle doctrine.

I personally don't mind the castle doctrine - if you are breaking into someone else's home, my view is that you surrender your rights, but I can live with either view. I'm rather more dubious about stand your ground laws - there are times when I can see it being valid...but those times I'd say would also be covered by other laws already.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know