federal assault weapons ban

Intruder killed at southeast Houston tire business(TX)
Store owner kills armed robber(NC)
Staring death in the eye(WY)
Man shoots bear(CO)
Sunset Hills homeowner kills intruder(MO)
Police: Man killed breaking into home(SC)
Man kills intruder in Ocean Beach home (CA)
Man kills mentally ill man in his home (NV)
Pistol-packer scares thieves (TX)
Man Shoots Bear Who Came a Knocking (MA)
Robber killed, clerk wounded in gunfight (IN)
Would be victim shoots robber (AR)
Haines City store clerk shoots in self-defense (FL)
Senior citizen foils two burglary attempts(IN)
Store owner shoots would-be robber

Enough, or do you need more au? Have you heard even ONE of these stories in the 'Network Press'?

I think not.

I know you are saying ...

But Fedral, thats just 15 stories, thats not enough to believe that anyone should be allowed to own a firearm.

But to quote some of my liberal friends...

But if we can save just ONE life Fedral, it would be worth it.

So lets take a look at a few lives that were saved by their firearms:

• Employee shoots armed robber (GA)
• Father shoots Rottweiler who attacked his two-year old (LA)
• Homeowner ends apparent burglary (TX)
• Suspect Shot in Armed Robbery (IN)
• Robbery victim shoots at home invaders (MS)
• Iraq veteran uses gun to capture intruder (ND)
• Robbery foiled, man shot by store clerk (CA)
• Body identified as man suspected in break-in (VA)
• Would-be victim busted for shooting burglar (CA)
• Man with long rap sheet killed during break-in (TN)
• Ex-cop kills carjacker, gets busted (NJ)
• Paper protection useless against violent thug; lead protection works best (NY)
• Homeowner shoots and wounds alleged burglar (TX)
• Burglar Shot by Homeowner (MD)
• Homeowner confronts intruder with gunshots (MN)
• Burglar killed by store owner (TX)
• Shoot-out in pizza parlor (CT)
• Home invasion thwarted by armed citizen (AR)
• Homeowner wounds alleged home invader (TX)
• Thug dies in shooting (WA)
• Hitchhiker kills robber (South Africa)
• Clarendon homeowner shoots man in self-defense (SC)
• Robbery Suspect Shot During Commission of Crime (FL)
• Store clerk kills robber (LA)
• Girl shoots her father after he abducts and allegedly sexually assaults her at gunpoint (NV)
• Homeowner thwarts break-in try with 3 shots (MS)
• Intruder gunned down by retiree (MA)
• Suspect wounded in liquor store robbery (TX)
• Nursing Student Rescued From Mugger By An Armed Ronald Reagan
• Gun Trumps Bat (CA)
• Teenager shoots robbery suspect (OH)
• Tulsa Resident Fires His Gun To Scare Away A Would Be Burglary Suspect (OK)
• Trio kills polar bear after being trapped in a cabin (Canada)
• Bothersome bruin shot by homeowner (ME)
• Prosecutors say Anderson man acted in self defense killing intruder (SC)
• Pizza driver won't face charges for killing armed robber (IN)
• Gun Trumps Knife (WA)
• Courier Clobbers Would-be Robber (UT)
• Would-Be Burglars Hit Wrong House (CA)
• Pizza Delivery Man Shoots Armed Assailant (IN)
• Hiker shoots alleged attacker on remote trail (AZ)
• Burglar shot during break-in (MA)
• Burglar Shot by Business Owner (TX)
• Armed Store Clerk Stops Heist (OH)
• Armed intruder gets his comeuppance (AR)
• Police: Bar Owner Shoots, Kills Robber (MI)
• Shooter charged in self-defense killing (IL)
• Resident shoots intruder (NM)
• Store Clerk Chases, Shoots At Robber (FL)
• Store owner shoots at potential robber (TN)
• Homeowner shoots, kills intruder (AZ)
• Man says he thwarted carjacking (MN)
• Detroit woman tells of self-defense shooting (MI)
• Neighbor uses gun to save child from vicious pit bull (KY)
• Chemung man killed after apartment break-in (NY)
• Man charged with aggravated murder for defending himself (OH)
• Man shot after forcing his way into home (WV)
• Homeowner not indicted in killing (MS)
• Jackson man shoots intruder on property (MS)
• Clerk's gun trumps knife in attempted robbery (MA)
• Homeowner Kills Alleged Intruder (MI)
• Woman kills attacker (MI)
• 76-year-old man shoots man who allegedly broke door down (OR) (Another report)
• Charges dropped against shooter; self-defense cited (VA)
• Quick Thinking Clerk Foils Robber's Plan (AL)
• Robber shot dead in Pretoria (South Africa)
• Jewelry store workers fire at band of hooded thugs and kill one (CA)
• St. Helena teen shoots, kills mountain lion (CA)
• Homeowner kills escaped inmate (MT)
• Man Fatally Shoots Alleged Home Intruder (FL)
• Pregnant woman shoots her estranged boyfriend (AZ)
• Man shot neighbor who was allegedly beating a woman outside the couple's home (AZ)
• Homeowner fatally shoots burglar (IN)
• Owner shoots back during robbery attempt (CT)
• Would-be victim uses "assault" weapon in self-defense (CA)
• Restraining order doesn't stop man with tire iron; bullet in the chest does (OR)
• Man wielding axe handle shot dead in self-defense (IN)
• One armed person quells 6-person home invasion (TX)
• Victim charged after firing on carjacking kidnapper (NJ)
• Three home invaders shot, one of them dead (FL)
• Man uses firearm to quell three robbers after assault (CA)
• An apparent home break-in erupts into shots in the night; one alleged home invader dead (FL)
• Man shot after opening fire on home (MO)
• Clerk shoots hold-up man with "unlicensed" gun, faces charges (NY)
• Two separate instances of armed self defense (MI)
• Salinas man kills intruder (CA)
• Woman kills middle-of-the-night armed intruder (OH)
• Jury acquits shooter in self-defense case (SC)
• Woman's intelligent use of a handgun may have saved her life (MI)
• Woman stops robbers with her own concealed gun (MI)
• Man stabbed twice shoots knife attackers, one dies (NC)
• Charges against woman who stabbed man unlikely - self-defense cited (MI)
• Store owner shot robber in self defense (MS)
• "First instance of self-defense with a concealed firearm since the Missouri Legislature loosened the state's gun laws" (MO)
• Husband attacks, wife uses firearm for self-defense (OH)
• Senior Store Owner Kills Two Intruders; Fears Retribution (CA)
• Two burglars receive shotgun therapy, no charges for self-defending resident (NY)
• Intruder Shot, Killed In Anderson Home (SC)
• Girl, 14, allegedly kills uncle in self-defense (AL)

Takes forever to cut and paste the urls for all these links ..

Find all links above at:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/default.asp

So when a criminal uses a firearm to commit a crime, it is usually front page news.

When a person uses a firearm to protect their lives and property, it is burried in the back of page 58.

Not bad Fedral. Not bad at all. Too bad we can't quantify the violence avoided just by the display of a weapon. I imagine they are even more common, but seldom reported, especially in states with extremely restrictive gun laws.

Yeh, I agree.unknown to us My barn was occupied by a drunk a few years ago. He was usig it as a temporary home My wife was cornered by the bum one evening as she went up to the haymow and discovered that he had built a little nest out of haybales and was living there for a few weeks at least (this was deduced by the size of the midden composed of empties)
I heard the guy approach my wife with some threats . (we have an intercom installed in the sheep and cattle pens to alert us in lambing season). She let out a yell and in a few seconds I was out there with my SIg in hand.
The bum was petrified and when the cops came to haul him away, they goodnaturedly reprimanded me for what may be a possible weapons offense. The one cop was a sig owner and we talked about target shooting while the bum was bundled up in the squad car.
the act of showing off my pistol to the bum was all it took.We avoided difficulties. Would I shoot to protect my wife or family--you bet.

Gun ownership for protection and sport is a responsibility that the majority of gun owners take deadly seriously , and I find it crosses party and philosophical lines .
I find it disengenuous and more than a bit childish to
assume the worst in gun owners. We are not mad dog killers, weve been aware of lists of deterence episodes similar to that which fedral posted. Most all dont require that any shots be fired.
However, once released, the option exists and only training and experience rules.If one doesnt trust onesself with a gun, then one, by all means , should not own or be near them.However, no cross the board indictments, because it begins to sound like the pro v anti choice argument in reverse.

This is a circular argument. The reality is that banning guns to law abiding citizens who have no intention of doing a drive by is not going to get guns off the street at all. The people we need to be concerned with don't care about law. They are not going to turn their guns in because they are illegal. Guns will be taken from people who follow the law and register their guns, leaving them unarmed in a society that is already gun soaked. It doesn't make any sense to me to impose any gun laws at all for the majority of people.

Are you guys saying that all guns have the ability to turn into guns that shoot a lot of bullets quickly? If not and all guns do not have the ability, then the solution is simple, ban all guns that have the ability to turn into pre 1937 (?) machine like type guns and leave the rest alone.

Some people throw bombs even though they are illegal, should we now make bombs legal for citizens to have in the event that someone threatens you with a bomb? Are we going to have a thousand private citizens arms races all over the place? If we do not advocate owning military type weapons even though they are some people that illegally have them, then the argument that criminals have assault weapons does not wash.

What post(s) are you responding to? Usage of the Quote button would make your posts at least a small bit clearer.

Also, I haven't seen a post that sounds like it's saying anything like that. What I believe we've been saying is that the "assault weapons" in question fire more or less exactly as quickly as any other gun, because they only differ from ordinary rifles in matters of appearance and ergonomics.

I thought my rubber penis analogy made all that pretty clear, though.

On the subject of defensive gun uses, I'm going to mention the commonly-cited estimate of 2.5 million defensive uses of guns per year, from the 1994 Kleck/Gertz study, which as of yet has not been successfully contested. Other interesting concusions of the study:

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

and for the record, I do not own anything even remotely similar to an "assault weapon", as I prefer pistols. I oppose the AWB for the reason that it obviously sets a precedent for banning things for no practical, logical, or statistical reason.

I have a .22 that can fire semi-automatically and holds more than 10 shells. Should it be banned as well ?

yes if it shoots a lot of bullets in rapid fire sequences.

One bullet per pull of the trigger. Just like any other semi-automatic rifle/shotgun/pistol.

[quote="nate"][quote="revel"]Are you guys saying that all guns have the ability to turn into guns that shoot a lot of bullets quickly? If not and all guns do not have the ability, then the solution is simple, ban all guns that have the ability to turn into pre 1937 (?) machine like type guns and leave the rest alone. [/quote]

What post(s) are you responding to? Usage of the Quote button would make your posts at least a small bit clearer.

I was merely summing up you all's general point and asking if what I summed up was right. I will ask it again. Do all guns have the ability to shoot bullets one after another real quickly? If the answer is yes, then I agree that a ban on assualt weapons does not make sense. If the answer is no they do not possess that ability then we should just ban those that do. Pretty simple and straight foward I think.

Also, I haven't seen a post that sounds like it's saying anything like that. What I believe we've been saying is that the "assault weapons" in question fire more or less exactly as quickly as any other gun, because they only differ from ordinary rifles in matters of appearance and ergonomics.

The reason that assualt weapons are banned (from what I have been gathering these last few days in my quick education of guns) is because they ability to turn into guns that can shoot a lot of bullets without having to pull your trigger again and again. I know guns have barrells where there are bullets in them and some of them you can do it real quick, but you do have to pull the trigger each and every time whereas with assualt weapons you do not.

At least that is my understanding. Is it you all's contention that there are no guns that can turn into pre banned 1937 machine type style weapons on the open market and that this idea is a big misconception on the part of ignorant liberals making hay over misinformation?

I thought my rubber penis analogy made all that pretty clear, though.

Everyone has their own ideas of themselves.

On the subject of defensive gun uses, I'm going to mention the commonly-cited estimate of 2.5 million defensive uses of guns per year, from the 1994 Kleck/Gertz study, which as of yet has not been successfully contested. Other interesting concusions of the study:

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

I am sure people can come up with statics to show just how many accidental deaths that have been caused by guns. Or how many children get ahold of their daddy's guns. Tit for tat kind of a thing.

and for the record, I do not own anything even remotely similar to an "assault weapon", as I prefer pistols. I oppose the AWB for the reason that it obviously sets a precedent for banning things for no practical, logical, or statistical reason.[/quote]

[/color=violet]OK, I guess I should say it is good that you don't own anything remotely similar to assualt weapons, but then I would be offending those that do. What did you want me to say to this confession?[/color]

You know you guys keep going on about the lives being saved by someone owning a gun. What if the person you are shooting or threatening with a mere appearance of a gun has a bigger and 'badder' gun than you do? And then they not only shoot you but then go in your house and shoot everyone else in your family?

On the subject of defensive gun uses, I'm going to mention the commonly-cited estimate of 2.5 million defensive uses of guns per year, from the 1994 Kleck/Gertz study, which as of yet has not been successfully contested. Other interesting concusions of the study:



Kleck's study has never been successfully contested? It is easy to show how unlikely it is for there to be 2.5 million defensive uses of guns per year.

In 1994, there were only 1.8 million violent crimes reported (FBI crime stats). That is crimes were the victim actually saw the perp that attacked, raped, or robbed or murdered them. (A burglary is one in which NO ONE was home. If someone is home it becomes ROBBERY.) Gun stats say that 50% of homes have guns in them. So random attacks without knowing if the person has a gun or not should mean that the perp is 50/50 when it comes to attacking a person with a gun. We can probably assume that of the 1.8 violent crimes some of the victims were armed but unable to use their weapon for some reason. But even if we ignore that likelyhood. what Klecks numbers would mean is that you are MORE likely to be attacked if you have a gun then if you don't. In fact based on the numbers it would mean that you are 50% MORE likely to be attacked if armed.

Now lets look at his claim of 25% of the gun defenses occurred away from home. That would mean that 625.000 attacks occurred at work or on the street when the victim was armed and defended themselves. Again, based on the stats that is highly unlikely since it would require that 25% of the population be carrying a weapon at any given time; 625,000 defenses vs 1.8 million completed crimes. (ignoring home assaults) I haven't seen any reports of the % of people that carry on the street, but even assuming 10% that means you are 300% more likely to be attacked if you are carrying.

Kleck's own figures prove pretty clearly that you are MUCH safer NOT carrying since you can reduce drastically your chances of being attacked.
Are you sure this is what you want to promote when you drag out Kleck's study?

Absolute genius, to be the first and only person in ten years to refute the study.

That was sarcasm, of course.


I see nothing but statistical non-sequiturs. You're taking numbers of all crimes and somehow extrapolating how many were attacks on the street, without anything at all to back you up. You concluded that I'm 300% more likely to be attacked on the street if armed, from a single number, extrapolated in nonsensical ways. You're just multiplying random numbers together to try to make something stick, and it's kind of silly.

Hell, the conclusion that I'm more likely to be attacked if I'm armed is enough to discredit every word you say, with its patent absurdity. Criminals prefer unarmed victims, since criminals prefer to not die at the hands of their victims. That's so obvious that i wonder why I have to even state it.


Aside from all that, you haven't even touched on their methods, while convincing yourself that you have discredited one of the most comprehensive studies on the subject of defensive gun uses, simply by masturbating with numbers.

Bravo indeed.

Nate said

When it's your own statistics I guess it's different.

Anyway, the ban was allowed to pass so you all won. I hope you are happy about it.

He didn't produce statistics, he claimed to discredit a study that has stood for ten years, with some of the most absurd number-massaging I've ever seen. Without even trying to fault any of the study's methods, I might add.

It would be hilarious if he didn't sound so convinced of his own genius. He sounds like every guy who discovers the Problem of Evil debate and thinks he's invented an ironclad proof of the nonexistence of God.


Don't I wish. The People's Republic of California still has its own version of this half-baked ban, so I'm still inexplicably denied access to 15-round mags for my new Sigma, as if those extra 5 rounds are going to leap out and kill someone.

I hope you don't expect sympathy for your plight of not being able to buy another gun.

Maybe before too long more states will join California in just this idea. Maybe those who are not so gun happy have been going about this all wrong and should work state by state rather than federal.

You know what the wonderfully ironic part is? I can still buy plenty of guns, some a great deal more powerful than any affected by the ban.

Still feel safer now because I can't get a rifle with a pistol grip or bayonet lug?

Brilliant. Replace the ineffective pointless federal legislation with ineffective pointless state legislation. You should run for office.

Nate writes..


Did I massage the numbers? gee, lets look at the numbers I used. FBI crime stats are hardly massaged numbers. They are the reported number of crimes in the US. The only assumptions I made about those numbers were assumptions that would help your argument. I assumed that ALL of the 1.8 million crimes occurrred away from the home. (This is highly unlikely since we all know that many assaults occur at home.) IF Kleck's numbers are correct which I assumed they were and the FBI numbers are used as if they were all away from home then it is easy to compare the 2 figures; the total number of crimes that occurred with the total number that were prevented with guns.

I made one assumption that could be wrong. I assumed that gun owners behaved similar to non gun owners in that they went to work, they walked the streets, etc. Since burglaries are not included in my figures it might be possible that I am wrong. But for me to be wrong that would require that gun owners are MORE likely to be home to stop a burglary than non gun owners would be. Since the FBI says 59% of home burglaries occur during the day maybe I missed the fact that gun owners are just lazy slobs that never work. (<--- sarcasm) Most people I know including my family members that own guns work and live very similar lives to mine.

What Kleck's study shows is how many times people THINK the gun prevented a crime. If they were correct about every situation then my numbers stand: You are MORE likely to be an intended victim if you are carrying a gun then if you are not. If I wanted to take the time to run the FBI numbers and break them out based on where the crimes occurred the odds of being an intended victim if you are carrying would only go up.

Lets do the math for the simple minded.
Kleck claims 2.5 million gun crimes were prevented with guns and as Nate stated, 25% of those were away from the home.
2.5 million X .25 = 625,000 DGU (Defensive Gun Use)
This means 625,000 incidents of using a gun to defend yourself at work or on the street. (This number removes the home burglary argument completely from the equation)


Most people I know don't carry a gun to work or are even allowed to. If we assume 10% of people carry a gun. (Iowa conceal carry is 3.6% of the 39% of gun owners and considers their rate to be higher than most states. 59% of males in Iowa own guns so we will use that figure.)
.036 X .59 = .02125 So.. only about 2% of Male Iowans have permit to carry. We will bump that figure up for people that keep guns on their work premise. So I arrived at the 10% figure.. If you want to dispute it show me some numbers that would prove more than 10% keep a gun at their work place. Now we have some simple numbers to compare

90% of the population was victimized 1.8 million times (FBI stats)
AND
10% of the population was an attempted victim 625,000 times (Kleck)

625,000 attempts /.10(%of population)X250million(population) x1000= 25 attacks per 1000
1.8 mil attacks/(.9X250mil)x1000 = 8 attack per 1000
So. based on that.. your odds of being attacked are roughly 300% higher if you are armed away from home then if not armed.

The only way to get the numbers roughly the same is to make some assumptions that hurt the pro gun argument. Lets assume that 1.8 million attempts were stopped by UNARMED people. This moves the figures up to 16 attacks per 1000 for unarmed people so your odds are now only 50% higher if attacked. If we add another 1.8 million attempts then we get roughly equal the number of attacks per thousand but it leaves us with the following numbers.
Guns stopped 625,000 attacks
NO GUN stopped 3.6 million attacks.
This would lead to the conclusion that an attack is only 33% likely to be successful if you have no gun. (I doubt that figure since when threatened most would give up money in a robbery) Of course there is a problem with my figures in that the FBI 1.8 million violent crimes includes 1.1 million assaults. Then in its 1.1 million assaults they also include the number of attempted assaults reported. We can probably assume that of the assualts many were fought off with no gun. But because the FBI doesn't break this out, adding this figure in is impossible since there is no record of how many attempts were prevented or if they were prevented with a gun. So for the sake of argument lets assume the best for the gun lobby and pad the FBI number so all were NON gun carrying victims. Kleck claims that in 83.5% of his 2.5 million DGU the perp either threatened or used force first. This would mean that (83.5%X 2.5 Million =) 2.075 assaults or threatened assaults occurred for gun owners compared to the 1.1 million that occurred for non gun owners. If we base this on the 50% gun ownership rate that again means you are MORE likely to be the victim of an attempted assault if you are a gun owner.
Again.. simple math with the 50% gun ownership used.
2.075 mill assualts/(.5 X 250 mill) x1000 = 16.6 per 1,000
1.1 mill /(.5X250)x1000 = 8.8 per 1,000
So again, we see that gun ownership almost doubles your chances of attack.

Kleck's numbers may well reflect the beliefs of the people he surveyed but based on the results and what they would mean about gun ownership it raises some questions. There have been over 7 DGU surveys conducted over the years that I can find. Their findings range from 70,000 instances (probably too low) a year to 4.7million instances. Where Kleck fails is in the perceptions of the people that answer the questions. A simple hypothetical. I am walking down the street carrying a gun. 3 tough looking guys walk towards me. I am suspicious of their motives. I flash my piece to let them know I am armed. They cross the street. I can easily convince myself that I prevented them from attacking me. Human nature is that we inflate our own actions.

Kleck's problem is that when you compare his numbers to actual crimes it results in guns being an attracter of crime. I don't by any stretch of the imagination think guns never prevent crime and I didn't say that. My own personal feeling is that guns probably prevent about 700,000 to 1 million crimes a year. This is based on gun ownership and a random attack rate of criminals with an upward bias for some gun carriers actually being more likely to be intended victims.

I hope the simple math lesson will eliminate your feeling that I did "some of the most absurd number-massaging I've ever seen." The ONLY massaging I did was to try to HELP your argument. If you still disagree then please point out my math errors.

"Unlearned views are perhaps the more confident in proportion as they are less enlightened." - Thomas Jefferson

You're still being silly, while also making conclusions that are counter to basic logic.

The Kleck study's numbers are not all of people defending themselves. You're assuming that every single one of these gun defenses was in defense of the armed citizen's life, which the study does not say. A great number of these probably involved an unarmed victim and an armed bystander.

Plus, you compare numbers of -actual- assualt with numbers of -attempted- assaults, and again ASSUME that the gun-owner was the would-be victim.
You're assuming entirely too much about the stats - multiplying apples with oranges, so to speak, while assuming that the oranges ARE apples.

In conclusion, again, you're massaging and assuming, and then multiplying and assuming, and in the end, you have nothing of note.

And you're still claiming that criminals somehow prefer armed victims, which is illogical and unsupported by any actual facts; quite the contrary, when Florida legalized conclealed carry, violent crime rates went down almost immediately, and criminals started operating in zones where firearms wern't permitted, specifically airports, where they would bump people's cars and then rob them when they got out of the car. You wonder why shootings happen at schools? because they're gun-free zones. No one to fight back.

According to a DoJ study, 40% of convicted criminals have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed, and 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens.


You show me a single reputable study showing that criminals prefer to attack armed people, and I'll concede the point. A single one. If what you say is true, this study should be amazingly easy to find.

Get to it.

say, wuddup homes? if da otha 5 caps ain't nuthin', wutja beefin' 'bout?