Gun Stories the MSM Never Reports

[Stretch]

Studies indicate that firearms are used more than 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.
Posted Apr 11, 2007 09:59 PM PST
Category: RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS


The dirty secret is that far MORE crimes are prevented by armed citizens then by the police. The police show up AFTER the crime is over and clean up the mess, then promise to find the criminal and arrest him or her. Rarely does such an arrest occur. Want proof? Compare the number of murders that takes place every year in California with the number of CONVICTIONS for murder in that state. It's not a very reassuring ratio.
http://www.nrapublications.org/armed citizen/Index.asp

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Uh huh. The second link is to the U.S. National Rifle Association. I think we all know where it stands on the issue of gun control. There's a sidebar on the right of the NRA's homepage that contains the text the OP starts with. The first link goes to whatreallyhappened.com, which displays the same text from the NRA site's sidebar, word for word. There's no link to any studies at either site, just the claim itself and a heap of anecdotes.

You've cited undocumented claims from sources known to be biased in favour of such claims. It may well be true "that firearms are used more than 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," but notice how vague that sentence actually is and what it tries to imply. The clear implication is that firearms are used successfully more than 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that shots are rarely fired, though in every anecdote I read, shots were fired. "Many instances?" Without a number, that says nothing. And how many of those attempts at personal protection were in fact successful, versus how many times was the citizen involved or bystanders injured or killed? There are gun stories the NRA never reports either, and in fact its web site specifically solicits only anecdotes that'll appear to support its views.

In other words, what you've presented, such as it is, does not demonstrate what you think it does. It may be a true claim--though I'm strongly inclined to doubt it--but that isn't the evidence that'll prove it.

 

[Stretch]

The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

PRIVATE FIREARMS STOP CRIME 2.5 MILLION TIMES EACH YEAR, NEW UNIVERSITY SURVEY CONFIRMS By J. Neil Schulman

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.interview.html


The new survey, conducted by random telephone sampling of 4,978 households in all the states except Alaska and Hawaii, yield results indicating that American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year. Previous surveys, in Kleck's analysis, had underrepresented the extent of private firearms defenses because the questions asked failed to account for the possibility that a particular respondent might have had to use his or her firearm more than once.
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/klekview.html

 

[Colpy]

Boy, something to get my heart rate up already!

Dexter, I know you are a very rational guy, and the deeper you look into this matter in the USA, the more impressed you will be with the stats.

Try Gary Kleck. No connection to shooting sports or the NRA, although they love him. Try John Lott.

Same same.

No, in the vast majority of cases of firearms self-defense, there are no shots fired. The display of the weapon is enough to turn the attack. It is VERY rarely that one has to actually open fire, although those instances make the best press.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Why didn't you produce that stuff the first time instead of just making undocumented claims? I'll read it with interest.

 

[Stretch]

Why didn't you produce that stuff the first time instead of just making undocumented claims? I'll read it with interest.

phuckme!..... do you get people to chew your food for you as well!!!

it took all of 5 secs to do a search for "firearms are used more than 2 million times a year for personal protection," using www.dogpile.com to come up with the above results and more

 

[Dexter Sinister]

phuckme!..... do you get people to chew your food for you as well!!!

it took all of 5 secs to do a search for "firearms are used more than 2 million times a year for personal protection," using www.dogpile.com to come up with the above results and more

You made the claims, you provide the justification. I'm not going to do it for you. On the other hand, maybe I won't bother reading any of that stuff any more than I already have. People who talk to me like that I don't consider worth engaging in conversation. I'm done in this thread.

 

[Stretch]

those that know me from here and other forums, know that I dont make claims unless I can back them up with what I consider to be reliable info.....as time goes by, you'll come to realise that, mate.

 

[MikeyDB]

Hey Colpy....good to see you up and at em...

It's far too simplistic to focus on the illegal use of firearms as the sole ingredient in determining the "moral" fabric of the decision regarding whether firearms are.."good" or "bad"...

While the argument that if a chronically depressed individual would find access to firearms as a means to commit suicide...may have some veracity, the idea that firearms are the "cause" of criminality..those instances when firearms are used in the commission of crime...is bogus both logically and morally.

If the appetites of a society reflect the depression frustration and helplessness of a disenfranchised minority...youth, labor law that treats labor unfairly ...drug abuse etc. etc., the answer to "gun-control" isn't encumbering the process of legal ownership of firearms, it is in addressing the contributing factors in a social dynamic that spawns lawlessness and depression. Sure it's far easier and perhaps even more palatable to blame crime on firearms but that's like blaming global warming on whomever invented lightbulbs and electric heating...

Statistics don't serve much greater purpose in addressing the underlying ills that foster a climate of gratuitous violence...video games...UFC and televised brutality...or the appetite for violence that is a part of postmodern societies...

You can think as simple-minded as you like, but the sub-current of inhumane ethos and destruction of our frameworks of values and morality are fueled by effects quite removed from the firearm itself.

 

[Niflmir]

I think Dexter was pretty much on the right track. It took me twenty minutes to follow the links you supplied, weed through the propaganda and find enough information to find the actual article.

Kleck's paper has a few problems:

1. Specifically oversampling from regions where gun ownership is known to be larger.

2. Saying "the empirical literature is unanimous" and then only citing two of his previous papers.

3. From displaying a clear ideological bias and lack of the sound, impassive scientific voice.


If you want to know that guns increase violence, try this, this, this, or just count the number of papers that purport a correlation with the availability of guns and the homicide rate when you type "guns homicide rate" into Google Scholar. Then there is the statistical fact that Chicago is basically the same size as Toronto yet homicide rates in Chicago are more compareble to the entirety of Canada, and this is only because Chicago has instituted aggressive gun controls in recent years. Before that they had far more homicides than Canada as a whole.

 

[MikeyDB]

Again...

Statistics don't address the issues. During prohibition in Chicago and other locales around the United States, firearms were used to promote an illegal activity. Firearms are involved in gangs and "hoods" all over the United States and while Canada insists on criminalizing tobacco, permit the disenfranchinging of native Canadians and pay lip-service to securing Canada's borders.... Prisions in the United States are filled with (admittedly) vast numbers of anti-social characters, but there is a significant number of people incarcerated because they comitted crimes while involved in the trade of illicit drugs..... marijuana Meth etc... if there weren't the appetite..or in economics parlance...the demand for this product...where would the disenfranchised realize any opportunity to accumulate wealth? When a deranged individual or kids (Klebod&Harris) use firearms in the commission of acts of anti-social behavior, it isn't simply the presence of a firearm that's responsible. School violence includes pipe-bombs and explosives...perhaps we should ban the Internet..?

When the roots of violence are understood the use of firearms in the commission of crimes will be understood. Does anyone really believe that the image of "The Few the Brave the Marines"...."Be all you can be..." "There's Strong then there's Army Strong"....and all the messages of violence found in movies and popular culture...gangasta rap. etc. have no effect on the thinking of young impressionable people?

When education and employment opportunities are available to blacks and Hispanics and a climate of second-class-citizenship is eliminated....

 

[tracy]

I don't think anyone would say that guns are the cause of violence. The problem is that guns make violence far more effective. That's why they are so popular with criminals. Yes, I understand you can kill someone with a golf club, but we haven't banned them or insisted the government enact laws to monitor and control their sales... Well, when you can sit and pick off 20 or 30 people with a golf club, I'll start advocating for strong golf club control. I don't see why strong gun control would be a problem for anyone either.

I may be a little less rational on this issue lately. Seeing an 18 month old who had been shot in the face wasn't something I ever expected to happen. Wouldn't have happened if the shooter had used a golf club. At least then he would have killed his target and not that baby.

 

[L Gilbert]

Banning isn't a very good idea. Autos and fat kill enough people to make the stats for death by firearms miniscule. Should we ban motor vehicles and fat?
Besides that there are a large number of people who actually use the tools for what they are intended to be used for and don't use them for shooting other people. Banning would disrupt their lives noticeably. I keep wild critters away from my crops and critters with firearms. Ban my firearms and I may as well not farm and I'd be bereft of one of my few avenues of venting steam.

 

[L Gilbert]

Besides that, banning my guns would make me cranky and the result would possibly end up in a couple RCMP deaths plus my own because I won't give em up.

 

[Tonington]

I wonder how a cougar or bear would react if you fired fireworks at them? Lol, seriously though I think that's a valid reason, no doubt Les.

 

[L Gilbert]

I've noticed a lack of effect from bear bangers, so fireworks wouldn't raise much alarm in the critters either, IMO.

 

[L Gilbert]

Someone wants info on guns in Canada could look up what Gary Breitkreuz has dug up. He's an MP in Saskabush. Besides he's way more interesting than the nuts at the NRA in the States and more relevant to Canadians anyway.

 

[tracy]

Banning isn't a very good idea. Autos and fat kill enough people to make the stats for death by firearms miniscule. Should we ban motor vehicles and fat?
Besides that there are a large number of people who actually use the tools for what they are intended to be used for and don't use them for shooting other people. Banning would disrupt their lives noticeably. I keep wild critters away from my crops and critters with firearms. Ban my firearms and I may as well not farm and I'd be bereft of one of my few avenues of venting steam.

Substitute golf clubs for autos and fat in my last post and you'll get what I think about that.
Does anyone really advocate banning all guns? Most people I know want strict control, but not an outright ban.

 

[L Gilbert]

There's a fair number of people who think banning's the answer. Most I would think, agree with you. The new gun laws were unnecessary, though, IMO. Could have enforced the old laws and bypassed an awful lot of BS and saved a couple billion in the process and it would have been just as effective.

 

[Jsan]

All you have to do is take a look at the crime statistics in Britain after their sweeping gun bans to see that banning law abiding citizens from owning guns not only will not cut crime you will actually see the crime rates go up. All you have done is remove the fear from the minds of a criminal and given them the confidence to know that they are the only ones with the weapons. Britain has VERY strict gun control yet gun crimes are out of control. knife crimes are also out of control and in typical fashion the British panic and start talking about banning knives. Again, criminals DO NOT obey laws so once again they are empowering the criminals. It is politically popular to stand up and beat your chest like Paul Martin did when he declared that he was going to ban guns but the reality is it would only have accomplished giving him political points but you would see absolutely no decrease in gun crimes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6536947.stm