Political Crossfire Forums

[Wolverine]

My new favorite ownage machine. :-D

http://www.calnra.com/lifeclock/

[alclarkey]

Wolverine wrote: My new favorite ownage machine. :-D

http://www.calnra.com/lifeclock/

:cool:

I liked this one:

[Pebble]

Something i'm interested in is this whole concept of self defence or crimes prevented by possesion of guns.

How can they prove the figure they have on that clock there? I've read the link and I note that the quoted figure is that for defensive gun uses, not prevented homicides...are they merely taking that figure out of context and quoting it as 'saved lives' ?

[Wolverine]

I suppose they are using the figure of 2.5 million defense uses of a gun per year, I guess one could assume that they are counting the 2.5mil as "lives saved".

alclarkey wrote: Wolverine wrote: My new favorite ownage machine. :-D

http://www.calnra.com/lifeclock/

:cool:

I liked this one:


I know, I saved that one. 8:)

[alclarkey]

Pebble wrote: Something i'm interested in is this whole concept of self defence or crimes prevented by possesion of guns.

How can they prove the figure they have on that clock there? I've read the link and I note that the quoted figure is that for defensive gun uses, not prevented homicides...are they merely taking that figure out of context and quoting it as 'saved lives' ?

Well whenever someone encountered a criminal and used a gun to defend themselves, and they remained alive, then it could be said the gun preserved their life. After all we never know if the criminal intended to kill them or not.

And heres the source for that number:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

[Pebble]

alclarkey wrote: Pebble wrote: Something i'm interested in is this whole concept of self defence or crimes prevented by possesion of guns.

How can they prove the figure they have on that clock there? I've read the link and I note that the quoted figure is that for defensive gun uses, not prevented homicides...are they merely taking that figure out of context and quoting it as 'saved lives' ?

Well whenever someone encountered a criminal and used a gun to defend themselves, and they remained alive, then it could be said the gun preserved their life. After all we never know if the criminal intended to kill them or not.

And heres the source for that number:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

It cannot therefore be definitively linked? The same could be said of any number of factors. Skin colour, ethnicity, sex, religion, all could affect the anche of homicide. A gun cannot be conclusively linked to every (or even any without further evidence) prevention of homicide.

[alclarkey]

Pebble wrote: alclarkey wrote: Pebble wrote: Something i'm interested in is this whole concept of self defence or crimes prevented by possesion of guns.

How can they prove the figure they have on that clock there? I've read the link and I note that the quoted figure is that for defensive gun uses, not prevented homicides...are they merely taking that figure out of context and quoting it as 'saved lives' ?

Well whenever someone encountered a criminal and used a gun to defend themselves, and they remained alive, then it could be said the gun preserved their life. After all we never know if the criminal intended to kill them or not.

And heres the source for that number:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

It cannot therefore be definitively linked? The same could be said of any number of factors. Skin colour, ethnicity, sex, religion, all could affect the anche of homicide. A gun cannot be conclusively linked to every (or even any without further evidence) prevention of homicide.

Did you read the source I provided? The surveys they did asked people if they used a gun to defend themselves. Based on the responses Mr. Kleck concluded that 2.5 million people a year use guns to defend themselves. Wolverines clock only show how many would have at this point in the year. Also I was saying it cannot be said for sure that the criminal intended to kill the defenders, because we can never truly be inside their minds, however it is for certain that that many people used guns to defend themselves and remained alive after the encounter. But lets say for example that only a tenth of those encounters would have resulted in the death of defender if they were not armed, that still shows 250,000 lives saved per year, thats still 8 times as many lives saved by guns as were taken. They are still useful.

[mattwa33193]

Pebble wrote: Something i'm interested in is this whole concept of self defence or crimes prevented by possesion of guns.

How can they prove the figure they have on that clock there? I've read the link and I note that the quoted figure is that for defensive gun uses, not prevented homicides...are they merely taking that figure out of context and quoting it as 'saved lives' ?

There's no way of knowing if the person who defended themselves would have been killed. We do know if they were threatened with deadly force, and common sense dictates that you assume that the threat of deadly force would have resulted in a homocide.

[Pebble]

alclarkey wrote: Pebble wrote: alclarkey wrote: Pebble wrote: Something i'm interested in is this whole concept of self defence or crimes prevented by possesion of guns.

How can they prove the figure they have on that clock there? I've read the link and I note that the quoted figure is that for defensive gun uses, not prevented homicides...are they merely taking that figure out of context and quoting it as 'saved lives' ?

Well whenever someone encountered a criminal and used a gun to defend themselves, and they remained alive, then it could be said the gun preserved their life. After all we never know if the criminal intended to kill them or not.

And heres the source for that number:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

It cannot therefore be definitively linked? The same could be said of any number of factors. Skin colour, ethnicity, sex, religion, all could affect the anche of homicide. A gun cannot be conclusively linked to every (or even any without further evidence) prevention of homicide.

Did you read the source I provided? The surveys they did asked people if they used a gun to defend themselves. Based on the responses Mr. Kleck concluded that 2.5 million people a year use guns to defend themselves. Wolverines clock only show how many would have at this point in the year. Also I was saying it cannot be said for sure that the criminal intended to kill the defenders, because we can never truly be inside their minds, however it is for certain that that many people used guns to defend themselves and remained alive after the encounter. But lets say for example that only a tenth of those encounters would have resulted in the death of defender if they were not armed, that still shows 250,000 lives saved per year, thats still 8 times as many lives saved by guns as were taken. They are still useful.

Why a tenth? Why not a quarter or a half? Or even all of them as claimed by the website. Such estimates are unsupported and can therefore not be used as a valid statistic.

Quote:
There's no way of knowing if the person who defended themselves would have been killed.

As there is no way of knowing if the person can be killed or not, how can anyone claim that a life has been saved? It does not follow.

Quote: We do know if they were threatened with deadly force, and common sense dictates that you assume that the threat of deadly force would have resulted in a homocide.

Why? Deadly 'force' is used in amny crimes such as muggings, armed robberies and other infringements, not all of these result in homicides ergo we cannot assume that a use of deadly force will result in a homicide.

Also bear in mind what can be defined as 'deadly force.' It is possible to kill someone with your own hands, therefore a mere assault can be recorded as an attack with 'deadly force.' A threat of it in these situations does not equal homicide.

[alclarkey]

Pebble wrote: alclarkey wrote: Pebble wrote: alclarkey wrote: Pebble wrote: Something i'm interested in is this whole concept of self defence or crimes prevented by possesion of guns.

How can they prove the figure they have on that clock there? I've read the link and I note that the quoted figure is that for defensive gun uses, not prevented homicides...are they merely taking that figure out of context and quoting it as 'saved lives' ?

Well whenever someone encountered a criminal and used a gun to defend themselves, and they remained alive, then it could be said the gun preserved their life. After all we never know if the criminal intended to kill them or not.

And heres the source for that number:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

It cannot therefore be definitively linked? The same could be said of any number of factors. Skin colour, ethnicity, sex, religion, all could affect the anche of homicide. A gun cannot be conclusively linked to every (or even any without further evidence) prevention of homicide.

Did you read the source I provided? The surveys they did asked people if they used a gun to defend themselves. Based on the responses Mr. Kleck concluded that 2.5 million people a year use guns to defend themselves. Wolverines clock only show how many would have at this point in the year. Also I was saying it cannot be said for sure that the criminal intended to kill the defenders, because we can never truly be inside their minds, however it is for certain that that many people used guns to defend themselves and remained alive after the encounter. But lets say for example that only a tenth of those encounters would have resulted in the death of defender if they were not armed, that still shows 250,000 lives saved per year, thats still 8 times as many lives saved by guns as were taken. They are still useful.

Why a tenth? Why not a quarter or a half? Or even all of them as claimed by the website. Such estimates are unsupported and can therefore not be used as a valid statistic.
I was being generous. It it probably more like 1/4 or 1/2. And in that case that bumps the number of lives saved to 625,000, or 1,250,000. Did you happen to miss the fact that those people remained alive at the end of the encounter? And yes indeed those estimates are supported.

Quote: The late Marvin E. Wolfgang, self-described as “as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country,” who wanted to “eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police,” said, “The methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. . . . I cannot fault their methodology.”


Pebble wrote: Quote:
There's no way of knowing if the person who defended themselves would have been killed.

As there is no way of knowing if the person can be killed or not, how can anyone claim that a life has been saved? It does not follow.
Can say for certain that a life was not saved? In any event the person defending themselves remained alive and well after the encounter.

Pebble wrote: Quote: We do know if they were threatened with deadly force, and common sense dictates that you assume that the threat of deadly force would have resulted in a homocide.

Why? Deadly 'force' is used in amny crimes such as muggings, armed robberies and other infringements, not all of these result in homicides ergo we cannot assume that a use of deadly force will result in a homicide.
Of course we can't! If a person defends themselves with a gun, then the likelihood of a homicide plummets!

Pebble wrote: Also bear in mind what can be defined as 'deadly force.' It is possible to kill someone with your own hands, therefore a mere assault can be recorded as an attack with 'deadly force.' A threat of it in these situations does not equal homicide.
How do I know that the guy who throws a sucker punch at me doesn't intent to kill me? I have no idea. But I do know that if I pull my gun out and brandish it in front of him, he will probably stop attacking me. The risk of getting shot makes the satisfatiction he would get by kicking my ass not worth the attempt. Most of time it is not necessary to fire a single shot.

[mattwa33193]

Pebble wrote: alclarkey wrote: Pebble wrote: alclarkey wrote: Pebble wrote: Something i'm interested in is this whole concept of self defence or crimes prevented by possesion of guns.

How can they prove the figure they have on that clock there? I've read the link and I note that the quoted figure is that for defensive gun uses, not prevented homicides...are they merely taking that figure out of context and quoting it as 'saved lives' ?

Well whenever someone encountered a criminal and used a gun to defend themselves, and they remained alive, then it could be said the gun preserved their life. After all we never know if the criminal intended to kill them or not.

And heres the source for that number:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

It cannot therefore be definitively linked? The same could be said of any number of factors. Skin colour, ethnicity, sex, religion, all could affect the anche of homicide. A gun cannot be conclusively linked to every (or even any without further evidence) prevention of homicide.

Did you read the source I provided? The surveys they did asked people if they used a gun to defend themselves. Based on the responses Mr. Kleck concluded that 2.5 million people a year use guns to defend themselves. Wolverines clock only show how many would have at this point in the year. Also I was saying it cannot be said for sure that the criminal intended to kill the defenders, because we can never truly be inside their minds, however it is for certain that that many people used guns to defend themselves and remained alive after the encounter. But lets say for example that only a tenth of those encounters would have resulted in the death of defender if they were not armed, that still shows 250,000 lives saved per year, thats still 8 times as many lives saved by guns as were taken. They are still useful.

Why a tenth? Why not a quarter or a half? Or even all of them as claimed by the website. Such estimates are unsupported and can therefore not be used as a valid statistic.

Quote:
There's no way of knowing if the person who defended themselves would have been killed.

As there is no way of knowing if the person can be killed or not, how can anyone claim that a life has been saved? It does not follow.

Quote: We do know if they were threatened with deadly force, and common sense dictates that you assume that the threat of deadly force would have resulted in a homocide.

Why? Deadly 'force' is used in amny crimes such as muggings, armed robberies and other infringements, not all of these result in homicides ergo we cannot assume that a use of deadly force will result in a homicide.

Also bear in mind what can be defined as 'deadly force.' It is possible to kill someone with your own hands, therefore a mere assault can be recorded as an attack with 'deadly force.' A threat of it in these situations does not equal homicide.

There is exactly one reason to point a gun at someone. One.

Attacks with hands are not considered deadly force, unless the attacker is a black belt or a professional fighter.

[Pebble]

Quote:
I was being generous. It it probably more like 1/4 or 1/2. And in that case that bumps the number of lives saved to 625,000, or 1,250,000. Did you happen to miss the fact that those people remained alive at the end of the encounter? And yes indeed those estimates are supported.

How can you prove that?

As to your point on remaining alive at the end of the encounter, how can you be sure that the presence of the gun was the mitigating factor?

Your own source wrote: It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did.

Quote:
Can say for certain that a life was not saved? In any event the person defending themselves remained alive and well after the encounter.

No I cannot say for certain that a life was not saved, but that doesn't affect my point as i'm not attempting to support any statistic extrapolated.

Again, why is the gun the mitigating factor?

Quote: Of course we can't!

Precisely...which is why it can't be argued that all attacks with deadly force will result in homocide, as per your point.

Quote:
There is exactly one reason to point a gun at someone. One.

Please elaborate.

Quote: Attacks with hands are not considered deadly force, unless the attacker is a black belt or a professional fighter.


Why not? Also, who makes this distinction?

Bear in mind even a small child can kill someone by strangulation. Is taht not an attack with deadly force?

[Rankor and Pissing]

Pebble wrote: Quote:
I was being generous. It it probably more like 1/4 or 1/2. And in that case that bumps the number of lives saved to 625,000, or 1,250,000. Did you happen to miss the fact that those people remained alive at the end of the encounter? And yes indeed those estimates are supported.

How can you prove that?

As to your point on remaining alive at the end of the encounter, how can you be sure that the presence of the gun was the mitigating factor? As opposed to what other variable or constant? Are you saying that "quick wit" or "ability to run fast" would prevent a homicide - if so, how many times, in what percentage of encounters, and what are the variables therein? I would suggest that having a gun would get someone's attention and hold that attention since once a gun is involved, it now becomes a life and death matter for either or all involved. Saying it was not a factor or is a minimal factor would be naive no?


Pebble wrote: No I cannot say for certain that a life was not saved, but that doesn't affect my point as i'm not attempting to support any statistic extrapolated. So since you cannot refute it, it must not be true? BTW statistics can be made to say anything - would you feel better where I to create statistical nonsense out of publically available information? It shouldn't take a PhD in Physics to understand how a firearm could avoid and save lives as well as take those of aggressors or those who wish another bodily harm.

Pebble wrote: Again, why is the gun the mitigating factor? As I stated... unless there's a Howitzer in the mix, the gun is the only factor. A victim is easy prey especially when it's known they are not armed - as it is in the UK for example. Don't you think potentially losing one's life would be a mitigating factor?

Quote: Of course we can't!

Pebble wrote: Why not? Also, who makes this distinction? I have to remind myself about the UK mentality. Holding a pencil could be a weapon, or a butter knife. Wouldn't air then be considered a weapon - at high pressure and pointed at the eye it could cause a serious dry eye condition. :lol:

Pebble wrote: Bear in mind even a small child can kill someone by strangulation. Is taht not an attack with deadly force?

Please cite where a small child has killed someone by strangulation. Define small first please... then the circumstances should such an example exist. If it's so easy, wouldn't you think strangulations would be more popular homicides?

[Lucky Luke]

alclarkey wrote: Pebble wrote: alclarkey wrote: Pebble wrote: Something i'm interested in is this whole concept of self defence or crimes prevented by possesion of guns.

How can they prove the figure they have on that clock there? I've read the link and I note that the quoted figure is that for defensive gun uses, not prevented homicides...are they merely taking that figure out of context and quoting it as 'saved lives' ?

Well whenever someone encountered a criminal and used a gun to defend themselves, and they remained alive, then it could be said the gun preserved their life. After all we never know if the criminal intended to kill them or not.

And heres the source for that number:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

It cannot therefore be definitively linked? The same could be said of any number of factors. Skin colour, ethnicity, sex, religion, all could affect the anche of homicide. A gun cannot be conclusively linked to every (or even any without further evidence) prevention of homicide.

Did you read the source I provided? The surveys they did asked people if they used a gun to defend themselves. Based on the responses Mr. Kleck concluded that 2.5 million people a year use guns to defend themselves. Wolverines clock only show how many would have at this point in the year. Also I was saying it cannot be said for sure that the criminal intended to kill the defenders, because we can never truly be inside their minds, however it is for certain that that many people used guns to defend themselves and remained alive after the encounter. But lets say for example that only a tenth of those encounters would have resulted in the death of defender if they were not armed, that still shows 250,000 lives saved per year, thats still 8 times as many lives saved by guns as were taken. They are still useful.

I can easily spot two reasons why this is impossible:

. From your own link it appears that there is an official statistic on the matter, the way it has been dismissed is laughable. Here is an example:
Quote: Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-protection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden. It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes,[27] thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.
Spousal assaults and rape are mainly committed by a male offender with a female victim and we all know what gender is the gun owner!


. 250,000 lives saved per year, that is an American murder rate that should have been in the order of 86 per 100,000, 15 times today's American murder rate, 15% more than the murder rate of Columbia that tops the chart of the highest murder rate in the world.
Sometimes I really think you are living in a different planet, how on earth can you believe someone coming out with such numbers, worst how dare do you repeat them?
250,000 lives saved per year when the insane American murder rate represents today the loss of 16,137 lives? Wake up, you have been lied to.

:-D
:-D

[OneZero]

Quote: Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Whoops, looks like the Justice Department was wrong too, huh Lucky? :roll: :ouch:

[Lucky Luke]

OneZero wrote: Quote: Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Whoops, looks like the Justice Department was wrong too, huh Lucky? :roll: :ouch:

I don't know, you haven't show us what the Justice Department is saying about DGU. Please do.

Quote: U.S. Department of Justice · Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Advanced Search | Search Tips


BJS only OJP and NCJRS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Searched for 'dgu.' Search took 0.02 seconds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sort by date / Sort by relevance


Did you mean: igu

BJS home page | Top of this page


Bureau of Justice Statistics
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
Send comments to askbjs@usdoj.gov

OJP Freedom of Information Act page
Privacy Policy

The number I contested was 250,000 lives saved per year OneZero, any comment on what I actually wrote OneZero?

:-D
:-D

[OneZero]

Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote: Quote: Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Whoops, looks like the Justice Department was wrong too, huh Lucky? :roll: :ouch:
The number I contested was 250,000 lives saved per year OneZero, any comment on what I actually wrote OneZero?

:-D
:-D

yes, the DOJ says it's 1.5 million, so you're right, I contest the 250,000 number too.

[alclarkey]

Pebble wrote: Quote:
I was being generous. It it probably more like 1/4 or 1/2. And in that case that bumps the number of lives saved to 625,000, or 1,250,000. Did you happen to miss the fact that those people remained alive at the end of the encounter? And yes indeed those estimates are supported.

How can you prove that?
Do you notice the absolute lack of absolute statements? (pun intended). I said "probably".


Pebble wrote: As to your point on remaining alive at the end of the encounter, how can you be sure that the presence of the gun was the mitigating factor?
What is the likelihood that it was not the mitigating factor? Fists and knives do not strike near as much fear in an attacker as a gun. A 90 year old woman (or hell just the average woman) would not be very effective with their fists, and knife fighting is iffy at best. But with a gun it is a different story. One does not have to have huge bulging muscles, or spend years training oneself in the Martial Arts, to defend themselves effectively. A crook will most certainly die if they rush a person with a gun.
So there is a high liklyhood that the gun was the mitigating factor.

Your own source wrote: It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did.

My source in context wrote: Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns. It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did. But surely this is too serious a matter to simply assume that practically everyone who says he believes he saved a life by using a gun was wrong.
Besides that passage you chose, only indicates the credibility of the study, as the researcher was honest enough to point out his own flaws.

Pebble wrote: Quote:
Can say for certain that a life was not saved? In any event the person defending themselves remained alive and well after the encounter.

No I cannot say for certain that a life was not saved, but that doesn't affect my point as i'm not attempting to support any statistic extrapolated.
Yes it does, because you are attacking a statistic.

Pebble wrote: Again, why is the gun the mitigating factor?
See above.


Pebble wrote: Quote: Of course we can't!

Precisely...which is why it can't be argued that all attacks with deadly force will result in homocide, as per your point.
No I think you missed my point. One cannot be certain that an attack with deadly force will not result in homicide. One can be certain that a person with a gun is more likely to survive the encounter, than one without.

[Rankor and Pissing]

OneZero wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote: Quote: Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Whoops, looks like the Justice Department was wrong too, huh Lucky? :roll: :ouch:
The number I contested was 250,000 lives saved per year OneZero, any comment on what I actually wrote OneZero?

:-D
:-D

yes, the DOJ says it's 1.5 million, so you're right, I contest the 250,000 number too.

Comeon OZ...Lucky would MUCH rather hide behind a girls dress than defend himself. Besides, the French (assuming he is since it's in the profile) have a great and long tradition of such behavior. It's much easier to play statistical "hide the pickle" than defend one's self and their family.

Lucky likes the French way... anyone who's got some hair on their balls would disagree. Hell, Patton had it right:

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." --- General George S. Patton

[OneZero]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: OneZero wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote: Quote: Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Whoops, looks like the Justice Department was wrong too, huh Lucky? :roll: :ouch:
The number I contested was 250,000 lives saved per year OneZero, any comment on what I actually wrote OneZero?

:-D
:-D

yes, the DOJ says it's 1.5 million, so you're right, I contest the 250,000 number too.

Comeon OZ...Lucky would MUCH rather hide behind a girls dress than defend himself. Besides, the French (assuming he is since it's in the profile) have a great and long tradition of such behavior. It's much easier to play statistical "hide the pickle" than defend one's self and their family.

Lucky likes the French way... anyone who's got some hair on their balls would disagree. Hell, Patton had it right:

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." --- General George S. Patton

One of these days I'll just start ignoring him....