Political Crossfire Forums

[lilwolf]

There has been a large amount or debate on the subject of whether or not guns deter criminals and the anti-gun folks have exploited the fabrication that guns do not deter criminals. In my opinion there is ample evidence to back up the fact that there is more thna enough physical evidence to warrant the facts differently.

Why Guns Deter Criminals

Advocates of gun control have paid for several studies, hoping to prove that guns are not useful for self-defense. But every study has shown the opposite: Handguns are used at least as often in repelling crimes as in committing them and are particularly successful as weapons of defense.29 This is one reason why 88 percent of the nation's command-rank police officials disagree with the statement, " The banning of private ownership of firearms will result in fewer crimes from firearms."30

In the 1960s a New York-based antigun group printed signs for its members to post on their homes, "THERE ARE NO GUNS IN THIS HOUSE." But the signs came down and the organization withered after a large number of those homes were robbed or burglarized.31 On the other hand, during a 1974 police strike in Albuquerque, N. M., armed citizens patrolled the streets - and felonies dropped sharply.32
Americans use firearms for protection an estimated one million times each year. Ninety-eight percent of the time, they simply brandish the weapon or fire a warning shot.33 But not always34
Each year, gun-wielding citizens kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 criminals in self-defense, three times the number killed by police.
They wound another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals each year.
"Criminals are three times more likely to be killed bytheir victims than by the police."

Criminals may not read statistical studies, but they are generally aware of the large number of firearms in existence and of the fact that law-abiding citizens own most of them. Although violent crime and total crime reported to the police is much higher in the United States than in Western Europe, U.S. burglary rates are about the same, or lower, probably because of the deterrent effect of civilian firearms.35 Burglars say they spend an average of two hours "casing" a house to establish that no one is at home.36 They avoid late-night burglaries because " that's the way to get shot."37 Interviews with convicted felons are especially revealing:38
As Figure II shows, a survey of 1,874 felons in 10 states found that most worry more about meeting an armed victim than about running into the police.
42 percent reported they had encountered a victim armed with a gun, and 38 percent had been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.A majority agreed that " a store owner who is known to keep a gun on the premises is not going to get robbed very often."

Adverse Results are Rare.

Despite stories of gun owners who mistake family members for intruders and shoot them, and of criminals harming victims with the victims' guns, the fact is that defending oneself with a firearm generally is safer than the alternatives:39
The accidental shooting of an innocent person mistaken for an intruder occurs in fewer than 30 fatal firearm incidents a year, about 2 percent of all fatal firearms incidents.
At a maximum, criminals take a gun away from armed victims only 1 percent of the time (while 10 percent of police who are shot are shot with their own guns).
Interestingly, 70 percent of defensive gun uses are against criminals who do not have a gun.
"Defending oneself with a firearm generally is safer than the alternatives."

A nationwide comparative study conducted by Don B. Kates, Jr., at the St. Louis University School of Law found that armed citizens were quite responsible in using handguns.40 The vast majority of people are not violent and use firearms only as a last resort. When they do use them, firearms can be effective:41


• As noted above, private citizens kill about three times as many criminals as do law enforcement officials.

• And although only 2 percent of those involved in civilian shootings are misidentified, 11 percent of individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents misidentified as criminals.

Of course, police must enter situations in which they are not personally involved, while the private citizen is likely to be under attack and unlikely to mistake the target, so there is a greater likelihood that police might make a misidentification

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176d.html

[mattman42]

Sounds good to me. What say you, anti-gunners?

[lilwolf]

I do not think that they are going to have much to say. Because if they are going to tell a woman to go ahead and take it, vx her having a gun to protect herself they are fools. If a bad guy is looking down the barrel of a gun then he is at a serious disadventage.

[micfranklin]

Any bets on how many anti-gun people will call this false info and propaganda?

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: I do not think that they are going to have much to say. Because if they are going to tell a woman to go ahead and take it, vx her having a gun to protect herself they are fools. If a bad guy is looking down the barrel of a gun then he is at a serious disadventage.



America has an insane murder rate mainly with firearms (70%), the rest of the western democratic world nations have a murder rate 2 to 4 times smaller with only around 10% of murders with firearms.
This proves beyond any doubt that guns do not deter murderers.

Now what about rapists I read you write Lilwolf?
Rapists do not use a gun as a general rule, in fact they don't need to as they are more likely to know the victim very well.
However America has a very high rape rate making your claim that guns deter rapists just wrong.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: I do not think that they are going to have much to say. Because if they are going to tell a woman to go ahead and take it, vx her having a gun to protect herself they are fools. If a bad guy is looking down the barrel of a gun then he is at a serious disadventage.



America has an insane murder rate mainly with firearms (70%), the rest of the western democratic world nations have a murder rate 2 to 4 times smaller with only around 10% of murders with firearms.
This proves beyond any doubt that guns do not deter murderers.

Now what about rapists I read you write Lilwolf?
Rapists do not use a gun as a general rule, in fact they don't need to as they are more likely to know the victim very well.
However America has a very high rape rate making your claim that guns deter rapists just wrong.

:-D
:-D

The poster is not about the rapist LL, it is about that lady in the picture having a means of self defense so as to possibly deter the criminal. If the word rapist upsets you then put in whatever type of criminal you'd like, but your wtong again LL.

[evil muppet]

There it is again. That 'Insane murder rate'. Whenever you see loaded terms like this, you are being fed propaganda. It is also a blatant logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language

[Blinky]

A woman is more likely to be raped in the United States than in Britain. This is despite the number of women who carry firearms.
What can explain this anomoly?

[lilwolf]

Blinky wrote: A woman is more likely to be raped in the United States than in Britain. This is despite the number of women who carry firearms.
What can explain this anomoly?


I would bet that a woman with a handgun is not going to be raped as easy as she would with out a handgun.....

Woman who have a means of self defense are less likely to be assaulted in any manner. It is only logic that with RTC in 44 states and growing that the rape victims are fewer. Those that are armed are a deterent to criminals. The fact that the bad guys do not know who is packing and who is not is a good thing, because they do not have an easy target list any longer in many places of the US.

[The Newb]

[micfranklin]

lilwolf wrote: Blinky wrote: A woman is more likely to be raped in the United States than in Britain. This is despite the number of women who carry firearms.
What can explain this anomoly?


I would bet that a woman with a handgun is not going to be raped as easy as she would with out a handgun.....

Woman who have a means of self defense are less likely to be assaulted in any manner. It is only logic that with RTC in 44 states and growing that the rape victims are fewer. Those that are armed are a deterent to criminals. The fact that the bad guys do not know who is packing and who is not is a good thing, because they do not have an easy target list any longer in many places of the US.

I'd say anyone with a means of self-defense, be it gun or knife as less likely to be assaulted.

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: I do not think that they are going to have much to say. Because if they are going to tell a woman to go ahead and take it, vx her having a gun to protect herself they are fools. If a bad guy is looking down the barrel of a gun then he is at a serious disadventage.



America has an insane murder rate mainly with firearms (70%), the rest of the western democratic world nations have a murder rate 2 to 4 times smaller with only around 10% of murders with firearms.
This proves beyond any doubt that guns do not deter murderers.

Now what about rapists I read you write Lilwolf?
Rapists do not use a gun as a general rule, in fact they don't need to as they are more likely to know the victim very well.
However America has a very high rape rate making your claim that guns deter rapists just wrong.

:-D
:-D

The poster is not about the rapist LL, it is about that lady in the picture having a means of self defense so as to possibly deter the criminal. If the word rapist upsets you then put in whatever type of criminal you'd like, but your wtong again LL.

I have proved you wrong with the two most heinous of all crimes, murder and rape, what is left for your theory to not be totally false Lilwolf?

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

evil muppet wrote: There it is again. That 'Insane murder rate'. Whenever you see loaded terms like this, you are being fed propaganda. It is also a blatant logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language

What would you like to call a murder rate 2 to 4 times higher than any other murder rate in the western democratic world's nations Evil Muppet if not insane?

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

micfranklin wrote: lilwolf wrote: Blinky wrote: A woman is more likely to be raped in the United States than in Britain. This is despite the number of women who carry firearms.
What can explain this anomoly?


I would bet that a woman with a handgun is not going to be raped as easy as she would with out a handgun.....

Woman who have a means of self defense are less likely to be assaulted in any manner. It is only logic that with RTC in 44 states and growing that the rape victims are fewer. Those that are armed are a deterent to criminals. The fact that the bad guys do not know who is packing and who is not is a good thing, because they do not have an easy target list any longer in many places of the US.

I'd say anyone with a means of self-defense, be it gun or knife as less likely to be assaulted.

Certainly not, the contrary is of course true. Only people who think that they are likely to be assaulted would carry a weapon making your theory just wrong.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: I do not think that they are going to have much to say. Because if they are going to tell a woman to go ahead and take it, vx her having a gun to protect herself they are fools. If a bad guy is looking down the barrel of a gun then he is at a serious disadventage.



America has an insane murder rate mainly with firearms (70%), the rest of the western democratic world nations have a murder rate 2 to 4 times smaller with only around 10% of murders with firearms.
This proves beyond any doubt that guns do not deter murderers.

Now what about rapists I read you write Lilwolf?
Rapists do not use a gun as a general rule, in fact they don't need to as they are more likely to know the victim very well.
However America has a very high rape rate making your claim that guns deter rapists just wrong.

:-D
:-D

The poster is not about the rapist LL, it is about that lady in the picture having a means of self defense so as to possibly deter the criminal. If the word rapist upsets you then put in whatever type of criminal you'd like, but your wtong again LL.

I have proved you wrong with the two most heinous of all crimes, murder and rape, what is left for your theory to not be totally false Lilwolf?

:-D
:-D


bang bang Lucky luke....again I am going to say I did not write the poster. It is in reference to guns detering crime. The poster happens to have words in it that in your blindness you are not seeing what it is all about.
So here I challenge you to prove that guns do not deter crime of any sort that is a violent crime or has the potential of being a violent crime. If you can do that then put up or shut up..... :twisted:

[Blinky]

lilwolf wrote: Blinky wrote: A woman is more likely to be raped in the United States than in Britain. This is despite the number of women who carry firearms.
What can explain this anomoly?


I would bet that a woman with a handgun is not going to be raped as easy as she would with out a handgun.....

Woman who have a means of self defense are less likely to be assaulted in any manner. It is only logic that with RTC in 44 states and growing that the rape victims are fewer. Those that are armed are a deterent to criminals. The fact that the bad guys do not know who is packing and who is not is a good thing, because they do not have an easy target list any longer in many places of the US.

You are talking as if this is a hypothetical situation but it is actually the current state of affairs. Right now far, far more women in the United States are armed than in Britain yet they are more likely to be raped.
So again I ask: How is this possible, lilwolf?

[lilwolf]

Maybe so, but of all the ladies that are armed I bet very few are getting raped.


LL wrote:

Certainly not, the contrary is of course true. Only people who think that they are likely to be assaulted would carry a weapon making your theory just wrong.


Prove it LL, that people who are armed are more likely to be assaulted.
And people who are carrying are not planning on being assaulted, and the idiocy of the part that says...thinking they are more likely to be assaulted would carry a weapon.
Prove yourself LL. If you were a rapo and you wanted a victim no matter who she is, and you knew she had a gun are you going to go after her?
No ...you are going after the victim that you KNOW has no weapon or a means of self defense.

Now you prove it to us where it says that there are a large amount of women who are assaulted that are carrying guns

[lilwolf]

Here is some more for you LL, that shows that having guns deters crime and stops criminals...


7954542
Gun defenses since January 1, 2005.
Date and Time Now: Saturday, October 07, 2006 12:09:56 PM


Gun control activists were unhappy with the National Self Defense Survey's results, which show that "Every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal."
In a 1994 TV news taping, Handgun Control, Inc.’s, spokesman, Sandy Cooney, called the National Self Defense Survey “obscene” and threw ad hominem slurs at its lead researcher, professor of criminology, Dr. Gary Kleck. Since Kleck is an impartial social scientist with no links to gun advocates or manufacturers — in fact he’s a liberal Democrat — it appears that Kleck’s only sin was doing research which produced results that challenged the gun-control agenda of Handgun Control, Inc., the "Million" Moms, and similar organizations.

So, to refute the results of the National Self Defense Survey, two pro-gun-control researchers, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, were given funding by the Clinton administration's Department of Justice to do their own survey of Defensive Gun Uses, to attempt to prove that the National Self Defense Survey's estimate was too high.

Unfortunately for advocates of gun control, the Cook-Ludwig survey produced results about the same as the National Self Defense Survey and -- in one remarkable paragraph -- suggested that their methodology was too conservative and that the Defensive Gun Use figure could even be doubled:
"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs[emphasis added]."
Source: The National Institute of Justice, in its survey Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
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/noframedex.html

[The Comrade]

Lucky Luke wrote: [

America has an insane murder rate mainly with firearms (70%), the rest of the western democratic world nations have a murder rate 2 to 4 times smaller with only around 10% of murders with firearms.
This proves beyond any doubt that guns do not deter murderers.

Now what about rapists I read you write Lilwolf?
Rapists do not use a gun as a general rule, in fact they don't need to as they are more likely to know the victim very well.
However America has a very high rape rate making your claim that guns deter rapists just wrong.

:-D
:-D


actually americas crime rate is going down.

and if every woman had a gun tucked away in their purse, do you think the rape rate would be as high?

[lilwolf]

Can't say for sure that he thinks that but I will assume that he figures that it's better if she calls 911 and gets raped while waiting for a cop to show up.
Give them all guns and we would have little or no rape stats at all.