I'm going to post some links with stats. These are various studies etc. Every single one reveals that violence is effective as a tactic for halting violence (ie self defense works) and that firearms are the most effective tool in most cases, statistically speaking. http://medind.nic.in/jal/t07/i4/jalt07i4p99.pdf http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/resistance-to-violent-crime-what-does-the-research-show http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html http://sds.hss.cmu.edu/risk/articles/JudgedEffectRape.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...887257998006fe0d7/$FILE/HseJud0202AttachN.pdf I'd like to draw attention to this one specifically. The authors of the study started out with the premise that strict gun control is the best option for deterring crime. Their data did not support that hypothesis so they actually changed their opinion. Guns work. In fact all weapons show great results. Even bare-handed resistance does better than blowing a rape whistle/calling for help. ERGO: law abiding citizens should be carrying guns for their protection. Would you deny a person their best defense? If so with what justification do you do so?
I don't think facts or commonsense matter. I think some people think other people should not be trusted to defend themselves. Local stories showcasing how a person or home-owner deterred a robber or violent offender with a gun---occurs pretty consistantly where I live. We had three occurances in a three day period last year! Then we have the gangs killing each other. And occasionally we have the story about the accidental death by gun. If records were kept of law abiding people successfully protecting themselves because they had a gun as a defense---it would be telling. Which is why they aren't kept I suppose.
Dude. Ffs. Read the link. Those records you want? I posted 5 facing links of them. Read them. Share them.
How do you do that? Target range is 100% different than facing another shooter, or even an unarmed threat. Most training is a joke. I would bet most instances in your studies have experienced military or former police as the hero. Killing a bad guy has a way of ruining your life if you do not have real experience, or some kind of fraternal support, and depending on the threat of violence to scare the bad guy is pretty risky if you can't back it up. But whatever..... You're the expert.
You might consider training with a vet who has seen real action. They train by targets as well, but constant practice allows a certain level of proficiency that you otherwise may not get, the opportunity to learn.
Have you never heard of a self defense class? You know... where you sign up, pay, and are taught by an instructor trained in hand to hand and defensive pistol shooting etc? Such things are everywhere. Can you refute the statistics? Did you READ the studies? No of course you didn't because you're betting the instances are military and cops. They are not. Why don't you READ the LINKS, at least the study I drew specific attention to, and THEN we can discuss the FACTS? They've got support groups. Most people have at least one family member or friend. Specious argument. You don't pull a gun for the THREAT of violence. If you pull a weapon on someone you must use it. I'm not saying everyone is mentally capable of the act, and I'm not blaming or shaming etc those who are not. I'm simply providing the facts: Violence, especially with a firearm, is statistically speaking your best chance. If you don't believe me READ THE LINKS, quote them, and refute me. Go on. Here I'll make a bet with you: If most of those instances (51% a simple majority) in the studies are military or cops I will begin every post here with "i'm a little teapot short and stout. Here is my handle, here is my spout. When I get all steamed up, hear me shout. Tip me over and pour me out. I post this because I lost a bet with TBryant" and if you are incorrect in your assumption you will do likewise, replacing your handle with mine. Deal?
They also teach classes. Lots and lots of them. Local PDs generally offer defense course as well. Meet some people in class, buy yourself a dummy weapon to practice with ( seen that will farrell movie where he's a cop but he has a wooden gun? one of those), and practice on each other. And look! Then you've got a support system that will satisfy TB! 2 birds! One stone!
Yes, statistically speaking a firearm is the most effective means of self-defense but it is also the most effective means of committing an act of aggression, including murder, as well. In a "shootout" the odds are only 50:50 that the "good guy" is going to win. Not very good odds because you only need to lose once. No one, except for some extremists, are calling for the disarming of America. No one is going to "take away our guns" that would result in us being defenseless when facing an attacker with a firearm. There can be reasonable and pragmatic limitions related to firearms ownership that are designed to keep the "bad guys" from acquiring firearms that they will use against us. That doesn't imply that the "gun control lobby" is proposing those reasonable and pragmatic limitations but they do exist and we can do more to disarm the "criminals" and "nutcases" that represent a threat to us.
And as can be seen in nations with high amounts of gun control, from the UK, to Japan, to Australia, to Mexico etc, criminals STILL acquire firearms in flagrant violation of the law (almost like they don't care about the law isn't it?) and are still able to acquire other weapons as well. More than that the majority of criminals are adult males who can overpower most other individuals. Firearm ownership amongst the citizenry, and the ability to employ it without onerous restrictions (such as straya's 2 safes, one for ammo one for guns, rule), is THE only way to ensure a phsyically weaker person has ANY sort of chance in a confrontation that despite all laws to the contrary WILL occur. As to "no one wants you guns": Obama has been quoted as not holding with a right to bear arms amongst the citizenry. Then there is diane "just turn them all in" feinstein. And numerous others who endorse frankly irresponsible policies, that stop short of full confiscation or total limitation but still cause more problems than they solve. (Joe "just buy a shotgun and shoot both barrels into the air as a warning shot" biden for instance). Then you've got the folks who want to ban ALL semi-automatic weapons in flagrant violation of the constitution as it reads, multiple scotus decisions, and common sense. Plenty of people want to take your guns or restrict the type or the how of ownership in such a way as to make ownership for defense completely feckless. More than that the language of the amendment is clear. Unless you'd like to debate the grammer? As it is clear it doesn't MATTER what the intents of these new laws are. If you want to get around it you have to amend it. Or rather you should have to if anyone gave a (*)(*)(*)(*) about what the constitution says. Which hasn't happened for awhile for the most part.
Here are some facts. This is not a poll or a study. It is not spun or slanted by a biased source. This is documented proof that Texans with CHLs are 10 TIMES less likely to commit crime based on the total number of convictions in TX over an entire year. Good people with guns are not a bad thing. 600000 Texans carrying guns makes for a good test bed to study by. I've used this a couple of times before, but it always fits these threads. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2012.pdf
Good post. And while I agree, I also know that you will not sway those who fear guns. Their fear of guns is the driver to their positions, and no amount of data will change that. I have posted, over and over, FBI data that proves that 'more guns' do not equate to 'more violent crime', yet the same old players post their charts and graphs comparing the USA to other countries. No amount of objective analysis will change the minds of those who just want to ban guns, or regulate them out of existence, out of their own fear or fueled by blind media sensationalism. Like children, they want what they want, and no rational or analytical discussion will sway them. Kudos to you for trying though.
While they may continue to argue and never come around, others will read this and understand. At least people can see both sides of the issue here and make their own decisions.
As long as it is not related to registering guns, you're right. Gun information was not used during my background check for my CHL. I can carry any handgun I want, even if I buy the gun at a yard sale with no paperwork. (perfectly legal in TX) I still fill out the 4473 for a new gun, but I can skip the background checks and wait time worries because I am already background checked.
Massive Aunt Sally or straw man fallacy All this really "proves" is that violence begets violence home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf Your "research" you so fondly highlight is not research at all but an opinion paper put out by the "Firearms Coalition of Colorado - which makes a lot of unfounded claims and includes reference to the much debunked Keck study
If you are in denial re the fact that firearms can be used as self defence tool by innocent people, please just say so.
Odd list of crimes you have there and some odder high points o those with CHL I,e, 12 involved with "terroristic threat" 12 with deadly conduct 5 with indecency/child contact 3 with child sexual assault 2 with burglary See the real question is not what percentage of convictions are committed by CHL's but whether that proportion is the same for the total proportion of the population - - - Updated - - - No, no denial after all if they could not be used for self defence then the army would not need to be armed But since we have no need for a gun by the bed here in Australia or in the UK or elsewhere in the world one wonders why it is necessary in America
You can't keep records of deterrence. That is something we learn very early in life, & a safe society practices it. You would not say that a cop on the sidewalk is not a deterrent for a break-in. But you could not quantify 'how many' break-ins the cop deterred.
Texas population for 2012 according to the US census projections is 26,146,548. At the end of 2012 there were 584,850 people with a CHL. That's 2.24% of the total population and probably more than 3% of the total adult population of TX. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2012.pdf That 2.24% of the population committed only .1897% of the total crimes in the state of TX according to the bottom line of my first link. So the average Texan is 11.8 TIMES more likely to commit a crime in TX than a person with a CHL. Check my math.
I know you can look up government stats for crimes, crimes using gun, the race of the person using the gun to commit the crime. Gender of the person using the gun to commit the crime. Suicides by guns, muggings by guns. You can even look and find stats for justified homicide by gun. In all these cases the police were called and are obligated to record this information into a data base. When a homeowner shoots at a criminal or injures a criminal protecting the home....or if the homeowner shows a gun and the perp flees---this data is not collected and entered in the accessable database by the investigating police. It would give us an overall picture of accuracy....if it were. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...-Americans-often-use-firearms-in-self-defense ''As a 2012 Congressional Research Service report on gun issues points out, law enforcement agencies do not collect self-defense information as a matter of course, and the available research thus depends on limited numbers of surveys and other self-reported information.''
