With a population of well over 300 million, there are always going to be enough stats for anything to have an 'average'; it doesn't amount to a point, especially in a country that doesn't control its borders and doesn't have much of a social safety net.
That's where you're wrong. You guys always ignore #3 in your silly arguments. A situation, that upon presenting a concealed firearm, keeps it from becoming lethal or requiring a need for self-defense. Now rethink your rationale, stats, and research, and multiply it all by the peace of mind one has when responsibly carrying concealed.
It appears that it is you that presupposes the error of another based on your fear of what you may do. BTW, you seem to love using strawman as a rebuttal, yet are prone to do the same yourself. FAIL!
Actually, your chance of being a victim on any ONE YEAR is constant, but your chance of being a victim at some point in your life does increase with each year. As an example, assume your chance of being a crime victim in one year was 50%, like a coin toss - heads you are a victim, tails you are not a victim. In year 1 your chances of being a victim are 50% (flip the coin, 50% chance its heads). In year 2, your chance of being a victim IN YEAR 2 ONLY is 50%, but your chance of having been a victim in your lifetime (year 1 & year 2) is 75%. Remember the coin toss, to have not been a crime victim in your 2 year life you need the year 1 toss to be tails and the year 2 toss to be tails, the chance of that is 25% (all the possible results of the 2 tosses are TT, TH, HT, or HH). The longer you live (the more coin tosses) then the greater the chance of being a crime victim at some point in your life (eventually the coin comes up heads). When the probability of being a victim in any single year is 0.87%, the probability of not being a victim is 99.13% which looks tiny. But just like compound interest, the chance of being a victim adds up. In 2 years, the chance of NOT being a victim is (0.9913*0.9913)*100 = 98.3%. In 65 years its (0.9913^65)*100 = 56.7%, meaning your chance of being a victim at some point in that 65 years is 43.3% (and you could be a victim more than once).
No, you are wrong. Did you even read the definition of aggravated assault? Go read it again. Here is the key component: "an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm" No matter how many times you try to mistate the facts, a simple punch or push is NOT aggravated assault.
Three things I never leave home without 1) CEL Phone 2) American Express 3) Firearm. Depends on what I am wearing as to want I am carrying.
Here is the full summary of the study: "During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." 54 unintentional shootings 118 suicides 438 assaults/homicides (?) 10 justifiable shootings (not counting cops) Its so simple minded to divide 438 by 10 and claim that for every gun used in self defense there were 44 assaults/homicides, as if the 2 were linked. Total absolute BS. Did the gun in the home cause those 438 assaults/homicides? And how many crimes were prevented by an armed homeowner who did not have to "justifiably shoot" the criminal? And suicide is not homicide, different motives and preventions and treatments. Suicide is not dependent upon a firearm, once a person decides to commit suicide, then they look for the means, if a gun is avaiable then that is usually their first choice, but if a gun is not available then they use equally effective means. Banners like to add suicide to their numbers to get better results (fudge the numbers).
"An en banc panel of the Superior Court has ruled that, under certain factors, a single punch can be enough to warrant an aggravated assault conviction." http://www.thelegalintelligencer.co...-Assault,-Panel-Rules?slreturn=20140120192202 "Examples of aggravated assault include: •striking or threatening to strike a person with a weapon or dangerous object •shooting a person with a gun or threatening to kill someone while pointing a gun at the victim •assault with the intent to commit another felony crime such as robbery or rape •assault resulting in serious physical injury •assault (threat of violence) while concealing one’s identity, and •assault against a member of a protected class, such as a police officer, healthcare provider, social services worker, or developmentally disabled or elderly person." http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/aggravated-assault.htm "Sharpnack has been convicted of aggravated assault for fatally punching architect Matt Casey in a Labor Day dispute last year in downtown Austin." http://www.statesman.com/news/news/...und-guilty-in-aggravated-assault-trial/nYqzN/ And it's not just in the US: "The Crown plans to seek a three-year prison term for a Cole Harbour man found guilty this week of sucker-punching a man at a bar last May. Ashton Thomas MacNeil, 23, stood trial in Dartmouth provincial court last month. Judge Tim Gabriel, who reserved his decision, convicted MacNeil of aggravated assault and three counts of breaching bail." http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/...convicted-of-aggravated-assault-for-bar-punch
Your reference is an unpublished "study" by the rabidly anti-gun New York Times which concludes that accidental gun deaths are undereported? LOL why don't you just use Sean Hannity or Harris-Perry as your reference next time. "a lot of people" are not competent? Quantify "a lot" and how do you know? The state and national government agencies that track these things do not indicate there is a problem. Or am I supposed to disregard CDC, FBI, and state govt data because the rabidly anti-gun New York Times has a mysterious "study" that claims the data is wrong? As I have written before, I would heartily support a national firearm training program (maybe as a semester of high school PE) as long as the purpose of the program was to encourage firearm familiarity, safety, and proficiency. But as the banners have always done, they would usurp the program and turn it into an anti-gun brainwashing program and a functional ban on firearm ownership. Thats what the banners have done with gun permits, carry permits, and safety permits. Thats why so many gun owners will not support any firearm program - there is zero trust in the banners. I make it personal because it is personal. Banners and criminals are almost always unaffected by their "common sense" gun control proposals, but the typical hard working law abiding people are the ones who are affected. Banners always say they are looking at it as a "societal issue", or a community safety issue, or as a child safety issue, or some other innocuous sounding fig leaf. Rather than use real data and addressing the issue directly, banners use massaged data and pliable sources (such as your NYT reference). And above all, the gun banner machine is run on lies and propaganda and the abuse of power. After over 40 years of watching the banners at work, its clear that they are not interested in safety or crime, but in disarming the nation - which means disarming me, and that I take personally.
I see what you're saying now. In effect: the longer you live, the more likely you are to have experienced something (in this case, a "violent crime"). Of course, I concur. You seem to be overlooking the fact that this also applies to accidental/negligent shootings resulting in death or injury.
Actually, your argument that my position is based on what I may do, rather than the number of incidents that already occur and the statistics I've clearly provided (with sources) is fundamentally flawed. Your desire to dismiss any argument that you disagree with by claiming its proposer's motives are the basis for the argument is a good example of an "appeal to motive" fallacy.
It applies to accidental shootings as well, but the annual probability of an accidental shooting death is so low (0.00018% in one year) that it is low for an entire lifetime. Nationally, over 65 years the chance of being accidentally shot and killed is 0.012%. Thats why accidental shooting deaths are considered a statistical anomaly.
Overlooking safety precautions IS a recipe for disaster. If you fear yourself doing it, you're not trained sufficiently to own a firearm. It's always possible to have an accident with a firearm, but the level of risk is inversely proportional to your level of care taken when handling, storing, loading, unloading, etc. True safety is derived from never making careless mistakes and always handling the weapon as the deadly device that it is. I've owned them for all of my adult life, but they're not toys and I handle them accordingly. They're to protect life and to practice for that event...at my house anyway. I don't worry about an accident because I never (EVER) chamber a round without a need to do so, I keep them out of the hands of kids and guests, they NEVER get pointed at a human (so far) and I was trained as a kid, again in the military, and I continue to practice safe handling as a civilian. Anything else just won't do and if you fear an accident, something is wrong in your practices/handling. I've never personally come close to an accident with a firearm and it's because of training and practice.
Can you illustrate where I said anything about whether "violent crime" statistics only relate to your home or neighborhood? I suppose we could attempt to look at the number of crimes prevented by a gun owner, but of course we'd simultaneously have to look at the number of crimes attempted by a gun owner (legal or otherwise).
Of course, "guns don't save people, people save people"... because a gun is just a tool, right? In order for the gun to have been a factor, you're solely talking about incidents in which: A) the "victim" who scared off a "criminal" could actually confirm a crime was being committed (otherwise we'll have to discuss who was really the criminal), B) the "criminal" was actually aware of the victim's firearm and ran away because of that firearm, rather than to avoid being confronted/caught I suppose this also raises how many times a criminal uses a firearm to commit a crime in the first place, by using it to force complicance from people that would otherwise resist. I won't even comment on the mental fragility of anyone who needs to carry a firearm in order to assuage paranoia.
Saying someone has expressed a dumb idea is not an ad hominem. Saying a person is dumb would be. See the difference? I maintain that escalating conflict is a dumb idea, which is what you were proposing. As I explained, your "stats" were totally unrelated to those I provided.
Yeah, shooterman at age 73 with several health issues should go all Chuck Norris when assaulted. I am 6' 4" 220 lbs. Used to box, and several years of martial arts training. However, I am now 70 years old, and while in good shape, I am not foolish enough to think I necessarily could physically fend off an attacker.
Nice try "Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective." "...firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable." "...found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns." "...most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents." http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ No idea why you're so incredulous about this... Are you of the belief it doesn't happen? http://raniakhalek.com/2013/05/01/a...re-involved-in-accidental-shootings-in-april/
How so? You provided stats that someone is almost guaranteed to be a victim of three violent crimes during their life and that the added risk of owning a firearm for self-defense did not outweigh the risk of being a victim of a violent crime. I disproved this by showing that the accidental deaths caused by firearms are much more uncommon than violent crimes, even though there is almost one gun for every person in the United States. You're wrong. Also, here is an example of a victim of "aggravated assault." This was a little more than "pushing and punching," don't you think? Kind of ruins your aggravated assault argument. http://news.yahoo.com/2-men-sentenc...31303630--spt.html?.tsrc=samsungwn&.sep=table
You're dismissing "everything else" as conjecture? Might want to pull your head out of the sand long enough to validate that belief... To facilitate this, below is the source article with specific examples: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/u...nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130929&_r=1& It clearly illustrates that - in the mind of some medical examiners - parents have a duty to keep kids safe. Parents failing in this duty are directly responsible for the accidental shootings, which should therefore be classified as homicide... even when a kid finds a firearm and accidentally shoots themselves or a family member.
In other words, you can't contradict what I've said so you'll just dismiss it out of hand rather than considering an alternative viewpoint... Stay classy.
