Texas husband shoots 2 bank robbers that abducted him, his wife, police say

[Peikko 1,575]

We discussed at length at what point it was acceptable to use deadly force instead of just letting someone beat you while you hoped they stopped. There was a thread over the weekend where several users stated that it was pointless to carry a gun since the risk of being involved in an assault was almost non existent. These same people said that most likely anyone who carried a gun or had one in their home was far more likely to have it used against them, so they had to be out of their minds to have a gun for protection.

That's a typically emotive summary of what was discussed, although I am sure you believe it captures the salient points perfectly.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

That's a typically emotive summary of what was discussed, although I am sure you believe it captures the salient points perfectly.

I think I gave an accurate summary of what was discussed and what your comments were on the subject. You said it, not me. I'll bet this man and his wife are really happy he was carry a gun when this situation arose, even though you claim that the odds of it happening are almost non existent.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think I gave an accurate summary of what was discussed and what your comments were on the subject. You said it, not me. I'll bet this man and his wife are really happy he was carry a gun when this situation arose, even though you claim that the odds of it happening are almost non existent.

I know you think it's accurate, that's where the problem lies.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

We discussed at length at what point it was acceptable to use deadly force instead of just letting someone beat you while you hoped they stopped. There was a thread over the weekend where several users stated that it was pointless to carry a gun since the risk of being involved in an assault was almost non existent. These same people said that most likely anyone who carried a gun or had one in their home was far more likely to have it used against them, so they had to be out of their minds to have a gun for protection.

Thats a very old pile of horsesqueeze which sounds logical to people who know nothing.

The "study" compared the liklihood of a person using their firearm to KILL an attacker. This was compared to the number of people KILLED by firearms each year...which was MORE! Can you imagine?

So therefore it is more likely you will be killed by a freamr than use one to KILL an attacker. So what? You are most likely to die in a hosptial so why would you ever go to one? You are much less likely to die if you stay home. Right?

The "study" did not take into account the non-lethal use of firearms for self defense which far outnumber the lethal use of firearms. By far, by a factor of more that 100 to 1 the use of firearms for defense do not involve the KILLING of anyone.

This "study" and quote is so old and been proven so wrong that no reputable (oxymoron I realize) anti-gun organization uses it anymore. It is typically used for audiances who have no knowledge. Sounds good. It's Bullsh*t. It was published before we had the evidence of 50 states with concealed carry laws. See below.

The risk of the occurance of certain things do not outweigh the benefit of having a means to prevent them. The risks of dying in an automobile accident are pretty small...not nearly as small as getting killed by gunfire, but still small. Paricularly on any given car trip. So should you wear a seat belt only one day per week? Which day?

I have thrown away fire extinguishers and bought new ones because they were old and never used one. I have one outside the kitchen at home. I have a spare tire and have never used it.

Carrying a concealed fiream is a choice. The incidence of crime committed BY holders of concealed carry licenses is extremely small. Microscopic. In each state which has implemented concealed carry the crime rate has decreased. The "cost" of concealed carry to society is a net -0-, it is actually a benefit. So what harm is done? Each day I carry my gun, each day I bring it home. So what? Who is hurt? How am I burdened?

If what these idiots were shoveling were true then each state that implemented concealed carry would have an INCREASE in murders as the imbecile gun owers were killed off using their own firearms. Well, at least ONE state would. Right? That has never happened. ALL 50 states allow one form or another of concealed carry.

we have done this far abd wide and for more than 30 years. No one is guessing. There are no further studies needed other than actual field experience. We are WAY past speculation and supposition. WAY past.

Each state, EVERY one, that has implemented "shall issue" concealed carry has seen a decrease in violence and crime and homicides.

NO state has repealed conceald carry, none. IF this were true wouldn't at least ONE state repeal concealed carry and say it was a mistake? ONE? Woldn't at least ONE state make it more difficule to get a license or further restrict where one can carry concealed? At least ONE? NONE have. -0-

Most states have expanded the places one can carry and ease of issuance once it is seen it reduces crime.

NO state has seen an increase in crime OR of people being killed by their own guns. NONE -0-

Now, you can listen to 30 years of history in every state or you can believe trumped up "studies" It is obvious what the legislatures of every state believe

It is not a Republican issue or Red state Issue. Michigan, Wisconsin. Iowa, Ohio, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota ALL have concealed carry. The IL legislature passed an expanded version...offering more rights than required by the court order...over the VETO of Governor Quinn. This is a proven crime fighting tool which is embraced by Dems and Repubs alike everywhere in the country. Washington state has had cocealed carry since 1961...does it get more "blue" than Washington? Yes. Vermont. Vermont has had concealed carry since 1791.

Arguing otherwise is way past being academic. It's retarded.

The evidence that this "study" is BULLSH*T is so patently obvious it is incredible anyone with central nervous system capable of supporting a heartbeat would think it is even possible.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I know you think it's accurate, that's where the problem lies.

No, the problem lies with what you posted in the other thread. Don't start the circle talk diversion, just stick to what you said in the other thread and admit that this incident proved you wrong. Simple. It won't hurt.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I know you think it's accurate, that's where the problem lies.

Then tell me why NO state has repealed CC? Tell me why there has not been an increase in gun owners getting killed with their own guns as ALL 50 states implemented concealed carry?

Tell me why the study does no tinclude the non-lethal use of firearms in self defense?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Then tell me why NO state has repealed CC? Tell me why there has not been an increase in gun owners getting killed with their own guns as ALL 50 states implemented concealed carry?

Tell me why the study does no tinclude the non-lethal use of firearms in self defense?

Because.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Well, anyway. Good news! Good shooting! The good guys go home the bad guys go to the morgue.

[Peikko 1,575]

If you want to learn, go read up on it, The book to read is Private Guns, Public Health by David Hemenway. Your choice, get educated or keep churning out the nonsense you are so fond of.

http://www.press.umich.edu/158723

[spookyturtle 9,466]

If you want to learn, go read up on it, The book to read is Private Guns, Public Health by David Hemenway. Your choice, get educated or keep churning out the nonsense you are so fond of.

http://www.press.umich.edu/158723

Since you chose it, it's credible, but if you don't agree, then it's not credible. Nonsense.

[Peikko 1,575]

Thats a very old pile of horsesqueeze which sounds logical to people who know nothing.

The "study" compared the liklihood of a person using their firearm to KILL an attacker. This was compared to the number of people KILLED by firearms each year...which was MORE! Can you imagine?

So therefore it is more likely you will be killed by a freamr than use one to KILL an attacker. So what? You are most likely to die in a hosptial so why would you ever go to one? You are much less likely to die if you stay home. Right?

The "study" did not take into account the non-lethal use of firearms for self defense which far outnumber the lethal use of firearms. By far, by a factor of more that 100 to 1 the use of firearms for defense do not involve the KILLING of anyone.

This "study" and quote is so old and been proven so wrong that no reputable (oxymoron I realize) anti-gun organization uses it anymore. It is typically used for audiances who have no knowledge. Sounds good. It's Bullsh*t. It was published before we had the evidence of 50 states with concealed carry laws. See below.

The risk of the occurance of certain things do not outweigh the benefit of having a means to prevent them. The risks of dying in an automobile accident are pretty small...not nearly as small as getting killed by gunfire, but still small. Paricularly on any given car trip. So should you wear a seat belt only one day per week? Which day?

I have thrown away fire extinguishers and bought new ones because they were old and never used one. I have one outside the kitchen at home. I have a spare tire and have never used it.

Carrying a concealed fiream is a choice. The incidence of crime committed BY holders of concealed carry licenses is extremely small. Microscopic. In each state which has implemented concealed carry the crime rate has decreased. The "cost" of concealed carry to society is a net -0-, it is actually a benefit. So what harm is done? Each day I carry my gun, each day I bring it home. So what? Who is hurt? How am I burdened?

If what these idiots were shoveling were true then each state that implemented concealed carry would have an INCREASE in murders as the imbecile gun owers were killed off using their own firearms. Well, at least ONE state would. Right? That has never happened. ALL 50 states allow one form or another of concealed carry.

we have done this far abd wide and for more than 30 years. No one is guessing. There are no further studies needed other than actual field experience. We are WAY past speculation and supposition. WAY past.

Each state, EVERY one, that has implemented "shall issue" concealed carry has seen a decrease in violence and crime and homicides.

NO state has repealed conceald carry, none. IF this were true wouldn't at least ONE state repeal concealed carry and say it was a mistake? ONE? Woldn't at least ONE state make it more difficule to get a license or further restrict where one can carry concealed? At least ONE? NONE have. -0-

Most states have expanded the places one can carry and ease of issuance once it is seen it reduces crime.

NO state has seen an increase in crime OR of people being killed by their own guns. NONE -0-

Now, you can listen to 30 years of history in every state or you can believe trumped up "studies" It is obvious what the legislatures of every state believe

It is not a Republican issue or Red state Issue. Michigan, Wisconsin. Iowa, Ohio, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota ALL have concealed carry. The IL legislature passed an expanded version...offering more rights than required by the court order...over the VETO of Governor Quinn. This is a proven crime fighting tool which is embraced by Dems and Repubs alike everywhere in the country. Washington state has had cocealed carry since 1961...does it get more "blue" than Washington? Yes. Vermont. Vermont has had concealed carry since 1791.

Arguing otherwise is way past being academic. It's retarded.

The evidence that this "study" is BULLSH*T is so patently obvious it is incredible anyone with central nervous system capable of supporting a heartbeat would think it is even possible.

Trumped up studies? Brilliant. Your methodology of choice, "I think it's true, therefore it is!". You don't actually believe I will spend any time on this do you?

Edited August 6, 2013 by The Truth™

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Well, anyway. Good news! Good shooting! The good guys go home the bad guys go to the morgue.

I like it when the victim wins.

[Peikko 1,575]

Since you chose it, it's credible, but if you don't agree, then it's not credible. Nonsense.

I have wasted enough time on this. Remain ignorant, that's fine by me.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The Truth posted this in the other thread.

There is no data that supports the theory that carrying a gun improves your chance of survival pounding those mean US streets. Going to the store, out to a restaurant, off to the sport bar, out to a dance, walking, swimming going to the gym. none of these normal activities pose a significant risk that carrying a gun can measurably impact in any way at all. None, nothing, nil. Mitigating against a risk that is not measurable is not reasonable. You may like carrying a gun around all day, you may get a kick out of it but you can't justify it by saying it improves your overall safety because by all measurable data it doesn't.

And this:

Statistical significance is not a matter of opinion it's empirical fact. You can personally interpret an insignificant risk as whatever you want it to be but you have no data to support your theory that carrying a fire arm would mitigate against that insignificant risk. You think it should be true, it makes you feel better in some way to believe it is true I guess, but you can't point to one single study that supports that theory. There are hundreds of studies that support the theory that wearing a seat belt dramatically improves survival rates in car crashes.

And this:

If you discharge a weapon because you feel threatened and you are not assaulted that doesn't prove that you defended yourself successfully against a viable threat. Nor does it prove that if you didn't have a gun you couldn't have defended yourself against the same threat

I have a link to a fairly old set of data but I think it makes the point fairly clear. Even if you were being generous, this does not lend any credence at all to the theory that by carrying a gun as you go about your day to day business you are making yourself safer. In fact, I think it tends to support what I am saying, that people who carry guns do so because they feel better, but not because they can prove it has any positive effect.

And this:

Nothing in the data proves that only the fact that these people had guns that they threatened to, or actually discharged prevented them from being assaulted. The worst ommision that I can see is that there is no attempt to assess the reality of the risk, it's merely people's personal accounts of discharging or threatening to discharge a gun because they felt themselves to be threatened. I do not see how anyone can use that as a basis for anything meaningful.

I do not have an issue with sane people owning guns, clearly having more than 80,000,000 guns in circulation doesn't pose a significant risk or it would be gun fight at OK coral every day, I just do not understand why anyone would feel threatened simply stepping outside their frond door. It doesn't make any sense given that most people never, ever encounter situations where having a gun would assist them in any way. I would imagine that there are very few people that in reality feel like that or carry gun on every and any occasion but obviously there are some.

I don't know how else to put this across. There is no reliable data that shows carrying a gun increases the safety of the ordinary Joe/Jane in normal life. The available data clearly demonstrates that a gun owner and his family are more at risk from their own guns in their own homes in their own hands than any external threat. Having a gun in the home without following a strict code of gun safety and storage is positively foolish.

It would seem that from a safety perspective the data supports avoiding having guns in the home because that is the source of most of the risk. I can't stop people being foolish, but I don't have to join them.

[Ban Hammer 13,588]

If you want to learn, go read up on it, The book to read is Private Guns, Public Health by David Hemenway. Your choice, get educated or keep churning out the nonsense you are so fond of.

http://www.press.umich.edu/158723

seems dodgy.

I got this hoping for a dispassionate, empirical review of the literature on guns and violence from a pro-control perspective. Unfortunately, the reasoning is far too weak to make this the "definitive" work that other reviewers described.

As an example, Hemenway argues that Gary Kleck's estimate of 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year is wrong. He spends one sentence describing Kleck's methodology, then tries to show that his estimate of DGUs against burglars, 845000, was impossibly high. He calculates a "more reasonable" estimate of 20000, by taking the number reported to police for a single city over a single four-month period, multiplying this number by 3 (to get an annual rate) and scaling it to the entire population of the US. He does not examine whether his sample is representative for the entire country over the entire year. He also does not consider that DGUs which go unreported to the police would be missing from his estimate. In fact, he implicitly assumes that all DGUs are reported to the National Crime Victim Survey and the police, and uses this assumption to force the contradictions he needs. Based on this discrepancy between Kleck's estimate and his own, and a few more equally fallacious comparisons, Hemenway triumphantly dismisses Kleck's work as "not plausible," "a vast overestimate," "grossly exaggerated," and "the most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official." Hemenway also makes no mention of the 15 other surveys with similar DGU estimates cited by Kleck, yet still asserts that "all attempts at external validation [of Kleck's estimate] reveal it to be a huge overestimate."

This kind of sloppy deduction from unstated (and doubtful) assumptions completely destroyed the author's credibility. This example is typical of his logic throughout the book. The worst part is that even when his arguments are logical, he rarely cites any references, so we have no way to ascertain the reliability of his evidence.

http://www.amazon.com/Private-Public-Health-David-Hemenway/dp/0472031627