Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Here's a fun fact.  Police in Germany estimate that illegally owned guns outnumber legal ones by 10 to 1.  It's also pretty well-known that nearly all illegal guns are owned by neo-nazis.  Would you sleep well at night if your police were telling you "yeah, the neo-nazis have us outgunned 10 to 1."  Of course, neither crime nor neo-nazis are that big a problem in Germany.

I'm not sure how owning a gun would help against neo-nazis (since apparently Germany doesn't have any other criminal groups).  After all, carrying a gun increases your chance of getting shot yourself.  Because guns are... well, just not defensive weapons.  Getting one out against an armed criminal virtually guarentees a shootout.

[Arrkhal]

After all, carrying a gun increases your chance of getting shot yourself.  Because guns are... well, just not defensive weapons.  Getting one out against an armed criminal virtually guarentees a shootout.

Nope.  Giant misconceptions.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.  Citizens of the USA use legal guns to defend themselves, successfully, approximately 2,500,000 times per year.  15.6% of those people say they "almost certainly" saved their life in doing so.

In 83.5% of those defenses, the attacker made the first move, meaning the non-criminal acted purely defensively.

Critical Incidents in Policing, published by the FBI, 1991.  92% of civilian self defense incidents in the USA involve no shots fired at the criminal.  Less than 0.1% of civilian defensive uses of firearms involve actually killing the attacker.

The National Crime Victimization Survey from 2000 indicates that these numbers are correct, and the number of "warning shots" fired is very low.  According to that survey, 91.1% of defensive firearm usage involved no shots fired whatsoever.

This one's a secondary cite from the British Home office, can't find the exact thing on their website, but it's probably somewhere.  Robbery victims in England, % who were injured by the robber:

Victim resisted with a gun - 6% injured
Did nothing at all or complied - 25% injured
Resisted with a knife - 40% injured
Non-violent resistance - 45% injured

This seems to indicate that a gun is, in fact, a superior defensive weapon than hand-to-hand, at least in England.

Here's one that shows the cultural differences.  Richard Lumb, Paul Friday, City of Charlotte Gunshot Study, Department of Criminal Justice, 1994

71% of gunshot victims (in Charlotte, NC) have previous arrest records.
64% are convicts
The average number of prior arrests for that 64% is 11 arrests.

Firearm-related Injury Incidents in 1999 – Annual Report, San Francisco Department of Public Health and San Francisco Injury Center, February 2002 - backs up the above.  Their findings were that 63% of gunshot victims had criminal histories, and they knew their attacker 73% of the time.  The gunshot victims without criminal histories knew their attacker about half as often.

A little outdated, but, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter Rossi, Aldine, 1986.  60% of convicted felons in jail said that they would not commit a crime against a private citizen whom they knew to be armed with a gun.  40% said they would not commit a crime against a citizen who they suspected had a gun.

[Leafsnail]

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.  Citizens of the USA use legal guns to defend themselves, successfully, approximately 2,500,000 times per year.  15.6% of those people say they "almost certainly" saved their life in doing so.

I'm gonna say this is false, or at the very least an extremely skewed survey.  If this were true, there were 390,000 murders prevented by guns in 1995.  That means that there would be one murder for every 670 people, which would make America far and away the worst country for homicide.

This one's a secondary cite from the British Home office, can't find the exact thing on their website, but it's probably somewhere.  Robbery victims in England, % who were injured by the robber:

I'd be tempted to say that one doesn't exist, at least not on the Home Office website.  There aren't even any results for "guns".

71% of gunshot victims (in Charlotte, NC) have previous arrest records.
64% are convicts
The average number of prior arrests for that 64% is 11 arrests.

Totally irrelevant.  Being a criminal doesn't mean you lose your rights as a human being.

[Arrkhal]

I'm gonna say this is false, or at the very least an extremely skewed survey.  If this were true, there were 390,000 murders prevented by guns in 1995.  That means that there would be one murder for every 670 people, which would make America far and away the worst country for homicide.

I think that study included shooting at animals.  It might be a little inflated even so, though.

Totally irrelevant.  Being a criminal doesn't mean you lose your rights as a human being.

It's not relevant to your statement earlier, but like I said, it illustrates cultural difference.  What percent of English or German or Japanese or Swiss gunshot wound victims have criminal records?

Just saying "the USA has a high homicide rate and high gun crime rate compared to other country!" as others have, is an incredibly flawed statement when 50%+ of American gunshot victims are gang members, and were most likely shot during a gunfight with a rival gang (which still counts as a homicide).

In any case, your myth is still busted.  Guns are very effective defensive weapons in most situations.  It's also not like carrying a gun means you have to use it; it's just an option you wouldn't have otherwise.  Running is still the best defense, if possible.

[Leafsnail]

I think that study included shooting at animals.  It might be a little inflated even so, though.

...

So you've included a survey about hunting to back you up?  Christ, I'm not arguing that you should go hunting with your bare hands.

It's not relevant to your statement earlier, but like I said, it illustrates cultural difference.  What percent of English or German or Japanese or Swiss gunshot wound victims have criminal records?

A fairly high amount in Britain, I believe.  Most are gang shootings.

Just saying "the USA has a high homicide rate and high gun crime rate compared to other country!" as others have, is an incredibly flawed statement when 50%+ of American gunshot victims are gang members, and were most likely shot during a gunfight with a rival gang (which still counts as a homicide).

It is still homicide... hence why it's counted as homicide.

In any case, your myth is still busted.  Guns are very effective defensive weapons in most situations.  It's also not like carrying a gun means you have to use it; it's just an option you wouldn't have otherwise.  Running is still the best defense, if possible.

But now it's only busted because you say so.

[Arrkhal]

So you've included a survey about hunting to back you up?  Christ, I'm not arguing that you should go hunting with your bare hands.

It was a survey about defensive shooting, not hunting.  As in, feral dog attacks, bears, snakes, etc.

But now it's only busted because you say so.

Well, if the numbers don't convince you, then... okay.  But over 90% of defensive uses (against humans) ending without a shot fired does seem to indicate that statements like

Getting one out against an armed criminal virtually guarentees a shootout.

are completely false, in the USA.  Fewer than 10% of gun-pullings result in a "shootout."  I would hardly call that a "virtual guarantee."  And the conventional wisdom among self defense teachers and cop trainers here is that 10% of the time will involve "less than 3 shots, at less than 3 feet, in less than 3 seconds."

Now if you were talking about what would happen in Germany against a neo-nazi, then I don't know.  The data isn't applicable to that.

[Neonivek]

Too bad I am too big and tall to EVER get away with a self-defense claim.

I've Heard rumors but apperantly if a small woman attacked me with a knife, I am not even justified to smack her in self defense. I however am seriously getting mixed information as while some laws specifically favor women (there are laws that only work in defense of women) I don't know how much courts actually favor them when someone says they were defending themselves from one especially given that a judge likely has heard many woman on man violence.

[Arrkhal]

Too bad I am too big and tall to EVER get away with a self-defense claim.

I've Heard rumors but apperantly if a small woman attacked me with a knife, I am not even justified to smack her in self defense. I however am seriously getting mixed information as while some laws specifically favor women (there are laws that only work in defense of women) I don't know how much courts actually favor them when someone says they were defending themselves from one especially given that a judge likely has heard many woman on man violence.

That's highly dependent on jurisdiction.  Actually, a Scottish judge has been quoted saying that beating someone unconscious, then having a group of 7 or 8 people kicking them for hours would constitute no more than "slightly rough treatment" for a large, healthy, young man, but may warrant lethal force if it were a little old guy instead.  Crazy Scots.

Also, if you actually did find yourself in that situation, you'd have a pretty high chance of being shot by the cops, unfortunately.  Training in the last couple years has shifted focus to try and stop stereotping, but a lot of cops end up shooting the victim in the exact scenario you describe.  A small woman attacking a large man with a knife.  The man is covered in blood and screaming "help, police!"  Male police officers shot the dude some ridiculously high % of the time.  Actually, though, IIRC the women police officers never shot the wrong guy.  This is a training scenario with Simunitions and actors wearing pads and armor, if that wasn't clear.

Like I said, jurisdiction dependent.  But hey, they make pepper spray for a reason.

And probably situation dependent.  If it was an ex girlfriend and you don't have any reports with the police that she's acting like a psycho, you're totally screwed.  If it was a stranger, your odds are better.

Keep in mind that legal advice on the internet is worth exactly what you paid for it.

[Neonivek]

Apperantly because of the high chance that serious claims will be rejected by the police there have been a crackdown to basically force the police to take things like Restraining Orders seriously.
-Also last I check there are three shelters in all of canada for Males fleeing abusive women.

Though some people say that restraining orders should never be used if the person is possibly violent alone as that prompts them to go to the next level.

[Leafsnail]

are completely false, in the USA.  Fewer than 10% of gun-pullings result in a "shootout."  I would hardly call that a "virtual guarantee."  And the conventional wisdom among self defense teachers and cop trainers here is that 10% of the time will involve "less than 3 shots, at less than 3 feet, in less than 3 seconds."

That includes armed and unarmed attacks.  How often does drawing a gun against a criminal who's also armed pacify the situation?

[Aqizzar]

Arrkhal, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never been mugged before.  You don't have a chance to pull a weapon, whatever the movies might tell you.  A criminal with two braincells to rub together doesn't step out of an alley and give you time to draw your pistol with a one-liner.  You're walking along and get a barrel shoved in your neck.

About your citation with the number of crimes prevented by having a gun, for one thing yes preventing animal attacks is a gross inflation because animal attacks are not crimes, but more importantly I'm willing to bet that a vast number of those supposedly prevented crimes were part of domestic disputes.  After all, the vast majority of crimes are committed between people who know each other.

[Arrkhal]

That includes armed and unarmed attacks.  How often does drawing a gun against a criminal who's also armed pacify the situation?

Hm, that's a pretty valid question.  Guns are used in robberies quite often, so it won't be a reduction by very much, but it'd still be interesting to find out how much of a difference it makes.

That will take some digging.  The crime reports are rarely that detailed.  Let's see, the FBI UCR states that out of all the robberies, the weapons used by the criminal were http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/robberytable_03.html

43.5% of all robberies, the robber used a gun.

No concrete data on defense against.  However, we can do some simple statistics.  If we assume that every robber without a gun flees or surrenders (to make the % of shootouts as high as possible with the given data), and round the no-shoot defensive incidents down to 90%...

That means that out of all the defensive uses of firearms:
10% are gunfights
33.5% are a criminal with a firearm fleeing
56.5% are a criminal without a firearm fleeing

So 10% out of 43.5% ~= 23%.  The absolute highest percentage of the time that pulling a gun on a criminal with a gun, is 23%.

Still not a "practical guarantee."

----

Arrkhal, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never been mugged before.

You're on a shakier limb than you think.

In any case, I already said.  There's no law that says you have to draw a gun if you're carrying one.  It's an option out of many.  Every single self defense instructor in the country will tell you comply first, run second, shoot third.  If they leave with your money, then that's great.  If they don't, now what?  If they say "this isn't enough money, you're dead," now what?

About 20% to 25% of mugging victims are injured or killed after they complied with demands.

So if you're in that bracket, run if you can.  If you can't, now what?  Just curl up and die because the chances are "too low?"

Criminals also aren't noble gentleman who will say "now that I have your belongings, I shall depart forthwith!"

After all, the vast majority of crimes are committed between people who know each other.

See citations above.  In San Fran, 73% of criminals who were shot knew their attacker.  It was 36% for non-criminals.

[Leafsnail]

Um... Arrkhal.  The original statistic you quoted was for all incidents, not just robberies.  It also included a variety of animal attacks.  You can't just extrapolate that 40% of all these attacks involved firearm wielding attackers (quite possibly including gun toting bears and dogs).

Criminals also aren't noble gentleman who will say "now that I have your belongings, I shall depart forthwith!"

Equally, they aren't evil sadists who will kill people just for the hell of it.

[Duke 2.0]

Criminals also aren't noble gentleman who will say "now that I have your belongings, I shall depart forthwith!"

Equally, they aren't evil sadists who will kill people just for the hell of it.

I have to butt in here to refute this. Muggers don't want to get caught. If your victim sees you, they can choose you from a line of suspects. If there is no witness nobody can give a testimony.

[userpay]

Heres my view on the gun thing. Now for one I don't remember any specific reports off the top of my head though I know theres some for it but consider this, if you lived in a state that had few gun restrictions would you be more likely to invade a home knowing theres a high chance of the owner having a gun? I for one believe in our right to bear arms and view alot of these laws that infringe on the right as pointless. In a state with strict gun laws the advantage is shifted to the person who intends to use a gun, gained legally or illegally, since its less likey that the victem to have a means of effectivly defending himself outside of a close range weapon. And everyone knows not to bring a knife to a gun fight.

I'd rather get shot trying to defend myself with a gun that getting shot even while cooperating with the person attacking me. It really comes down to derants, low gun control means more risk to the assaulter.