Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumHow often are guns used in legal self defense?
Forget "studies"; how about actual news reports of actual events captured on a daily basis?
See: http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/ for exactly that kind of raw information.
This surveillance footage must be fake, because we are told that nobody is skilled enough to take on armed robbers by themselves:
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)It is nothing more than a NRA talking point, and as such can be dismissed out of hand. 
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)"In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the FBI. That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides. "
230 v 8275.
Of course this is homicides, so you all can continue to perform the usual drill.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that has been reported to the FBI. That doesn't include those still in the legal process, wounding, and "oh shit he has a gun I better GTFO now". Depending on the criminology study, that total is between 100K to a couple of million a year.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)anecdotes are bullshit.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The only folks capable of collecting them are the cops. The cops do not collect them because these stats do not help them in doing their jobs.
There are estimates by the pro-control folks. There are estimates by the pro-gun folks. The truth probably lies in the middle somewhere.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)In lots of DGUs, the crime is prevented by the victim's display of a gun. Often the gun itself does not need to be displayed, just letting the thug know that he has been seen and will face an armed fight is enough. Performing a gun-clearing move will usually do the trick. Since there is no crime due to the crime being prevented, there is nothing to report.
If the guns is actually shown, then the victim should make a police report anyway, just to cover their own ass. Call 911 immediately. It is important to be the first one to report the incident, just in case the other decides to call the cops. However, usually street thugs want nothing to do with the cops.
Howzit
(967 posts)The reddit link in the OP counts up to way more than 230 per year.
The robbers in the video survived being shot - killing them was not the objective - stopping them from robbing and potentially killing innocent citizens was; and that was achieved without killing them.
While you are at it, could you provide a link for your FBI stats please?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Howzit
(967 posts)
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)howzit: The robbers in the video survived being shot - killing them was not the objective - stopping them from robbing and potentially killing innocent citizens was; and that was achieved without killing them.
Interesting (I have not seen the vid, slow dial up modem the reason); while a good thing in a sense, many progun self defense experts might say the shooters failed, since they say when a shooter draws his gun it is 'shoot to kill'. Perhaps the video explains it. Do you contend correct policy can be 'shoot to wound'?
Forget "studies"; how about actual news reports of actual events captured on a daily basis?
Yet you linked to gary kleck's dgu study on wikipedia from 1992, at least indirectly. And then you don't mention 'fake dgus' which would counterbalance unreported ones... First time I've read wiki's take on kleck (a democrat btw), and the article is so progun biased I thought at first it was self written (ala john lott).
wiki on kleck: Hemenway {guncontrol advocate} also claims that Kleck's survey shows armed citizens wounding or killing attackers 207,000 times in one year, contrasted against the total of around 100,000 Americans wounded or killed, accidentally or intentionally, in a typical year. This claim was also false - due to the small sample of defensive gun uses, one cannot derive from the Kleck data meaningful estimates of the frequency of defensive gun use involving a wounding of the criminal
Hemenway's observation was 'false'? when it was based upon kleck's own figures?
Let's contrast that with what kleck himself said in an interview circa 1993:
SCHULMAN: Let's break down some of these gun defenses if we can. How many are against armed robbers? How many are against burglars? How many are against people committing a rape or an assault?
KLECK: About 8% of the defensive uses involved a sexual crime such as an attempted sexual assault. About 29% involved some sort of assault other than sexual assault. 33% involved a burglary or some other theft at home. 22% involved robbery. 16% involved trespassing. Note that some incidents could involve more than one crime.
KLECK: Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun. 47% involved the gun being pointed at the criminal. 22% involved the gun being fired. 14% involved the gun being fired at somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning shot; the defender was trying to shoot the criminal.. And then in 8% they actually did wound or kill the offender.
SCHULMAN: In 8 percent, wounded or killed. You don't have it broken down beyond that?
KLECK: Wound versus kill? No. Again that was thought to be too sensitive a question. Although we did have, I think, two people who freely offered the information that they had, indeed, killed someone. Keep in mind that the 8% figure is based on so few cases {~10} that you have to interpret it with great caution..
Seems kleck isn't haggling about 'meaningless estimates of dgu' frequency, just that he's hedging with a large margin of error. (fuller kleck interview to follow, w link).
Note: 8% wounded x kleck's 2.5 million dgus = ~200,000 wounded, hemenway's figure.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and 15 others put it in the same ball park as Kleck's. Biased towards Kleck? I have seen rants that was biased towards Hemenway, even though he didn't even remotely "debunk" anything Kleck said.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The only reason to shoot another human is that the other person is doing something so evil that they must be stopped immediately, even if as a side result they are wounded or killed. The law does not give one permission to deliberately kill another. Even if I am aiming at his brain stem with a high-powered precision rifle, my goal is to instantly stop him for whatever he is doing. In handgun self-defense that usually means aiming at the center of mass and firing repeated shots until the threat is no longer a threat. If he lives, that's OK; if he dies, that's his tough luck.
Shooting another must be done only "in the gravest extreme". That means that you are out of time, and out of options. (Caveat: Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. - Justice Oliver Wendal Holmes, Jr. in Brown V. United State, 1921) So if you deliverately shoot the other a wounding only shot it means that you had the time to evaluate the effect of your shot and to shoot again if needed, therefore you were not yet in the gravest extreme. If you were aiming for center mass and only hit him in the leg, then it is only evidence that you were a poor marksman under the circumstances.
Yes, it is legal hair-splitting, but that is the way it works.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)gscloud: If you have to shoot in self-defense, you shoot to stop, not to kill or wound
howzit: The robbers in the video survived being shot - killing them was not the objective - stopping them from robbing and potentially killing innocent citizens was; and that was achieved without killing them.
This is where I get conflicting instructions from the pro gun crowd. Some say this, some say that, like below:
A self-defense gun isn't for scaring someone and it's not for wounding someone... a self-defense gun is for killing someone (and in Ohio it is defined as deadly force)... or in politically corrected terms, for stopping them... we don't shoot to kill, we shoot to stop... police don't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop. HOGWASH! We don't practice shooting arms, legs, or the bad guy's gun hand. You only draw your gun if someone is threatening you with serious bodily harm or death and you shoot to kill! I believe that if you don't have the mindset or beliefs and you're not willing to take a life in defense of yours or your loved ones... then DON'T CARRY A GUN!
http://godgalsgunsgrub.blogspot.com/2012/01/after-you-draw-your-gun.html -- I know it's a blog, but a gunblog.
another, not a blog: You don’t draw your gun to scare someone off, you don’t draw the gun and shoot to “wound” someone either. If you’re taking out your gun it’s because you need to use it that instant because if you don’t you might end up a dead man...remember the only time your gun should be coming out of the holster is when you’re prepared to pull the trigger and immediately stop the threat http://www.usacarry.com/why-you-should-never-draw-your-gun-in-this-situation/?wc=GApvHAF5AXRAAhduBw4ACxcKUwoFFA==
So I've since seen the video, & of course the guy was justified & thwarted the crime; was he justified in continuing shooting then? the two robbers appeared hightailing it out of the store, was he justified in continuing firing maybe a half dozen more shots after they 'tactically withdrew'? (sometimes called 'retreat before combat', a popular term often applied to early militia forces).
In the American court system, life is normally given priority over property. This is why, in most states, you cannot shoot a thief running away with your property. Nor will you be allowed -- again in most states -- to shoot a person who has just robbed you and is running away. The immediate threat to your person has passed. http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html
Oh my, now I'm just becoming more & more, confused.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)That blogger doesn't quite understand. He is close, but a bit off the mark. Unless I am willing to see the person I am shooting die, then I have no business pulling the trigger. That means that I must accept the possibility, even probability, that the person I am shooting may die and I must be willing to bear the consquenses before I shoot. I don't get to say to the judge, "I was only intending to wound him." Shots into a person's legs, hands, etc are not guaranteed to stop them, expecially if they are high on drugs plus adrenaline. Shots into a person's legs are attempts to persuade by extreme measures as a person is usually able to stay in the fight after such a shot, unless a bone is broken and can't support the limb.
You don’t draw your gun to scare someone off, you don’t draw the gun and shoot to “wound” someone either. If you’re taking out your gun it’s because you need to use it that instant because if you don’t you might end up a dead man...remember the only time your gun should be coming out of the holster is when you’re prepared to pull the trigger and immediately stop the threat
Exactly correct. The emphasis here is that your gun does not enter the action until the gravest extreme. Until then, keep the gun in its holster, or out of sight. Bringing you gun into action too early, even if you only intend to use it to scare off the thug, is very dangerous. One he sees a gun pointed at him he will likely conclude that he is in deadly danger and you can't predict his response. He most likely will run away, but he might fight instead. When you draw your gun you must be prepared to enter a gunfight with someone, possibly yourself, dying.
The guy in the video was on shaky grounds in firing the shots after the thug took off running, and totally unjustified in the last shot.
The first shot was clearly justified. The thug then began running away but was still holding his gun. He could easily have returned fire while running away, so he was still a threat to the CCWer and to the other customers present. Once he was out the door he dropped the gun as he stumbled. Now he was unarmed, outside the premises, and running away. The CCWer's final shot was unjustified, but most people will overlook that, giving the CCWer the benefit of doubt under the stress of the moment.
In the American court system, life is normally given priority over property. This is why, in most states, you cannot shoot a thief running away with your property. Nor will you be allowed -- again in most states -- to shoot a person who has just robbed you and is running away. The immediate threat to your person has passed.
Exactly correct. Texas, however, does give permission to shoot over property. I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand, I would not shoot someone over stealing the TV. My car would start to be a dividing line. The only thing of value above the car would be my house. If someone were threatening to immediately destroy my home, and the threat were credible, then I would defend my home, using deadly force if necessary.
Hope that helped clear things up. If not, post more questions.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)gsc:guy in video was on shaky grounds in firing the shots after the thug took off running, and totally unjustified in the last shot.
Actually I thought the dgu shooter acted within reason almost the entire time, excepting perhaps the final shot as you later remark. AND, I think the dgu shooter was indeed trying to 'wound or scare', & not trying to kill. What I recall from the vid the two thugs seemed to be teenagers or young, & the shooter walked up to point blank range & began shooting - had he wanted to indeed kill it should've been a done deed. I think he realized this was more a robbery lark, & didn't want to kill them just wound them & scare them off. I think this is a reasonable & effective policy under some circumstances when there are no shots fired by the thugs.
The 'surprise' affect switched from the thugs to the dgu shooter so he had a few seconds to see what they'd do, if they returned fire he coulda shot them dead readily enough - er, with reservations, anyone hazard an educated guess what pistol he used? maybe a 22? sounded like a snap to me rather than a blam or pop.
Once he was out the door he dropped the gun as he stumbled. Now he was unarmed, outside the premises, and running away. The CCWer's final shot was unjustified, but most people will overlook that, giving the CCWer the benefit of doubt..
I would hope so, he deserves the benny of the doubt; and the dgu shooter's 'defense' (ha) will be he was unaware gun was dropped. But it does point out hazards of using a gun even in justifiable self defense, since one of the links I posted contends shooter did an illegal act, as you corroborate.
Texas, however, does give permission to shoot over property.
Oh, I've certainly heard of this, isn't it just at night tho? About a decade back a mexican 'chicken' thief went onto an american's property in texas (arg, was it oklahoma? similar law?), anyhow, the chicken thief stole the 'texans' prized cock fighter valued at ~$500 & was running away with it and tex shot the mex in the back & killed him - while still on tex's property. Tex was found innocent under the law you cite (I presume) & since it was night (had he done it in daytime it would've been murder she wrote).
So mex would've been sentenced to maybe a year for grand theft of a chicken which sells for 69c a pound at safeway (plead down to larceny), while tex killed mex & was guilty of nothing. That old spanish american color barrier.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I am guessing a .380. IIRC, the DGUer did hit one thug, the one with the gun, in the butt.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Have been in there once. My son drives past the place on his way to work.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The slide won't lock back if there isn't an empty mag in the gun. When you take the emty mag out the slide jumps forward on an empty chamber. You have to rack the slide again when you insert the loaded mag.
I did some home gunsmithing and changed the angle of the slide lock button and the indent on the slide. Now it works the way I want it to.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)No. The old guy fired enough to make the threat go away. No more, no less. Proper application of force in self defense. They fled. They survived. Legal application of deadly force in self defense, even though it did not produce a fatality.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)SCHULMAN: So roughly 50 people out of 5000 responded that in the last year they had had to use their firearms in an actual confrontation against a human being attempting a crime?
KLECK: Handguns, yes. SCHULMAN: Had used a handgun. And slightly more than that had used any gun. KLECK: Right.
SCHULMAN: So that would be maybe 55, 56 people? KLECK: Something like that, yeah.
SCHULMAN: Okay. I can just hear critics saying that 50 or 55 people responding that they used their gun and you're projecting it out to figures of around 2 million, 2-1/2 million gun defenses. Why is that statistically valid?
KLECK: You have to keep in mind that it's quite possible for people to have done more than one of these things since they could obviously both verbally refer to the gun and point it at somebody or even shoot it.
KLECK: Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun. Forty-seven percent involved the gun being pointed at the criminal. Twenty-two percent involved the gun being fired. Fourteen percent involved the gun being fired at somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning shot; the defender was trying to shoot the criminal. Whether they succeeded or not is another matter but they were trying to shoot a criminal. And then in 8% they actually did wound or kill the offender.
SCHULMAN: Did you get any data on how the attackers were armed during these incidents?
KLECK: Yes. We also asked whether the offender was armed. The offender was armed in 47.2% of the cases {half} and they had a handgun in about 13.6% of all the cases and some other kind of gun in 4.5% of all the cases.
SCHULMAN:..in about a sixth of the cases, the person attacking was armed with a firearm.. the remainder?
KLECK: Armed with a knife: 18.1%, 2% with some other sharp object, 10.1% with a blunt object, and 6% with some other weapon. Keep in mind when adding this up that offenders could have had more than one weapon.
SCHULMAN: So in approximately five sixths of the cases somebody carrying a gun for defensive reasons would find themselves defending themselves either against an unarmed attacker or an attacker with a lesser weapon?
KLECK: Right. About five-sixths of the time.
SCHULMAN:.. about 1/6 of the time they would find themselves up against somebody who's armed with a firearm.
KLECK:.. certainly in this sample of incidents that was the case. SCHULMAN: Which you believe is representative.
KLECK: It's representative of what's happened in the last 5 years. Whether it would be true in the future we couldn't say..
KLECK: About the only thing which was surprising is how often people had actually wounded someone in the incident. Previous surveys didn't have very many sample cases so you couldn't get into the details much but some evidence had suggested that a relatively small share of incidents involved the gun inflicting wounds so it was surprising to me that quite so many defenders had used a gun that way.http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.interview.html
Last paragraph by kleck tends to contradict the {gun biased} wiki author in my previous post.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)in his books. Why not read them yourself?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Howzit
(967 posts)bossy22
(3,547 posts)we just aren't that sure
There have been studies ranging from 50,000-2.2 million. The problem is its a hard situation to define and has many variables that can effect tracking of it. One thing we know for sure is that you can't just use the justifiable homicide statistic. Anyone who uses that statistic alone to make an argument in regards to armed self defense is either naive or is pretty much lying to make a point.
Swamp Lover
(431 posts)This passes for brains and reason with the "guns are god" crowd.
I'll stick with brains, thanks anyway.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)That did the best known research on the subject.