It Was the Gun's Fault

[mikeb302000]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/austin-powers-henchman-actor-gets-life-in-prison-in-rapetorture.html">L.A. Now reports on an incredible crime committed by Joseph Hyungmin Son, seven years before the 1997 movie "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery."

The fact is I don't blame the gun and I find it extremely tedious to be continually accused of that by the pro-gun folks. In this brutal crime, for example, I actually feel the gun was superfluous.

What the story made me wonder was, would the victim have been able to save herself had she been armed too? I think not.

When sudden, random violence strikes, like in this case, a concealed weapon will rarely help. In spite of all the claims to the contrary, true DGUs are extremely rare.

The problem is the pro-gun folks use stories like this to push their agenda. Convincing people that they need to protect themselves is a disservice to those they want to help and to society at large.

The proliferation of guns for personal protection is a bad deal because the chances of your gun being used to save your life are extremely low while the possibility of it being MISused in some way is greater. It's a bad decision, a fear-driven mistake, that's all.

The solution to the problem of violence is to take sensible precautions and not give into the fear.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[LAGC]

1. Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) are far more common than you think.

A lot of them go unreported, because the intruder or robber is scared off, the threat is neutralized, and the would-be victim never bothers involving the cops.

You must have missed my thread:

What Does the National Crime Victimization Survey Tell Us?

Guns are used defensively far more often than they are used offensively.

That is a fact.

[MyrnaLoy]

2. if so then

those who use their gun defensively and NOT REPORT it to the police do nothing but endanger lives. Bob scares an intruder off, Bob says, "fuck it, I'm not going to involve the police." Intruder goes down the street and rapes Sally cuz Bob couldn't be troubled to notify law enforcement that an intruder is in the area.

Moral of LAGC's post? Bob is a dickhead who did nothing cuz Bob only thinks of himself.


Come on guys, make it easier for me.

[shadowrider]

7. Try reporting a NON crime to the police.

"911 what's your emergency?"

"Oh nothing, a guy tried to hold me up and I showed my gun. He took off."

"No shots fired? No one hurt?"

"No"

"Have a nice day" CLICK.

[Starboard Tack]

20. How did this guy try to hold him up? Was he really a robber?

If so, it would be his duty to call 911 and report the activity of a robber in the area. The cops would not say "have a nice day". If you pull a gun on someone for any reason, it should be reported, at the very least to cover your ass, but mainly as a civic duty.

[GreenStormCloud]

27. Definately. I you show the gun, call the cops, at least to cover your ass. N/T

[MyrnaLoy]

21. so you

pulled your weapon on a "non-criminal"? Come on, try harder, your response was a fantasy at best. I can promise you if you report an intruder or robber you scared off they are going to respond. Your response was so silly that I'm having trouble responding.

[iverglas]

25. perhaps you need to go to law school

An attempt to commit a crime is a crime.

Try not phoning 911, since an attempt that has been thwarted is not actually an emergency. Try making a complaint, providing your evidence and having an incident report prepared in the proper way.

The person you save from being the offender's next victim might be someone you know.

[X_Digger]

33. I actually tried to report an attempted mugging, had the cop not write it up..

I was on the job at the time, and when I tried to get a report number for my log later, the sergeant told me no report had been filed (they just passed along a BOLO-- be on the look out.)

[pipoman]

35. Actually, I believe the police would respond,

if no arrest is made at the time of the response there would be no report of the DGU.

[DanTex]

9. And you must have missed my response to that OP...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=455982&mesg_id=456018

I'm glad you're bringing this up again, though, because it is a great illustration of the casual disregard for facts and hard data that permeates the pro-gun side, especially on the topic of DGU. You see, NCVS actually shows far more criminal gun uses than DGUs. This is not a matter of opinion: you just need to look at the actual data, and you will find that only a tiny fraction of the self-protective measures reported to NCVS involve guns. But you, like most pro-gun people in that thread, didn't bother with the actual data, thus you remain convinced of something that is plainly, obviously false. (I will point out that there was one pro-gun poster who I discussed with in that thread who did have the honesty to actually look at the data and accept it, so it's not fair to say that all pro-gun people ignored the data)

By the way, NCVS is just one source of data on the protective utility of a gun. The topic of whether owning or carrying a gun for self defense actually makes a person safer has been studied scientifically, and here is a survey of some of this research.
http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/01/1559827610396294.full.pdf

The article shows that the OP is basically correct: the risks involved in owning a gun greatly outweigh the benefits. In fact, the benefits are largely illusory:

Overall, the limited data on self-defense gun use suggest that (a) genuine self-defense gun use is rare, (b) there are many ways that people defend themselves without a gun, and (c) many of these other methods may be as effective as self-defense gun use in preventing injury. Perhaps surprisingly, the evidence does not indicate that having a gun reduces the risk of being a victim of a crime or that having a gun reduces the risk of injury during the commission of a crime.

What the data do indicate is that much of the self-defense gun use reported on private surveys is inappropriate and socially undesirable. The possibility of using a gun in a socially useful manner—for example, against a criminal during the commission of a crime—will occur, for the average person, 0 times, or perhaps once in a lifetime. At other times, the use of a gun against another human is socially undesirable. Regular citizens with guns, who are sometimes tired, angry, drunk, or afraid, and who are not trained in dispute resolution, have lots of opportunities for inappropriate gun use. People engage in innumerable annoying and somewhat hostile interactions with each other in the course of a lifetime.

On the other hand, the risks of owning a gun are very real. Gun propagandists will circulate images of valiant gun owners protecting themselves in a dangerous world by shooting down bad guys. But a sober look at the data shows that this is mostly fiction.

There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home. For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.

However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise. The evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes, and it appears that a gun in the home may more likely be used to threaten intimates than to protect against intruders. On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.

[LAGC]

13. Actually, I saw your response, but I didn't feel it worthy of reply due to your very lacking sources

That "deltoid" character in your first link is a mouth-piece of all sorts of anti-gun propaganda, I've seen his OPINIONS on his BLOG referenced on other boards, and refuted convincingly each time.

And the other two links you gave were from a very obscure, nearly 30-year-old study. Why nothing more recent, let alone peer-reviewed?

The American Academy of Pediatrics has shown their anti-gun bias time and time again, you can't exactly consider them an objective source on the matter.

Which leaves us with my main point: how many millions of DGUs go unreported to police every year and don't even show up in those statistics at all?

Studies and polls have shown that the vast majority of time, just merely brandishing a firearm is enough to scare off the would-be perpetrator, even if the police are never notified, thus a crime never happened -- hence nothing to report in any statistics.

And I don't buy the idea that resisting robbery attempts is a bad idea. If the robber has a gun pointed at you, perhaps, but then again, most robberies (just like most rapes or sexual assaults) don't involve a firearm on the perpetrators part, just a knife or strong-arm. In which case, just being able to brandish a gun is often enough to dissuade the perp from carrying out the crime.

And just from anecdotal experience, I have many family and friends who own guns. None of them have ever had an accident, but one of them did prevent a robbery of the convenience store he worked at. (He was given an ultimatum by management: leave the gun at home, or don't come back to work -- he chose the latter option.)

Of course, your anecdotal experiences are probably different from mine, which is most likely why you identify more with the anti-gun propaganda from groups like the Brady Bunch or VPC, while ignoring less biased sources.

[DanTex]

14. "lacking sources". LOL, really.

And the other two links you gave were from a very obscure, nearly 30-year-old study. Why nothing more recent, let alone peer-reviewed?
Funny you should say this. You have not cited anything peer-reviewed, recent or not. You simply posted a link to NCVS data, which you clearly didn't look at very carefully, because if you had, you would have found that only a tiny fraction of self-protective measures involve the use of a gun. You don't need a peer-review for that. You just need to be willing to look at a chart of data and not pretend it says something different just to suit your ideological agenda.

Regardless of what you consider obscure, the paper I cited is just one of many peer reviewed articles on guns and self defense. I cited another in that last post (from 2011). Here's one more, which finds that carrying a gun does not provide a measurable protective benefit, and actually appears to increase your chances of getting shot.
http://static.ow.ly/docs/AJPH.GunControl_eD.pdf

Of course, if you're anything like most pro-gun people, you will easily find ways to ignore the peer-reviewed science by claiming that the science journals, the respected researchers, the elite universities like Harvard, JHopkins, UCDavis etc. all have some anti-gun bias. And, thus, instead of hard data you resort to anecdotal experience to justify your baseless claims.

That "deltoid" character in your first link is a mouth-piece of all sorts of anti-gun propaganda, I've seen his OPINIONS on his BLOG referenced on other boards, and refuted convincingly each time.
He's actually a scientist who blogs about various scientific topics, as opposed to the "boards" where he has been "refuted", which are clearly pro-gun outlets. More importantly, though, the excerpt I cited was about the NCVS data itself, and attacking the source doesn't change the data. Notice two emerging patterns:
1) You will avoid discussing or looking at the actual data at all costs.
2) Scientists tend to be on the opposite side of the debate than pro-gun propagandists.


Which leaves us with my main point: how many millions of DGUs go unreported to police every year and don't even show up in those statistics at all?

Studies and polls have shown that the vast majority of time, just merely brandishing a firearm is enough to scare off the would-be perpetrator, even if the police are never notified, thus a crime never happened -- hence nothing to report in any statistics.
Again, no hard evidence, just a vague assertion about "studies and polls". Actually, NCVS is a survey, it is not based on police reports, and so these DGUs would show up in NCVS even if they weren't reported to the police. Moreover, your "studies and polls" actually show that more than half of DGU incidents do get reported to the police. They also show, that, whatever methodology you use to measure, there are far more criminal gun uses than defensive gun uses.

The reason that pro-gun propagandists like the idea of "phantom DGUs" that don't leave any statistical trace is because almost all reliable measures of DGU show that they are extremely rare, and, generally, the more concrete the data, the more rare the DGUs appear to be. So the pro-gun side has to resort to DGUs that don't get reported to police, don't show up in NCVS, nobody gets shot, or if they do get shot they don't go to the hospital, etc. From an objective scientific perspective, the data shows that there simply aren't many DGUs, certainly far fewer than criminal gun uses, and also that many (most, even) supposed DGUs are not actually "defensive" of "good" acts -- things like escalating arguments where both people claim to be on defense. And, not surprisingly, that is the conclusion of the majority of scientists how have studied this issue seriously.


Of course, your anecdotal experiences are probably different from mine, which is most likely why you identify more with the anti-gun propaganda from groups like the Brady Bunch or VPC, while ignoring less biased sources.
It would be great if you had any source at all, biased or not. My sources are NCVS and peer-reviewed science journals. If these are biased, then who would you say to trust?

[LAGC]

15. That study you cite appears to be very limited in scope.

Conclusions

On average, guns did not protect those who
possessed them from being shot in an assault.
Although successful defensive gun uses are
possible and do occur each year, the
probability of success may be low for civilian gun
users in urban areas. Such users should rethink
their possession of guns or, at least, understand
that regular possession necessitates careful safety
countermeasures. Suggestions to the contrary,
especially for urban residents who may see gun
possession as a surefire defense against a dan-
gerous environment, should be discussed and
thoughtfully reconsidered.

Looks like it was only looking at particular urban environments (versus suburban or rural scenarios), and only looked at victims who were facing gun-wielding assailants.

I'm not going to deny that its not wise to whip out a gun if someone is already pointing a gun at you, and I would agree that packing a gun might tend to make some people more bold and enter riskier situations.

But the whole point I was making out of the NCVS data was that most robberies and assaults DON'T involve a gun, therefore a would-be victim who happened to be packing has much better odds against a LESSER ARMED assailant in most cases.

I notice in that other thread you brought up the Kleck/Gertz study, which I think is a pretty decent study:

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

I'd be interested in hearing what objections you have with it, as I really do think there are many more DGUs than even the NCVS lets on.

[DanTex]

17. Yes, it was only looking at urban environments, that is true.

It is also true that most crimes (according to NCVS) don't involve a gun. Of course, NCVS also shows that most protective actions don't involve gun use, that gun use doesn't notably improve the outcome over other measures, and also that gun crimes far outnumber DGUs.

As far as the anecdotal stuff, I am perfectly willing to believe that many people have actually averted a crime and prevented personal injury using a gun. And also, for some very highly trained people, carrying a gun provides personal protection in excess of the increased risks it brings. The problem is that most people, even those who think they are highly trained, are not practiced in making split-second judgements under a high-stress environment with adrenaline surging through their veins. Even pro-gun people will generally admit that you can easily make a bad situation worse by pulling out a gun if you don't know what you are doing. On top of that, violent crime victimization is itself pretty rare in comparison to non-criminal situations (e.g. arguments) that might induce someone to pull a gun. And then there are accidents.

In short, there are a lot of arguments either way about the safety benefit of owning or carrying a gun. That's why it is preferable to look at studies and data. And studies have generally failed to find that owning or carrying a gun makes a person safer, and in fact most, like this one, find that the increased risks involved outweigh the benefits. Of course, no study in this area is perfect. Ideally, you'd want to do some kind of controlled experiment, where you take a bunch of people, give half of them guns at random, and then see which group fares better. But that would be horribly unethical, so instead you have to go with the best data available.

Regarding Kleck-Gertz, a while back I wrote a really long post about it. Rather than go through it all again, I'll just point you here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x428987#436540

Basically, I don't think the Kleck-Gertz numbers (2.5M) are credible at all. It may be the case that NCVS estimates (50-100K) are low, but I don't think there's any way that over 95% of DGUs don't make it into NCVS.

A final point: the only way to argue that there are more DGUs than criminal gun uses is if you use Kleck-Gertz to estimate DGUs and NCVS to estimate CGUs. But this is obviously an invalid comparison because, for methodological reasons, NCVS results in lower estimates than Kleck-Gertz style surveys on both counts. Now, I would argue that this is because the Kleck-Gertz methodology is vulnerable to false positives and severe overestimates, particularly for DGUs. But, if you really think NCVS is flawed, then you shouldn't use NCVS for either side of the criminal/defensive gun use comparison. And if you use Kleck-Gertz style phone surveys estimate criminal gun use, you get estimates of CGUs which far exceed the 2.5M DGUs that Kleck-Gertz found. In other words, if you use a consistent methodology to estimate both criminal and defensive gun use, you find far more criminal use, no matter which methodology you use.

[LAGC]

18. Yep, gun ownership certainly isn't for everyone.

I agree with you there. Each person needs to assess their own security needs, and weigh the potential risks with the potential benefits.

I think its always preferable to try to defuse potentially violent situations by non-violent means before resorting to pulling out a gun only as a very last resort.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on how many DGUs there really are, but I can definitely tell you from my suburban/rural experience, the benefits of guns definitely outweighs their negatives. Obviously, if you live in a more urban setting, I can understand how you might feel differently.

[gejohnston]

26. Kleck-Gertz may or may not be flawed

but they are peer reviewed. They did not get grants from anyone who funds astroturf groups. Hemenway on the other hand, Joyce Foundation echo chamber.

[jmg257]

16. "the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit". As long as they are legal,

its up to the people to decide the benefits & risks of owning guns - in their own home.

Facts and real hard data is nice, but often people just have to decide for themselves if 1)the data is applicable, and 2)the risks are worth it.

If no one is committing suicides, having accidents, killing/intimidating women, or threatening their intimates in your house, the benefits of owning guns can be great.

[Starboard Tack]

22. Excellent post

[Starboard Tack]

19. "Guns are used defensively far more often than they are used offensively."

The implication there is that they are used against unarmed people, or at the least, against those who are not armed with a gun. In many states that would indicate felonious behavior.
What you are really saying is that guns are almost always used offensively, except when used by "good guys" and that's when we call it "defensive use".

[GreenStormCloud]

28. That depends on the disparity of force.

If a young, sober 6'5" weight lifter is attacked by an unarmed skinny 5'4" drunk guy, then the big guy has no business going for a gun. He should be able to defend himself unarmed. However if that same weight lifter decides to attack me, a fat senior citizen with a disability, then I can legally go for my gun.

[Starboard Tack]

29. How about if another fat unarmed senior citizen with a disability attacked you?

You might have a problem with the jury on that one. Anyone would be justified using a RPG against King Kong. You do come up with some interesting scenarios GSC. There could be a Hollywood career waiting for you yet.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. We both get convicted for manslaughter from all the people who die laughing watching us fight.

Since you object to my previous scenario let me give you one from the real world. Female, age 60, moderately overweight, has osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, height 4'10", has been targeted for a mugging by a young male about 25 years old. It is very early morning (still dark), on a normally deserted dead-end street, in a high crime part of Dallas, (Corinth & Cockrell) she has gotten out of her car and is walking toward the door of the factory/warehouse/offices where she works. She has circled the car allowing her headlights to search the street for anyone hanging out. No one was visible. The factory/warehouse has been broken into at night several times in recent months. Now she has parked the car and is walking to the door, her hand is in her waist pack holding the laser equipped .38 snubby in her hand. (Crimson Trace laser, S&W642) She is alert, watching in all directions but especially watching the two parts of the street that have deep shadows. Suddenly, from the shadows behinds some trees a young male steps out and begins fast walking towards her. (Because the street has to allows big trucks to back into docks it is a very wide street. About 100 feet across.) He has started his approach from about 125 feet away. She spots him and turns with her back to the wall so no one can get behind her. Seeing that he has been spotted he tries to engage her in conversation, claiming he wants directions. His clothing and demeanor all suggest that he is a street thug. She doesn't answer his request but says, "Go away." in a very firm voice. He continues to advance.

Now what do you tell her to do?

The woman is my wife. That incident happened twice, the second incident about three weeks after the first. She had gotten her CHL (Texas for CCW) about a month before. We talked to an attorney who specializes in that sort of thing to find out her legal options. After the warnings she could legally draw and aim at him, repeating, "Stay Away." If he keeps coming, she can then shoot.

However, in both cases the thugs figured out the obvious, that she was armed and would not be an easy victim. They both took off running before she had to pull the gun out. (Women don't normally carry both a purse and a waist pack. That and her demeanor meant that she was likely armed.) After those two incidents, nothing more ever happened. We conclude that word got out on the street that she was dangerous to mess with.

So there is a real life extreme disparity of force.

Now to answer your question of someone like me attacking me. I would have difficulty justifying use of deadly force against another old geezer. Maybe, with some very unusual circumstances it might be justified, but basically, "No". It would be worth absorbing a few bruises to avoid killing someone. He might get a face full of pepper spray.
My wife can't use any sprays. She has health problems that a spray could aggravate into an instantly serious problem.

She did not report either of those incidents to the police, because no crime was committed, and she did not actually have to draw the gun.

[Starboard Tack]

36. Thanks for sharing that. I agree, she went through two scary situations.

Your question is "Now what do you tell her to do?"
Exactly what she did, which was to say, very forcefully "Go away!" She didn't need to draw her weapon either time, so by that token, we can assume she wouldn't have needed to draw a stun gun, which would have stopped the thug if needed. If she didn't have spray issues, I would have suggested pepper spray and a Screecher alarm.
I applaud your wife for not escalating the situation and dealing with it appropriately. I can only imagine how she would have felt, had she shot someone. I also would suggest high powered flashlights in situations like that. It's very difficult to operate when blinded.

Also, you are correct that no report to LE was necessary, as no gun was drawn. We wouldn't be having these conversations if all toters were as level headed as your wife.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Thanks. I trained her. We practiced scenarios for hours.

I don't reccommend tasers as they are only good for one shot. Stun guns require being in contact range, and that is too close. (Although the new stun canes appear to be promising.) Screecher alarms aren't loud enoug, especially for a deserted street. High powered flashlight is only good for a few seconds of blindness. A person can still charge the light.

We talked about it a good bit afterwards. She is firm that having the gun gave her the ability to be forceful. If she had not had her hand on a gun she would have been terrified and afraid that she was about to be killed after being forced to open the door. Those are here words, not mine.

Carrying a gun is a serious responsibility. Using it is to be avoided if at all possible, but if the situation does come down to it, then having the gun is better than not having it. I fully realize that my odds of ever needing it are small, but the consequences of not being prepared can be infinite.

[Starboard Tack]

39. As I said, if the rest of the world were as sensible as you and her, we wouldn't be having this talk

Unfortunately, from much of what we read here, many pro-gunners have a very different take on when to draw a gun and when to shoot. And they are Dems. One can only imagine what rules many on the right have for themselves.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. From the posts that I have seen all of us DU gunnies pretty much have the same rules. N/T

[RSillsbee]

38. I've seen two people tazed by the poilce

and the taser prongs bounced right off forcing the cops to "contact stun " them. You are welcome to carry a taser I'm carrying a gun

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Wrong.

Physical disparity is not the legal hinge upon which armed self defense swings.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Oh please, are you serious?

First off, name a state.

I know for damn sure, no weapon is required, in the hands of an attacker, to warrant enough alarm to justify either drawing or firing in self defense. You can be killed with fists and feet, in case you haven't been watching the news lately.

[iverglas]

24. the usual sad exploitive crap

from that thread of yours:

FACT: Nearly 80% of all Rapes/Sexual Assaults are committed without a weapon, simply by the perpetrator over-powering the victim, where a gun would come in real handy for self-defense.

Fact: while accurate figures are impossible to acquire because a majority of sexual assaults are not reported to police, it's generally accepted that around 2/3 are committed by persons known to the victim.

So your argument amounts to predicting that girls and women will shoot their fathers, brothers, husbands, former partners, dates, co-workers and flatmates to avoid a sexual assault. Worse, it amounts to recommending that they do that. (Worse because virtually none of those victims are at any risk of death.) Or maybe you're just suggesting that a girl or woman brandish a firearm at her father or her boss and everything will work out fine. My mind just boggles even thinking about this nonsense.

If you and all the rest who constantly exploit the experiences of women who are victims of sexual violence gave any real semblance of a damn, there are a whole lot of things you would be advocating and doing to reduce the incidence of that violence. Yammering about guns on the internet is not one of them.


Guns are used defensively far more often than they are used offensively.
That is a fact.

No, it is utter and complete bullshit.

In that thread, you said:

FACT: Victims who employed protective measures (brandishing a gun, shooting back, etc.) were OVER 10 TIMES MORE LIKELY to report that their efforts helped defuse the situation or prevent the crime, versus those who say employing protective measures hurt their situation.

The actual facts in the study you cited are, for starters, that "protective measures" include, for crimes of violence (I'll number the types of measures for convenience, and copy only the total figures for all offences):


Table 70. Personal crimes of violence, 2008:
Percent distribution of self-protective measures employed by victims, by type of measure and type of crime
<total of rape/sexual assault, robbery and assault offences considered: 2,609,160>
Total number of self-protective measures
1. Attacked offender with weapon 1.3%
2. Attacked offender without weapon 7.7%
3. Threatened offender with weapon 0.6%
4. Threatened offender without weapon 1.0%
5. Resisted or captured offender 22.3%
6. Scared or warned offender 11.2%
7. Persuaded or appeased offender 12.7%
8. Ran away or hid 16.2%
9. Got help or gave alarm 14.4%
10. Screamed from pain or fear 3.0%
11. Took other measures 9.6%


Personally, in one incident, I used 4, 10, 2, 5, 7 and 8, in that order.

Attacked offender with weapon and threatened offender with weapon, together, accounted for less than 2% of the total self-protective measures identified in this study.

So when you say "protective measures (brandishing a gun, shooting back, etc.)", you aren't exactly portraying reality quite candidly, are you?

Did nobody in that other thread of yours actually read the report?

[mikeb302000]

34. wrong.

you know what's the biggest problem with DGU counts? It's the ones counted as defensive and legit which were really unnecessary and criminal.

Many of those unreported brandishings that you mentioned which scared away criminals were actually unnecessary. They themselves were crimes.

Same with the reported ones and the ones which result in a dead bad guy. What do you think an otherwise lawful gun owner is going to do, admit he might have fired prematurely, or that it's possible there really was no lethal threat? Of course not. That's why your counts of DGUs, whether you use the absurd 2.5 million figure or one of the more reasonable estimates, are all way off.

[rl6214]

43. You gonna cite where you get your info from/

"Many of those unreported brandishings that you mentioned which scared away criminals were actually unnecessary."

or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. Cite, please- or are you another one of the self-referential "experts" we are beset with?

"Experts" on US law- who have never filed a brief here.
"Experts" on guns- who are sometimes hilariously inaccurate about details. "Dumbed out" bullets, anyone?
"Experts" on criminology- who have never studied it.

You lot are the Washington Generals of gun control advocacy....

[ileus]

3. I switched from my 45 back to my M&P 9mm yesterday.

I had 5 FTF's (feed) with two different mags and two different types of ammo with my PT145 two days ago. So I cleaned it and put her in the safe.

My M&P has never failed me....so for now I'll be toting the 9 again. I own 3 9's so that's not so bad, I just enjoy shooting and carryig the 45 so much better.

I'll have to sell the Taurus and pick up something I like soon. I don't keep a gun that won't work, and this gun has been a disappointment since the first day.

[Hoyt]

8. I'm sure that was a tough decision for you, putting an old friend down like that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. Some are quite particular as to caliber

Its one of the things you learn about when you take the time to learn about firearms. You should try it some time since it would eliminate much of the errors in your posts.

[beevul]

12. I'm semi familiar with that particular sidearm.

IF you take a dremel tool and a small buffing pad, and carefully polish the feed ramp, your FTF could be reduced or maybe eliminated.

It also doesnt hurt to look at what ammunition others are using in that model.

Its possible that is a finicky model, and that the feed ramp was not well finished.

I'm not a shooter of the 45, but I do know for sure that rough or badly machined feedramps will cause FTF, so its at least worth looking at.

Also theres a company making standard hollow points that have a plastic capthat make the rounds feed like standard round nose rounds.


You might look into that also.

[ileus]

30. I've read alot about this problem at taurus armed forums...

I gave up trying to get HP's to feed after the thrid brand, I don't mind having to shoot FMJ's.


First I tried to modify the spring in one of my 10 round mags, that failed pretty bad. Didn't help, may have hurt the mag some.

Then I picked up a 24/7 12 round magazine because there were reports of the 24/7's functioning better, that didn't help, but then again I've only tried one brand of FMJ's with this. (no HPs)

My other factory 10 mag I've left alone, sometimes it seems to feed FMJ's fine sometimes not. The problem is when the slide goes to push the next round into the barrel it instead noses down and into the front of the magazine. Pull the slide back a little and it'll pop up, and then manually feed fine. It doesn't even get a chance to come in contact with the near verticle feed ramp. LOL

Loading the mags to 7 rounds or 6 or 5 give mixed results. Sometimes they'll feed fine, next mag fail.

I used to think using FMJ's was the answer but not so anymore....I love this little compact pistol, I can shoot it 2x better than my M&P but I don't want a single shot SD pistol. LOL

I may try another new mag, according to the "experts" there's 3 or 4 generations of magazines for this pistol.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jmg257]

4. You are using the words "extremely" & "rarely" in ways that show you may not know what they mean.

Maybe you can be a little more specific for us?

In the mean time, let the people worry about whether the lawful decision of keeping and bearing guns for their own defense is worth it...to them. Opinions are easy to form, and just about everyone has one, but you are no one to try to deny them that choice.

If a person does make that choice, their only real immediate 'agenda' should be to go forward seriously and responsibly, and as effectively as possible. No one is guaranteeing its foolproof, but there is nothing insensible about taking that precaution.

Also makes sense that once they decide how valuable taking the precaution is, protecting that choice will also be worth it.

[Taitertots]

5. Support your assertions with factual data...

We are waiting...

[geckosfeet]

6. Don't agree with your conclusion, nor a large part of your premise.

No one is out to convince anyone to protect themselves. This is a very personal choice. But, if you do decide to carry a loaded firearm, you are responsible for getting training and learning how to use it.

You as an individual living in an environment (environment taken in the most general sense possible) must have a situational awareness in and of that environment. To blindly walk into walls, busy traffic or the arms of a potential attacker is something within your control.

That said there are limits to what individual can or choose to do in terms of situational awareness. Stay out of crime ridden areas if you have the choice? Most of us can manage this. Keep a 360 degree 20 foot clear zone at all times? Probably not do-able for most people engaged in life's daily activities.

'only that day dawns, to which we are awake'
Henry David Thoreau

[rrneck]

10. What do you suggest in the way of

"sensible precautions" for "sudden random violence"?

[rrneck]

11. dupe