The predatory criminal and gang member did not die on the spot from bullets fired by the victim. The criminal died later at the hospital where his death could have been from any of a number of causes.

You need a gun to defend yourself from someone with a gun.

Guess we are lucky he didn't shoot any innocent bystanders like that asshole uber driver.

So the once in a blue moon situation some how trumps the daily police blotter here in Chicago.

More people die from firearm accidents, firearm suicides, OR firearm (unjustified) homicides (ie each of these 3 categories individually) each year than people are justifiably killed by firearm per year. The same applies to injuries from accidents and assaults (and possibly suicide attempts).

These are mathematical FACTS unless the data is incorrect.

Now you can maybe argue that firearms save lives because the non-shooting defensive gun uses, but that's pretty tenuous. No good studies have be done with those figures. Certainly nothing that would pass muster in a math or science class, because the data from the few studies that have been done is virtually unverifiable, let alone the real test for conclusive data: unfalsifiable.

Days alive: 13,140 (slightly less but close enough)

Days without a CCW or a gun: 13,140 (maybe 13,135, I have shot my grandfather's guns a few times)

Number of negligent discharges: 0

Number of improper uses: 0

Number of times victimized: 0.

That said, these anecdotes are not proof of anything. One has to admit that AS THE FALSIFIABLE DATA STANDS RIGHT NOW guns cause more harm than good (as far as physical injuries). Maybe we need to do some better data and maybe the current data we have is incorrect. But to argue that guns cause more good than harm tantamount to arguing that the Earth doesn't go around the Sun.

Again, maybe with some better data the facts will change and favor guns are more good than harm. And even if it doesn't, you could make an argument that even if guns cause more physical harm than good you could still say they're worth it for other reasons. That's an arguable point. Just don't let your political views cloud your view on facts (IOW, don't be a republican).

help confiscate guns for destruction?

Yes.

schedule. Then deny them entry back into the house. If their car is in the garage, hidden camera.

Body cameras, forced confiscation, clandestine GPS tracking of citizens, using armor to go door to door, and I don't doubt the people doing the dirty work for you will all be suitable armed as well.

Yup, you're a typical gun control fan.

And all along I thought it was the gun owners that were supposed to be so bloodthirsty.

But, since gun control can't seem to get 30 people together for a protest ... hell, they cant even get 5 people on DU to post in their safe haven, or get anyone to support their "deeply held beliefs" and actually join and pay dues to any of the gun control groups.

I'm thinkin' that the odds of any of your gun control/police state fantasies ever even coming close are slim and none.

But you can always rely on a can of beans and a bicycle wheel for self defense.

that pick up the toy and get shot.

That's why you probably pay dues to 2 or 3 gun control organizations right now and attend local gun control meetings, right?

Why I bet you attend regular Town Hall meetings too, so you can speak out on the dangers of guns in the home and protest at zoning meetings for any new firearm related businesses in your area.

Why you probably feel so bad that you're circulating petitions now to repeal concealed carry in your state. Maybe even to repeal that noisome old 2nd amendment!

You're not like the rest of those pathetic, cheap, lazy gun control fans; just sitting there typing angry, anonymous, whiny screeds on a website. Never doing anything in the real world, just keyboard kommandos for gun control. You probably are a real live wire for gun control out there in the real world and inspire others to join you.

Please share a few examples of your real world support for gun control, so the other gun owners will all realize what serious opposition we have in people like you. Up till now all we hear is a lot of whining and ignorant name calling from about 4 or 5 people. But you're different, you "feel bad".

"Scared"? I'm "scared" enough to even have a fire extinguisher in several rooms of my house and in my car, I'm "scared" enough to always wear seatbelts in the car and a helmet when riding my cycle, and I realize the world isn't always the safe place some ignorant blissninnies think it is, so I'm also "scared" enough to carry a concealed weapon where it's legal. And I train others to carry as well.

mocking me for being a keyboard kommando.

Scared"? I'm "scared" enough to even have a fire extinguisher in several rooms of my house and in my car, I'm "scared" enough to always wear seatbelts in the car and a helmet when riding my cycle, and I realize the world isn't always the safe place some ignorant blissninnies think it is, so I'm also "scared" enough to carry a concealed weapon where it's legal. And I train others to carry as well. "

Two things in that post.

First, I was pointing out the common hypocrisy of gun control fans that rant online, but never quite get around to ever doing anything in the real world. They seem to be too cheap to reach for their checkbooks to pay dues, or do much besides hitting "like" on a gun control facebook page and most of them don't even bother to do that, after all 1%er racist Bloomberg is funding gun control at $50 million a year. So they really don't need your $20, right?

Other than 2 or 3 paid Bloomberg employees, the people that keep telling us how much "they care" can't seem to find the time to take time off work or use their vacation days to meet with legislators or show up for the town halls and zoning meetings where the gun owners always show up.

So, how many days of your own time and your own money have you used to show how "bad you feel" abut gun accidents and violence in the past year?

Gun control is the online version of a paper tiger. It's easy and cheap to talk a good game online. You don't even have to get off the couch. But that cheap, lazy and feckless attitude is why gun control has become a rich man's hobby, with no grass roots element.

You see, gun owners actually do things in the real world. We spend our own money on our hobby and supporting the 2nd amendment. We pay dues to different organizations from the ISRA to the NRA to the Pink Pistols. Tomorrow 10,000 Illinois gun owners will take time off work and drive themselves to the state capitol for the 10th year in a row at I-GOLD (Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day). We'll meet in small groups with our legislators and fill the main streets outside the capitol with our march. We'll walk in with their voting record on 2nd amendment issues in our pocket, if not memorized, and also make sure they know that we vote like clockwork and so do our families and friends.

We care about firearm accidents too, except we actually do something about it, that's why we teach people to buy trigger locks and safes and teach people about safe storage and the 4 safety rules. How about an example or two of what the prominent "Gun Safety" groups like Everytown, MDA or Brady actually do for Gun Safety?

Second, I thought the fire extinguisher, seat belts, helmet and firearm examples were fairly simple examples. Obviously a little too complex . They are all pieces of equipment I have available and know how to use for unlikely situations that, without them, might have dire consequences. It's called being prepared, as opposed to being smug.

That's the difference between the "Gun Control Movement" and the pro 2nd people. One's real the other is pretend.

I sign myself up for free issues of gun magazines and throw them in the trash. I never ordered that subscription. Must be a coworker or family member mad at me. Wastes their money and keeps the post office employed. I send back business reply envelopes for NRA related groups full of trash to waste their money too.

or do much besides hitting "like" on a gun control facebook

You see, gun owners actually do things in the real world. We spend our own money on our hobby and supporting the 2nd amendment

We care about firearm accidents too, except we actually do something about it, that's why we teach people to buy trigger locks and safes and teach people about safe storage and the 4 safety rules. How about an example or two of what the prominent "Gun Safety" groups like Everytown, MDA or Brady actually do for Gun Safety?

Obviously a little too complex

They are all pieces of equipment I have available and know how to use for unlikely situations that, without them, might have dire consequences. It's called being prepared, as opposed to being smug.

Please, get a new song. The phony 43 times, 13 times, 9 times, 3 times, or whatever the gun grabbers are claiming this wee, all tracks back to the Kellerman study of over 30 years ago.

Even a cursory Google of the study shows more critiques than support. But I bet, as a typical lazy gun control fan, you didn't even bother to actually look up the source for that phony number. Just take it as reality from a Brady or Everytown press release?

Kellerman, a study that used data from a few crack infested minority neighborhoods in the Northwest, then gun grabbers tried to project it across the country. I thought you were the one that wanted credible studies and even Kellerman said the data he collected was being misused.

"I sign myself up for free issues of gun magazines and throw them in the trash. I never ordered that subscription. Must be a coworker or family member mad at me. Wastes their money and keeps the post office employed. I send back business reply envelopes for NRA related groups full of trash to waste their money too."

Sure you do, and we all believe you do too. Claiming that will make you a hero in the other gun group, facts and reality don't matter there. You'd be happy there and they'd love and believe you. Besides they only have 3 posters now.

"Don't you feel silly knowing that you're far more likely to shoot yourself, either accidentally or on purpose than you are to shoot an assailant? But I know. It will never happen to you."

Yeah, it may or may not happen to me after 50 years of teaching gun safety and shooting competitively. Don't hold your breath though.

But that's our choice not yours. You're the side of this discussion that demands they get to dictate all the rules. We're the side that wants everyone to have a choice. That's the point you guys never seem capable of grasping.

You'd better just stick to the "moral superiority" and "pseudo shaming" act, it suits your persona better.

But that's our choice not yours. You're the side of this discussion that demands they get to dictate all the rules. We're the side that wants everyone to have a choice. That's the point you guys never seem capable of grasping.

One of those classic gun control fans that likes to make them selves feel morally and ethically superior by proposing more gun laws, but won't bother to get off the couch to actually do anything about it.

Looking forward to a wave of examples of people with a CCW permit injuring/killing innocent bystanders.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Defensive gun use is not measured by your peculiar criterium of "justifiably killed by firearm...." alone. Self-defense vià firearm includes:

1). Announcing to the would-be criminal that you have a firearm;

2) Displaying a firearm to the would-be criminal;

3) Firing a warning shot near the would-be criminal;

4). Firing at and wounding the would-be criminal; and last but not least

5). Firing at and killing the would-be criminal.


I am so goad I had the opportunity to correct your persistent misperceptions. Yours for HONEST argument, E38.

defensive NON-GUN use either, like threatening the assailant with other weapons (including personal weapons) or threatening to call the police, etc.

Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 11:39 AM - Edit history (1)

So, how would this have been better if the good guy was unarmed, as you would have them?

Your imaginary "harmless criminal" just would have just taken all their "stuff" and peacefully walked away? (Never mind that the dead guy already had a record of shooting his robbery victims, maybe this time would be different, right?)

Trusting to the tender mercies of a violent criminal with a record doesn't really appeal to anyone but a few self aggrandizing people on the interwebz spewing out free advice.

But thanks for being our designated Gun Control "Fan" for today.

And, like most gun control supporters, keep up the good work ... from the couch. Wednesday of this week we'll have between 8,000 and 10,000+ gun owners in the State Capitol. Marching and meeting with our legislators on Illinois gun laws.

Sooooo ... how many gun control people do you think will be there to counter that? Maybe 20 or 30, that Bloomberg writes checks to like Shannon Watts Inc.?

Oh and that "once in a blue moon situation" runs to 600,000+ every year, according to the CDC, higher for other sources.

ownership / easy access to guns than would if we had no gun ownership / easy access to guns.

This is mathematical fact, until proven otherwise with a good scientific study (none that have been so far meet the criteria) that shows guns were needed to prevent more murders / assaults than murders or assaults or accidents caused by guns.

I'm all for a good study being done on this and letting the chips fall where they may. For now the falsifiable data tells us otherwise though.

Since not all DGUs are reported to the authorities and usually do not involve firing the gun, getting a finite number is impossible.

And I guess you can ignore that CDC study they did in 2013, under President Obama's direction. But we all know he's just another NRA shill anyway.

"CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’" - July, 2013

“Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,” says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

Soooo, my math is a little rusty, but is a low end estimate of 500,000 more or less than the roughly 10,000 murders with guns, a number that continues to fall every year?

Also worth noting, it also kinda gives lie to the gun grabber meme that the CDC is not allowed to do gun related studies, don't it?

But in the end, it's not really about the statistics or piling up stacks of studies funded by Bloomberg, it's about a personal decision to carry for self defense.

was an NRA shill. Their study just isn't scientific so I dismiss it, just like I would dismiss an anti gun group's, an NRA study, whoever...

On the other hand, it is an easy way to dismiss information that doesn't say what you hoped it would.

But cheer up, the Michael Bellesiles "scientific method" of analyzing firearm related numbers still has a lot of followers on DU. Not so much in academia though.

Sorry the CDC isn't good enough to meet your standards for statistical methodology credibility.

Oh, and I never said the CDC was an NRA Shill.

I facetiously said the President was, since anyone who says or does something that even vaguely supports gun ownership, they're dismissed as just another NRA Shill. His personally directed study just wound up delivering the "wrong" kind of information, so it had to be aggressively ignored.

Note that the report received almost no publicity at all, no White House presser, no formal launch and was buried as quickly as possible. It just didn't say what they wanted it to say.

But it really doesn't matter that much anyway since, as noted previously, it's the law of the land and a personal choice for the law abiding, whether the "studies" support it or not.

Still waiting for that promised concealed carry bloodbath we were all guaranteed, as each state passed the laws..

...would behave the same as those not under surveillance?

you are filmed or not, aren't you?

...the data you collect with a sample of CCW volunteer folks will differ from the eventual unmonitored data.

going to get decent volunteers. Also, of course you don't tell them it's for gun monitoring, it's a weight study based on exercise, sitting, and standing habits. :p

It doesn't matter why they're watched. If they know they're being watched at all, they will act differently. The data will not represent or predict the unmonitored behavior of the general public.

NON-JUSTIFIABLE "defensive" uses though, like this guy:

You should also: quit smoking, obey the speed limit, eat your vegetables, wash your socks, brush the dog...

But you've given us this absurdity. Please, do continue. It's a joy watching your credibility founder.

The antigun posse will be along to insult you, any victims (unless they're unarmed) and any pro-rights folks.

Not that gun control supporters are even capable of grasping the concept that self defense and crime are in any way, morally, ethically or legally, different. They seem to exist in a simplistic: "Gunz iz Gunz - except when they are a Penis" world.

But, OTOH, they have proven to be so utterly ineffective, lazy, cheap and politically impotent that ... so why even care what they say anymore?

But glad he was able to protect himself. Getting shot is one of the hazards of being a criminal.

yet died anyway.

Guess that puts to rest the "shoot to wound" fairy tale.

And only 2 injuries (at least reported). I imagine it isn't easy to shoot another person and I suspect there are going to be a number of misses, which is one reason I oppose magazine limits. The magazine for my FNX holds 17 rounds and would not be permitted in a few states (Connecticut and Maryland I believe, maybe California?).