They never show DGUs where the criminal was just wounded or sent running away.

I would also like to see data on crimes attempted vs. completed comparing and contrasting whether or not the victim was armed or unarmed.

It would also be interesting to know how many crimes were attempted against an armed victim because the fact that the number of justifiable homicides is barely over 200 seems to suggest that even though they are armed gun owners are not simply out to kill at the first given opportunity -- as has been often suggested.

Gun owners and those with CCWs are apparently (according to the controllers) 'not bloodthirsty enough'.

The anti-rights folks are really clinging to this idea -- that because deaths from defensive gun uses are low, then defensive gun uses are low. Of course, it overlooks the fact that most defensive gun uses don't end in fatality. No matter how many times it's debunked (including by that CDC study that is ignored because they also cling to the idea that the CDC is banned from doing such studies), they keep trotting it out.

I guess they really do believe that repetition will make it become true. It doesn't actually work that way, but I guess when you don't have an argument supported by facts and reason, this is the sort of thing you're left with...

An overt accusation of being a mass killer?

Yup, very classy.

In fact, it was a more substantive response than your childish personal attack really deserved.

But, I guess since you can't mount an actual argument, juvenile taunts are the best you can come up with. I mean, it's pretty embarrassing for you, but if you're good with it, who am I to argue...?

Cheers.

In spite of the fact that in a defensive use, you hopefully (and usually) don't have to shoot at all, and if you do, you are shooting *only* to stop, not to kill. The *only* objective is to stop the ongoing lethal attack.

My own father had a save with a lawfully carried gun in the Croatan National Forest when I was a child. No shots fired; his assailants looked at the gun, backed off, and left. I've had coworkers who had "deterrent" uses, and one supervisor who was present when a homeowner shot a home invader, who I believe survived. By your metric, none of that constitutes "defensive use".

What your chart does suggest is that you should be focusing on getting guns out of the hands of *criminals*, not on oppressing the civil liberties of the lawful and responsible.

There was that one anti-gunner that suggested breaking the arms of a black man...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=159688


So it dovetails.

It fails to account for the hundreds of thousands of times that the magical aura of a gun in someone's possession prevented violence by means science can't understand.

How about a red dot appearing on somebody's chest? Or staring down the muzzle of a handgun?


Yeah, I think that's something science can understand.

You just don't have enough hunters to buy all those guns. You need some make believe thingy like self defense to get fools to buy more guns and amo and bigger guns and more ammo. The next thing you know they are going to want us all to have 50 cal. weapons on our roof tops and tanks on our front lawns.

The gun corporations and weapons manufacturers are making big money off these myths.

Beyond the collectors (both historic and serious users), I think many, many thousands don't mind being filmed standing in blocks' long lines at gun shows, and coming out with hand trucks, carrying cases of ammo. It's a statement, you know, directed at the controllers.

Don't make this so difficult. There is a deep and widespread activism among those who defend the Second, and a deepening bitterness toward those who would cavalierly deny rights, stereotype people by the millions, and pump bad gas as is contained in the OP. The only real question is how long progressives and the Democratic Party want to play footsy with the political equivalent of a rabid skunk. Hell, some of the people who fund and "organize" the controller/banners are Republican. Talk about a win-win.

A good watchdog or two would have been a great deal more useful than a gun or two.

I'm honestly not sure who "those people" refers to, crime victims murdered, criminals attempting to commit a crime but justifiably killed or something else.

lawfully killed someone in self-defense.

Are you claiming those who were unlawfully murdered were all murdered in their sleep? Sorry to be a pest by I'm genuinely confused.

in their sleep had guns, they would still be alive.

“If you are fearful, arm yourself.”

That was Pike County Sheriff Charles Reader’s advice to Ohio residents in the wake of a series of “execution”-style killings that left eight members of a family dead at four different homes in Southern Ohio last week.

But that's just me.

this conversation has left the rails!

Only about 22 times a day is a gun misused. In a country of 315 million people and some 275 million guns.



See what happens when you only count homicides?

Didn't George Zimmerman ultimately qualify for a DGU for shooting Trayvon Martin? If not why not? who should I check with? Kleck? Lott? which gun guru for hire?
Is that the kind of DGU's which mix in with the more bona fides?
And how about this most recent killing of football player will smith; there's surely to be a struggle for his killer to get a DGU for shooting him several times in the back, eh?:

Police say former New Orleans Saints star Will Smith had a loaded gun inside his vehicle on the night he was shot. New Orleans police said they found a 9 mm handgun in Smith's vehicle.
They also said they found a loaded revolver inside the vehicle of the man accused of shooting Smith, Cardell Hayes. But police said there was no evidence to suggest either of those weapons was fired during the shooting. Police say Hayes shot Smith with a different handgun..

An unnamed man who says he witnessed the argument, giving his version of events. 'I guess this guy {will smith} was like, "Get out of here or I have a gun,'' and he {killer} goes, "F*** y'all, I've got one too." And he grabs the gun and then he shoots him the back – dead.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3535833/Dramatic-video-shows-moment-football-player-Smith-rear-ended-car-drove-hit-run-just-moments-shot-dead.html#ixzz46wzIVBOL

Will Smith was fatally shot in the back in what police called a deadly act of road rage. .. defense attorney for Hayes, says there's more to the story. He says Hayes himself had been rear-ended moments earlier by a hit-and-run driver, and called 911 to describe the car he was following before he ran into Smith's Mercedes.

So the defense plan is pretty plain to see: Killer justifiably shot will smith since smith said he had a gun in his car, corroborated by witness, and as smith was going back to his car ostensibly to get his gun, Killer shot him in the back in a preemptive strike to prevent Smith from returning back & shooting back at him as he threatened.
I wonder how many of those 'legitimate' dgus, are like this? ergo, not so legitimate.

For your temerity we will be subjected to even more verbiage, little to none of which
will have any bearing upon the question you asked.

But you know that

I may be for 6 seconds in your entire life.


But for me....my life is worth the hassle of carrying.