"guns stop crime X million times per year"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Identify a single State in which the display of a firearm as a threat or for the purposes of intimidation could not be subject to prosecution. Support your claim with citation to applicable legal authority.

I said not every state has a "brandishing" law. They do not.

BTW: I hoped you would know better than to request that somebody prove a negative.

As you posit the hypothetical, you purposely and purposefully displayed the gun to intimidate someone of whom you were suspicious. Especially if you would later report it as a defense gun use on a survey, yes, it should be reported. Perhaps not everyone would.

My experience says the vast majority of incidents like this go unreported. That is the point, as it relates to the discussion.

However, in your hypothetical, the purposeful display of your gun might well not have been justified. You might well have been chargeable with brandishing or assault.


lol

Support our claim with a cite where this has happened.

Edit: + I gotta say, I just went back and looked at your listed location after making this post. I hadn't looked or noticed before, as usual, but I was betting $ it would be Cali after reading your posts.
 
Warp said:
I said not every state has a "brandishing" law. They do not.

BTW: I hoped you would know better than to request that somebody prove a negative....
Whether or not in a particular State the crime is called "brandishing" is irrelevant. In every State the display of a firearm to threaten or intimidate would be subject to criminal prosecution. It might be called brandishing. It might be prosecuted as some form of assault. And justification would be a defense.

As for proving a negative, if you make the claim, you will need to support it.

Warp said:
My experience says the vast majority of incidents like this go unreported. That is the point, as it relates to the discussion.
Yes, they do go unreported. Of course that begs the question of whether they should have been reported. It also tends to cast some doubt on whether they should be counted as defensive gun uses.

Warp said:
Frank Ettin said:
However, in your hypothetical, the purposeful display of your gun might well not have been justified. You might well have been chargeable with brandishing or assault.
Support our claim with a cite where this has happened.
I'm not going to searching for a case. I'm stating it as a matter of professional opinion based on general legal principles.

For example, under Arizona law displaying a threat of physical force (which would include a display of a firearm in a threatening or intimidating manner) would only be justified, "...to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force...."(ARS 13-404A). Your "sketch looking folks" probably wouldn't qualify.

Furthermore, see ARS 13-421 (emphasis added):
13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm; definition

A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

B. This section does not apply to a person who:

1. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force.

2. Uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03.

C. This section does not require the defensive display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the threat of physical force by a person who is otherwise justified in the use or threatened use of physical force.

D. For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:

1. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.

2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

3. Placing the person's hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.
 
As for proving a negative, if you make the claim, you will need to support it.


I'm not going to searching for a case.

I see.



But as for the hypothetical you proposed using Arizona law (why Arizona??), I suppose the question is whether or not a holstered pistol being visible on your belt would be considered a "defensive display of a firearm by a person against another". That makes me wonder...how is a holstered pistol legally carried on your belt, which you do not touch, with no threatening acts or motions and no words...going to be considered a "defensive display of a firearm by a person against another" that gets you arrested?

I propose that it would not get you arrested, much less charged or convicted. If you have a case otherwise, I would be very interested in seeing it.
 
Going back to the original subject: Kleck's work was first made known in an article in the Tallahassee Democrat. His conclusions were based on the largest telephone survey ever made at that time. Thousands, by ZIP code.

The numbers ranged from a minimum of 600,000 times per year, with an upper possibility of as many as some two million.

"Use of a firearm" included a false claim to have a gun, as well as any sort of display. Actual shooting was not necessary for inclusion in "Use".

I vaguely recall--but don't quote me--that at the time of his survey, crimes with firearms which were reported (annually) were less than his minimum number.

At the time of the survey, Kleck admittedly was a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" and was fairly scornful of both sides of the gun-control argument.
 
I vaguely recall--but don't quote me--that at the time of his survey, crimes with firearms which were reported (annually) were less than his minimum number.

Which is very worthwhile information.

Now, if only we could get a handle on the unreported incidents on BOTH sides.

Pipe dream, I know. :(
 
Just to use an easily retrievable source, Google Books has some of Fundamentals of Criminal Justice: A Sociological View
By Steven E. Barkan, George J. Bryjak on line. P 38 of that book is a discussion of why it is that the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reports more crime in several categories than does the aggregation of police reports in the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR):
Why do victims not report the crimes committed against them? The reasons vary by the type of victimization, but approximately

19% of violent crime victims say they did not report their crime because it was a "private or personal matter";

20% say the offender was unsuccessful;

14% say they reported the crime to "another official";

7% say the crime was not important enough to report;

6% believed the police would not want to be bothered;

4% were afraid of reprisal by the offender;and

4% felt it would be too time consuming to report the crime (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2008a).

I think this satisfactorily addresses the 'why did people not report crimes to the police' or report the defensive gun uses people thought were appropriate responses to situations they experienced. There are a few more suggested reasons, not mentioned there; for example suppose the victim was a convicted felon or on probation/parole - reporting their DGU could send them back to jail. Suppose a respondent with such an experience lived in Washington DC three or more years ago - DC attempted to prevent use of firearms in the city, and had crimes associated with such use.

Lying respondents can be a problem. Kleck/Gertz tried to control for that. For it to actually be a problem, one would have to believe that the lying was unbalanced, that is, significantly favors either 'false positives' or 'false negatives'. This is much of the approach of the anti-gun critics of Kleck, who emphasize the 'false positive' problem, while ignoring the 'false negative' problem.

Neither research followups nor theoretical treatments reveal there there actually is such a problem, or why one should argue for a preponderance of 'false positives'.

All decent researchers understand there is such a problem, and all attempt to control for it. If you want to complain that respondents lied, I want you to identify which ones and how you know.
 
Warp said:
...why Arizona??...
I had the cite to the law readily available; Arizona is a gun friendly State; and the rule is fairly typical.

Warp said:
...I suppose the question is whether or not a holstered pistol being visible on your belt would be considered a "defensive display of a firearm by a person against another"...
No, it should not. But purposefully and intentionally exposing a concealed gun to someone you're afraid of in order to convince him to keep his distance, could be. In other words if you,
Warp said:
...are pumping gas and a couple of sketchy looking folks are scoping you out, so you allow the wind to move your jacket just enough that your holstered pistol is visible, and this seems to make those folks stay where they are...
And since it's questionable that a reasonable person would translate "a sketch person scoping you out" to grounds for a belief that (ARS 13-421):
...physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force...
such a display for such purpose might well not be protected under the very favorable to the gun owners Arizona statute.
 
I had the cite to the law readily available; Arizona is a gun friendly State; and the rule is fairly typical.

No, it should not. But purposefully and intentionally exposing a concealed gun to someone you're afraid of in order to convince him to keep his distance, could be. In other words if you,
And since it's questionable that a reasonable person would translate "a sketch person scoping you out" to grounds for a belief that (ARS 13-421):
such a display for such purpose might well not be protected under the very favorable to the gun owners Arizona statute.

Has it ever happened? Arrest? Charge? Conviction? Ever?

Because I have never heard of it nor can I picture it. Then again I don't spend time in California or New Jersey...maybe somewhere like that it has happened. Or maybe not?
 
so you allow the wind to move your jacket
Allow the wind? Meaining, if they do 911/MWAG you, you'll just "explain": "Oh, I didn't even notice, tra-la! Must've been the wind, the wind, that naughty, naughty wind. See, you can't arrest me! Tra-la!"?
Has it ever happened? Arrest? Charge? Conviction? Ever?
Translated: can you prove that, if I do intentionally break this law, there will actually be consequences?

I get annoyed at "So, legally, can I shoot him now?" discussions. However, this type of maintain-plausible-deniability, "So, how far can I break this law that I disagree with before I actually get arrested and/or convicted for it?" discussions are far worse.

JMHO.
 
The pro-gun statistics make about as much sense as anti-gun stats. The whole issue is so politicised, it's impossible to find an unbiased study. Heck, I bet it's probably close to impossible to collect an unbiased set of raw data even if someone does try to run an objective and open minded study.

When it comes to issues like these I use my common sense, life experience, and moral values to figure where I stand. The statistics are too easily manipulated.
 
Translated: can you prove that, if I do intentionally break this law, there will actually be consequences?

I don't think it would be breaking the law, and I don't think many others would think it was either.

I know this scenario has played out many times, and I have never heard of any legal problems. Apparently, neither have you. Why is that?
 
I know this scenario has played out many times
Excellent. Then you have a database, and can tell us about such events--perhaps, for example, how the police do treat any resulting 911/MWAG call. My database for events (where, just as one is feeling threatened, the wind pciks up and accidently exposes one's firearm enough for the threateners to be sure what it is and to bug out) is unfortunately zero.
I have never heard of any legal problems.
So you "know" of some "scenarios," but you haven't "heard" of any legal problems? That is the evidence by which you say "I don't think it would be breaking the law"?

Well, it is one approach. Might not be enough to go on for some of us to declare it perfectly legal.
 
Last edited:
Warp said:
I don't think it would be breaking the law...
You don't think it would be breaking the law to intentionally display your gun, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not believe doing so to be necessary to prevent an attempted use of unlawful force, in a manner which a reasonable person might find threatening or for the purposes of intimidating another by establishing your ability to deliver lethal force against him?

Good luck.

More to the point of this thread, it would be difficult to consider a display of a gun under such circumstances, i. e., when not defending against a reasonably perceived threat, to be a defensive gun use.
 
Excellent. Then you have a database, and can tell us about such events--perhaps, for example, how the police do treat any resulting 911/MWAG call. My database for events (where, just as one is feeling threatened, the wind pciks up and accidently exposes one's firearm enough for the threateners to be sure what it is and to bug out) is unfortunately zero.So you "know" of some "scenarios," but you haven't "heard" of any legal problems? That is the evidence by which you say "I don't think it would be breaking the law"?

Well, it is one approach. Might not be enough to go on for some of us to declare it perfectly legal.

If you have anything other than your supposition to counter with, now is the time.

I'm not declaring it perfectly legal, I am offering my opinion and telling you what I am basing it on, and that happens to include that I have never yet heard of any legal trouble for anything like it.
 
Last edited:
More to the point of this thread, it would be difficult to consider a display of a gun under such circumstances, i. e., when not defending against a reasonably perceived threat, to be a defensive gun use.


Is there a possibility that it prevented a crime?

The title isn't asking for defensive gun uses, it is asking about guns stopping crime.
 
Last edited:
I'm not declaring it perfectly legal
Yes, I know. You're not saying it is legal, and you're not saying it isn't. You're sort of, kind of calling anyone who decides not to, because they think it's illegal, a wimp because you think they probably won't get in trouble. You say you "know" of instances, yet you present nothing--and chastise others for doing the same.

Fine. I get the game. It is the exact same attitude as you showed before: you didn't expose your gun, the wind did it; you didn't say it was legal to expose the gun, you just pointed out that I didn't "prove" that anything bad would happen if you "let the wind" expose it.

I'm surprised you left out the "nah, nah, nahnah, nah"s! :neener:

Another thing you didn't say: that you will bear zero of the financial (and other) burdens if anyone decides to try your little trick, and incurs legal fees, bail...or worse. Nope: you just think they should go for it, and if it doesn't go well, oh too bad--it was just your opinion.
 
Last edited:
That was some post. All kinds of personal sleights and condescension to top it all off.

Now I am sure you are trolling for a silly argument.

Sorry to disappoint. This will be my last post on the topic within this particular thread. If you really want your argument, start another thread and link it here. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top