I need some help with an argument with an anti....

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dorian

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
547
I said:

For every one crime commited by a person using a gun, 43 are prevented by a person using a gun.

I've seen that statistic floating around a lot, but have no link or anything else to back it up.

The person I'm talking too said:

That's a BS statistic, since you can't prove a non-entity. You can't document a crime that was not committed, only one that was not successful.






So someone tell me. is thw 1:43 ratio reported crimes, or estimations?
 
You can't document a crime that was not committed, only one that was not successful.
Click to expand...

Crimes that aren't committed aren't crimes. Pigs that don't fly don't have wings and feathers.

The ratio of criminal versus defensive uses of firearms is based on estimates, since the vast majority of thwarted crimes aren't reported to the police, still less investigated, still less included in monthly, quarterly, and annual summaries. I'm sure the estimates will be squabbled over from now until the year pigs take up flying.

Personally, I doubt the numbers make a great deal of difference: the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with practicality and everything to do with the Bill of Rights. So much the better that defensive firearms use is far more frequent than criminal, but practical considerations, in my view, are icing on the cake.
 
IMO we'll never know the true numbers.

If someone couldn't get a get a CCW to save their life, and if they did happen to carry, and it saved their life, they sure as heck wouldn't report it.
 
The real numbers will be better known in the years ahead as methodology and recording of statistics between agencies improves. But I don't think that RKBA depends on the numbers of defensive guns uses versus the number of crimes committed. What matters is where we place responsibility. Law abiding people should not be stripped of their freedom and heritage because of the actions of criminals. That's where you should argue from.
 
Contact www.jpfo.org . One of their Sentinal issues has a great expose' on the thang.

I have written two. One on "A gun in the home is 43x" and the other one "A gun in the home is 2.7x).

Both "studies" by ER doc Arthur Kellerman and his buddy Dr. Reay of King County, Seatle are little more than advocacy research, not scholarly research.

For instance. the 43 to 1 refers to 40-something suicides. The 2.7 to 1 are comparing the behavior of criminals and drunks with you and me. Ya see, it is a case-control study. Great for doing studies of disease, lousy for doing studies of behavior because you have to make sure that the cases are similar to the controls. Where the controls also criminals or not? Where they armed or not?

The category "Living alone in an apartment" had a higher odds ratio for being murdered than did having a gun. Also, the study never states whether the "gun in the home" was the gun that was involved in the murder, just that there was a gun there. Also, one of the "perpetrators" was a police officer. And on and on.

E-mail me at [email protected] and I will send you a copy. It is much too long to post here.

Rick
 
One of my leading questions to anti's is ........ ''So, how do you propose getting rid of guns belonging to armed criminals then''? .......... I have yet to receive an answer that is anything like coherent or sensible.:rolleyes:
 
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology published a study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz that analyzed the "PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF SELF-DEFENSE WITH A GUN", using the results of 13 surveys of various kinds that included this question as part of their subject material. Essentially, Kleck and Gertz concluded that as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they almost certainly saved a life by doing so - a figure that outstrips even the most pessimistic claims of gun-related accidents by several orders of magnitude. Also, note that those figures don't include the number of times that the mere thought that someone might pull out a gun has deterred a crime.

You can read the study here.
 
The point of 2A is.......

The anti-liberty crowd loves to get folks to wallowing around in irrelevant statistics. If they can "prove" that the statistics are wrong, they have "proved" that the 2A is wrong, dangerous, useless, etc.

In trying to verify 1:43 or any other numbers, you are taken away from the main point of 2A. More importantly, if somebody is listening to this argument who doesn't know what is going on, that someone can be led to believe that 2A is bad. Again, the goal of the anti-liberty establishment.

The 2A did not say "..in order to hunt, shoot paper targets and clay pidgeons and protect the home and the person, the right to keep and bear arms..." The 2A was inserted expressly to give citizens the means of defending themselves against predatory government and to enable them to put that government back on track lest it wander off.

The 2A not only gives us the right to do these things, it really gives us the responsibility and the duty to keep government honest and out of your face. I think that one of the major thrusts of these many threads on many sites involves the question: How do we do our 2A assigned task now that so many before us have shirked their responsibility?

If the very first "gun-grabber" had immediately become worm food, a lot of the present mess wouldn't exist. If the first fire hydrant that a dog ever squirted on, slammed that dog in the slats, dogs wouldn't do that three legged thing on fire hydrants today.

But who, where and when was the first gun-grabber? That can't be documented probably. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is an old quote that I finally have figured out the meaning of. Everyone at the time of the first gun grab probably believed that the action was good. The people involved had good intentions.

The 2A controversy does serve one good purpose. It identifies immediately who is pro- and who is anti-liberty. Anti-liberty people are also anti-American. Say that to your local gun-grabber to get him to reving his engine. But it's true. The BofR is the minimum document describing and defining liberty. Anyone opposing any provision of that document is anti-liberty and therefore anti-American no matter how many flags they wave. They are a menace to America and to liberty.

ravinraven
 
What we DO know for sure is that about .5 percent of all guns are used in crimes. Sorry, I don't know the source, but I know it's a solid stat (the Gun Owner's of America site might have that stat).

So, .5 percent of guns are used illegally, this means that I shouldn't be able to defend myself or my family from criminal scum?

:barf:
 
One of the ironic things about living in a "shall issue" state is that the antis benefit from the ability of others to CCW, to some degree. Exactly what that degree is, would be impossible to prove. How many crimes were "not commited" because the criminal thought the intended victim might be CCW? How many antis were not assaulted or robbed because the criminal thought "That suit coat or untucked shirt might be concealing a firearm"? The number will never be documented.
 
No offense, but I think he's right. It sounds like you may have mixed up the "43 times more likely" story about getting killed by the guns in your own house (which is BS) with the DGU statistics. If Lott, Mustard, Kleck et al are correct, it's probably more like 10-20 times. Still impressive, but you'd have to check the stats to see what they say and even then, you know what they say about statistics. . . .
 
Try this, it may help.

During one of your debates, unexpectedly, and gently, wrap your fingers around this person's throat, then ask him/her how long it usually takes for the cops to respond to a call.
 
...I have quit arguing with statistics, and such. It is often a waste of breath.

I just remind them of all the various predators that are out there, and suggest that they have obviously decided to be PREY. I say that this is OK, since it is, afterall, one of the only remaining tools of "natural selection" that we have left in our modern society.

It doesn't convince them, but it shuts them up for a while:evil:
 
The anti-liberty crowd loves to get folks to wallowing around in irrelevant statistics. If they can "prove" that the statistics are wrong, they have "proved" that the 2A is wrong, dangerous, useless, etc.
Click to expand...

True. BUT! It's not irrelevant to the battle to preserve our freedom. IF we let them befuddle us with statistics and "studies", that's good for them.

But if we can show them that their "studies" are BOGUS, we may get them to open their minds.

Truth is never irrelevant. It's always good for our side. Learn the facts. Use them. Don't expect to "win" every argument. In fact, don't argue.


Teach.


It doesn't convince them, but it shuts them up for a while
Click to expand...


That might make you feel good, but it doesn't help the cause of liberty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
NEED SOME QUICK HELP
Replies
4
Views
329
PistolPackin'Papa
P
D
  • Locked
(DE) Anti-gun message to expand
Replies
2
Views
2K
El Tejon
E
G
  • Locked
Need anti-gun control articles
Replies
10
Views
537
Ironbarr
I
Z
  • Locked
I need some links to use against an anti
Replies
3
Views
283
ZeroX
Z
T
  • Locked
Letter to My Congressmen re HR 1022, I need statistics
Replies
4
Views
394
Owen
O
Back
Top