Thread: Diane Sawyer's Sensationalist Crap

Originally Posted by benzss

I don't want to argue this point or anything, but can you tell me what source you're using for those figures? Just for future reference

Gladly. Actually, looking into it, my numbers may have been a bit off when it comes to the number of gun crimes per year. I gave the 140,000 figure based on the fact that the overall US violent crime rate is 1.4 million incidents per year (you should be able to find this figure pretty easily on any number of statistics-reporting websites, but here is where I got it from), while the US government estimates that approximately 10% of all violent crime involves a firearm of some kind (Dept. of Justice's figures here). However, you'll note that the same DOJ page says that firearms are involved in roughly 400,000--not 140,000--"incidents" per year. This is strange... using their own percentage, that would mean that there are over 4 million violent crimes per year in the US, which hasn't been the case in decades. Perhaps they are using the term "incidents" in a way that doesn't mean the same thing as "violent crimes". Well, either number works for our purposes, because either number is much lower than the number of defensive gun uses.

The figure on defensive gun uses per year comes from a study by Gary Kleck, a criminologist at FSU, whose work is generally regarded as being pretty authoritative in this field. It has been challenged numerous times by other academics who dispute his findings, but they've never been able to debunk them. If you want data to support a pro-gun-rights argument, Kleck is really a godsend--he's ideologically unimpeachable too (a liberal Democrat who thought his research would prove that guns did more harm than good, and was surprised by his own results), so the gun-control advocates can't really accuse him of being some shill for the NRA or whatever. I would definitely recommend reading up on his work if you want to debate people about this stuff. Incidentally, it's actually 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, not 2 million--that was a typo in my previous post. There are also a bunch of other studies examining the number of defensive gun uses per year in the US, which got results ranging from 700,000 to above 3 million. Kleck's is generally regarded as the most accurate figure, though. Here is a table listing info on a bunch of other studies examining the same issue if you want to track them down too, though. Here is more info about Kleck if you want to follow up on some of that. Obviously it's not a good idea to try to use info from a website called "Guncite" in a gun control debate--the other side will just accuse you of using biased info from pro-gun groups--but these pages provide citations that you can use to find the same information in other sources that the opposition can't dismiss so easily.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Yes. I am impressed that no one is biting though. It takes the fun out of it

Hah sorry man. I didn't mean to spoil it. I was afraid you were serious.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

What is the ratio of justified defense to unnecessary force defense? Also, how is armed defense data collected?

The data is collected by a variety of methods, depending on the study. Generally, the same way other statistical data is gathered from a population--by questioning/interviewing a randomly chosen sample of sufficiently large size. Sometimes it's done over the phone, sometimes in person, sometimes with written questionnaires.

As for ratio of justified defensive gun use to unjustified use, that's hard to estimate. If you mean the ratio of defensive gun uses to the number of people who are prosecuted for unlawful use of a gun in a self-defense situation, then it's very high (as I mentioned above, millions of defensive gun uses per year), but an argument could of course made that some number of people who unjustifiably defend themselves with a gun (for instance, in a situation when there isn't actually a clear threat to their lives) aren't prosecuted for it. However, it can definitely be said that the number of defensive gun uses is far, far greater than the number of people who unjustifiably kill someone in self-defense. Also, bear in mind that the vast majority of defensive gun uses don't involve any shots fired at all.

Also for the record, the 5.56mm round (which is used by many semiautomatic rifles/carbines that fall into the "assault weapon" category) is pretty close to ideal for home defense usage. With the right ammunition, it's terminal effects (i.e. wounding ability, ability to stop an intruder) are better than any handgun round, yet because of it's ballistic behavior, it's actually LESS likely to penetrate interior walls (thus endangering other people in the house, etc.) than most handgun rounds. While a 9mm hollowpoint will punch through several thicknesses of drywall before stopping, many 5.56mm rounds will break up and basically disintegrate as they passes through the first thickness, and then not penetrate a second thickness.

bro a handgun is "ideal for home defense" BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING GUN. you don't need a rifle over a handgun to defend your home, period. if you're shooting your gun into walls or think you might miss and hit your children, you probably shouldn't have one anyway~

incoming political rant about rights and statistics and shit that i won't read

Originally Posted by faesce

bro a handgun is "ideal for home defense" BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING GUN. you don't need a rifle over a handgun to defend your home, period. if you're shooting your gun into walls or think you might miss and hit your children, you probably shouldn't have one anyway~

incoming political rant about rights and statistics and shit that i won't read

Well, I already explained perfectly clearly why carbines are useful home defense weapons and that obviously went right over your head, so this time I'll skip the rant and just say that you're a moronic kid with no fucking idea what you're talking about. "If you might miss and hit a wall you shouldn't have one anyway"? Jesus that's dumb. What kind of nitwit honestly thinks it's reasonable to expect homeowners defending themselves to score a 100% guaranteed hit rate. SWAT cops don't have a 100% guaranteed hit rate. Delta Force hostage-rescue commandos don't have a 100% guaranteed hit rate. I guess this is what happens when people with no firearms knowledge, experience, or understanding try to form opinions about guns.

tl;dr: Get out of this thread.

Originally Posted by Syme

I'll skip the rant and just say that you're a moronic kid with no fucking idea what you're talking about. "If you might miss and hit a wall you shouldn't have one anyway"? Jesus that's dumb. What kind of nitwit honestly thinks it's reasonable to expect homeowners defending themselves to score a 100% guaranteed hit rate. Delta Force hostage-rescue commandos don't have a 100% guaranteed hit rate. I guess this is what happens when people with no firearms knowledge, experience, or understanding try to form opinions about guns.

tl;dr: Get out of this thread.

i don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect someone confident enough to bring a gun into a home with children to have 100% hit rate. if you shoot and miss your shot you could potentially end your child's life which completely defeats the purpose of having the gun in the first place. even if statistically speaking it will very rarely if ever happen, do you like playing chance with your family?

but then again i'm of the opinion that guns aren't needed to defend homes, rather higher security features and a stronger structured house (doors/windows/locks etc), so naturally my opinion directly contradicts what your opinion is and thus arguing and raging (on your part) will surely ensue!

prevent the invader from gaining entrance, dont react to it imo.

Originally Posted by faesce

i don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect someone confident enough to bring a gun into a home with children to have 100% hit rate. if you shoot and miss your shot you could potentially end your child's life which completely defeats the purpose of having the gun in the first place. even if statistically speaking it will very rarely if ever happen, do you like playing chance with your family?

It is an unreasonable expectation, whether you think so or not. It's just not realistic. I can tell that you definitely wish it was realistic--believe me, so do I--but it's not. No one, no matter how competent, can guarantee that they'll never miss. That's just a pipe dream.

Originally Posted by faesce

but then again i'm of the opinion that guns aren't needed to defend homes, rather higher security features and a stronger structured house (doors/windows/locks etc), so naturally my opinion directly contradicts what your opinion is and thus arguing and raging (on your part) will surely ensue!

prevent the invader from gaining entrance, dont react to it imo.

I agree that these things are all good ideas for defending a home, and will prevent more burglaries than a gun in the home ever will. So no your opinion doesn't contradict mine. I'd add that a home-security alarm system, those exterior lights that turn on when they sense motion, and (if practical) a dog with a nice, loud bark are all good security features to have on your house as well, and all are more likely to stop an intruder than a gun is. No-one is denying that the gun is a last resort.

Prevent the intruder from gaining access but be prepared to react if one does get in and is posing a threat that justifies lethal force. It's not an either/or question. I try not to start fires in my kitchen while cooking, but I do have a fire extinguisher in the house anyway, just in case a fire does start. The fire extinguisher isn't a substitute for safe behavior, and the safe behavior doesn't guarantee that the fire extinguisher will never be needed.

Originally Posted by Syme

It is an unreasonable expectation, whether you think so or not. It's just not realistic. I can tell that you definitely wish it was realistic--believe me, so do I--but it's not. No one, no matter how competent, can guarantee that they'll never miss. That's just a pipe dream.

i know it's unrealistic, but by me saying what i said in my last post i'm trying to illustrate a certain level of recklessness involved in using guns in general, especially in the home, that people ignore. i dont hate guns and i think they're great and dandy, i hate the gun user who turns a blind eye to what firearms are capable of tbh

Originally Posted by Syme

Prevent the intruder from gaining access but be prepared to react if one does get in and is posing a threat that justifies lethal force. It's not an either/or question. I try not to start fires in my kitchen while cooking, but I do have a fire extinguisher in the house anyway, just in case a fire does start. The fire extinguisher isn't a substitute for safe behavior, and the safe behavior doesn't guarantee that the fire extinguisher will never be needed.

the fire extinguisher can't kill your family by some freak accident though, which is my entire point

Originally Posted by faesce

i know it's unrealistic, but by me saying what i said in my last post i'm trying to illustrate a certain level of recklessness involved in using guns in general, especially in the home, that people ignore. i dont hate guns and i think they're great and dandy, i'm more focusing on the gun user when saying what i'm saying

Well, I mean, I agree with you that people shouldn't be reckless or cavalier about gun use in any setting, including in the home. That doesn't really have anything to do with your original point that pistols are the only acceptable home defense weapon, and carbines are only useful for Tony Montana. Again, using a carbine for home defense makes stray shots LESS likely. Using a 5.56mm carbine for home defense makes stray shots less likely, and also makes it less likely that any stray shots that do occur will penetrate very far through interior walls. But the 5.56mm carbine is "an assault weapon" (a term you still haven't defined) so you say that no-one has any possible reason to use it. I'm saying that the fact of the matter is that, contrary to your original claims ITT, so-called "assault weapons" do have legitimate uses like any other gun--they are not just murder machines.

Originally Posted by faesce

the fire extinguisher can't kill your family by some freak accident though, which is my entire point

Yeah, but that doesn't have anything to do with the point of the analogy, which was that it's good to try to prevent bad things from happening, but it's also good to be able to react to them if they do happen despite your best efforts. It's not an either/or situation. You don't have to choose between prevention OR reaction. You can have both.

Originally Posted by Syme

Well, I mean, I agree with you that people shouldn't be reckless or cavalier about gun use in any setting, including in the home. That doesn't really have anything to do with your original point that pistols are the only acceptable home defense weapon, and carbines are only useful for Tony Montana. Again, using a carbine for home defense makes stray shots LESS likely. Using a 5.56mm carbine for home defense makes stray shots less likely, and also makes it less likely that any stray shots that do occur will penetrate very far through interior walls. But the 5.56mm carbine is "an assault weapon" (a term you still haven't defined) so you say that no-one has any possible reason to use it.

an assault weapon i define as a weapon with tactical intent when forming my opinions

and yea my original point was based on the definition above, however i suppose i can surrender that it makes more sense to use a weapon deemed as an "assault rifle" (in any sense) than a handgun if it has less chance to potentially put someone in danger. lines should be drawn at logical points rather than just categories of guns

Originally Posted by Syme

Yeah, but that doesn't have anything to do with the point of the analogy, which was that it's good to try to prevent bad things from happening, but it's also good to be able to react to them if they do happen despite your best efforts. It's not an either/or situation.

yes, this is something that anybody could agree with. if you had two ways of avoiding a situation, you'd take both of them. that analogy is great, however it doesn't fit with home security solely due to the fact that with one of the options there is a very small chance you could potentially hurt or kill a family member, which isn't something most people could justify if they thought about it.

countering that point with "well if you don't have a gun, your ENTIRE family could be killed!" doesn't make any sense if you think about it, because you're basically trading one astronomically low chance catastrophe for another when you should focus resources on preventing BOTH from happening

Originally Posted by faesce

an assault weapon i define as a weapon with tactical intent

and yea my original point was based on the definition above, however i suppose i can surrender that it makes more sense to use a weapon deemed as an "assault rifle" (in any sense) than a handgun if it has less chance to potentially put someone in danger. lines should be drawn at logical points rather than just categories of guns

That is a reasonable viewpoint. But it's worth pointing out that this gun and this gun were designed with "tactical intent", while this gun and this gun weren't designed with any "tactical intent". So I really don't think that the "tactical intent" definition works for assault weapons. All that means is that a weapon was designed for military or police use, and again: There are plenty of weapons that were designed for military/police use and aren't "assault weapons" by any stretch of the imagination, and there are also weapons that clearly fall into the "assault weapon" category but weren't designed for "tactical" (military/police) use.

Originally Posted by faesce

yes, this is something that anybody could agree with. if you had two ways of avoiding a situation, you'd take both of them. that analogy is great, however it doesn't fit with home security solely due to the fact that there is a very small chance you could potentially hurt or kill a family member, which isn't something most people could justify if they thought about it.

countering that point with "well if you don't have a gun, your ENTIRE family could be killed!" doesn't make any sense if you think about it, because you're basically trading one astronomically low chance catastrophe for another when you should focus resources on preventing BOTH from happening.

I think most people who keep guns in the home are aware of the possibility that, if they aren't careful, there is a risk (however small) of a stray bullet striking a family member; but they recognize how slight it is if they aren't totally reckless. I mean, every time you get behind the wheel with a family member in the car there is a slight chance you could hurt or kill that family member; that doesn't mean you don't drive, it just means you exercise appropriate care while driving. So basically, if you have kids in the house, be aware of where in the house they are and don't blast away while facing in their direction.

I hear you that you wouldn't be comfortable keeping a gun in the home for self-defense due to the risk of perhaps hitting a family member. That's a legitimate concern and if it makes you reluctant to keep a gun in the home, that's fine. But I don't think it reflects on the efficacy of home defense with a gun in general.

Also, I don't have any kids, so that's not really a worry for me to begin with.

(in reality buddy i really dont give a fuck about any of this it's just 6 in the morning and there's nothing constructive to do)

Originally Posted by Syme

if you have kids in the house, be aware of where in the house they are and don't blast away while facing in their direction.

couldnt help but to reply to this

"hold up man who's robbing my house can you please stand with your back to this wall instead of that one, my kid's sleeping in the room behind you and i'm afraid i may miss you and hit him!"

^_^

That's fine, you can still talk about the issue even if you don't care that strongly about it; we won't kick you out for not caring enough. Some of the points you've raised are valid ones (even if I don't agree with them for reasons I've explained), so you're doing an okay job of discussing the issue whether or not you're just doing it to pass the time.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Well that statement was serious. I have no reason to believe that if all ballistic weapons were to vanish things wouldn't be better.

Hmm, alright... taking it seriously, then, I think it would actually shift the balance of power substantially in favor of criminals, and lead to an increase in the violent crime rate. As has already been pointed out, firearms prevent far more crimes than they are used to commit. They are used in only a small fraction of violent crimes, but are by far the most effective way for a person to defend themselves. If you like, I can delve into all manner of statistics--mostly from the DOJ and other government sources--about the immense crime deterrent role that is played by armed citizens.

EDIT: Of course we've gone hundreds of thousands of years without guns; but I don't think anyone was making the argument that guns are or have been essential to the evolution or continued survival of the human race, so I don't see what that has to do without something. The question of whether our species could possibly survive without guns is just a wee bit different from the question of whether they offer a net public safety benefit. Yeah, obviously "people" would "still be okay" without guns insofar as it wouldn't be some kind of catastrophe for our species if guns disappeared. It would lead to a lot more individuals being victimized in violent crime, though, and in that sense a lot of people wouldn't "still be okay". They'd be robbed, raped, assaulted, injured, and murdered.

People arent going to come at you with a gun. They are going to shoot you from a distance.

Ive been in two situations where I could have used a gun. Used it once, and possible saved the my life and 3 others. And I didnt even have to use it. Just pulling it, shooting the ground, and pointing it at them was enough.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

This may just be my personal narcissism and a combination of a highly regimented physical training and martial arts experience, but I'd rather have to worry about disarming someone coming at me with a blunt or sharp weapon than someone coming at me with a gun. I know guns are used more for defense than for crime, but that isn't the case for me personally (I've been held up twice and never used a gun for defense).

Okay. But surely any person with half a brain recognizes that their personal experiences, circumstances, etc., are totally and utterly irrelevant when making any sort of statement about how the world, society, any larger group of people, etc., should or does work or behave. Right? So how does it make any sense to say that "things would be better" if there were no guns? Unless what you meant was "Things would be better for me personally." If you meant that things would be better in general, which was the impression I got, then that would only be true if everyone had your kung-fu skills.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I got come at with a gun....twice. I hate to rain on your parade, but I have defeated you with empirical evidence.

And I the same with you. For you guns may have been invilved in the crime, and for me, they stopped the crime.

Like Syme said, personal experiences really have nothing to do with the way society SHOULD behave.

If all ballistic weapons disappeared tomorrow, society would go back to carrying edged, blunt and thrusting weapons. Today's most advanced nations would be weakened by the lack of technologically advanced weaponry and soft citizens unwilling or able to protect their way of life through hand-to-hand combat. The less civilized peoples in the US and other countries would run rampant, realizing that strength through numbers is superior strength, law enforcement and other civil authorities would be overwhelmed, and martial law would have to be enacted, leading to mounted, armored military forces patrolling the streets with spears and poleaxes. Too many law enforcement agencies in the US claim to be outnumbered and outgunned now, but at least their officers have the modern-day equivalent to Sam Colt's equalizer. There have been firearms in the United States since before its creation, and projectile weapons here for thousands of years.

Back on topic, I've encountered angry men with guns and lived. Not everyone does, it is a fact of life (and death). No amount of martial arts training or physical prowess is going to give someone an advantage against a ranged and skilled gunman. That said, I would rather take my chances against an average person armed with a pistol across the street than I would against an average person armed with a knife within stabbing range. The pistol may malfunction, its firer may not know how to properly aim and I have room to maneuver and seek cover or retreat. Also, a firearm has a limited number of chances to get it right before becoming its own projectile (read: out of ammo). Even the least skilled person with a knife has a better chance of inflicting a serious wound at a close range.

Most people dont understand how hard it is to hit someone with a pistol over say 10 yards. Especially under stress. You move the barrel a CM to the left, and it will hit close to a foot left at a distance. (I didnt do the math, Im just guesstimating.)

Originally Posted by Nick2.1

True, but it will never come to a point where we aren't given the right to protect ourselves with firearms. It would be an act of tyranny if it did ever happen and that shit probably wouldn't go through. There are a few states(not my queer ass state) that still express the 2nd amendment to it's fullest(maybe not so much, but do you really need mini-guns and RPGs?)

Not so much to its fullest then. I don't see anywhere that is say's "keep and bear arms that you need".

If it comes the day you need to take out say a heavily armored vehicle you will probably need a mini gun or a RPG to make the job easier. I think we can all agree its better to have and not need that it is to need and not have.