Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun-totin' property owner kills a guy trying to defend his cousin, who urinated on a gravel bar (374 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Funny... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose

    ...I've heard a lot of stories over the years about someone being robbed by someone with a gun, or someone being shot by the cops because they had a gun, only it turns out later that the gun is a replica, or unloaded, or a pellet gun.

    If you point something that looks like a gun at someone, or is a gun but is not operational, even in non-stand-your-ground states, it would generally be considered self-defense if you pulled your own weapon and shot them dead, no matter what the actual status of the item as a weapon is upon closer examination.

    •  But (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, gardoglee, congenitalefty, caul

      Out of 30,000 gun deaths per year only about 300 or less are justifiable homicides by civilians.  Out of that very small number were any of the people shot holding unloaded guns?  If there were one or two that would be a lot, but that hardly balances out the other 30,000 deaths.

      I'm willing to consider recognizing cases where the person shot pulled a gun first, without provocation, and it turns out the gun was unloaded, as an exception, but that is a very tiny fraction of the cases where someone thought they were justified in taking another human life, but they were wrong.

      •  Obama Commissioned CDC to Study Gun Self Defense (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        karlschneider, erratic

        On the low side almost twice as many people defended themselves successfully with a gun than people that used guns illegally.  On the high side 10 times as many people successfully defended themselves.  And the following comes directly out of the CDC report:

        Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

        The explanation of the entire study is here with links to the complete study (which is long and boring).

        http://www.slate.com/...

        See #7

        Also see this perspective:  http://www.canadafreepress.com/...

        The point is -- if I have a gun for defense and know how to use it, I will be safer if attacked.  Period.  And I am more likely to defend myself than be harmed in an attack.

        There is a reason Obama commissioned this report.  He had commissioned a DOJ report to give him an idea of the effectiveness of his various proposals.  The DOJ report said that none of Obama's proposals would work.  And yes you can find it without the yellow highlights added by NRA -- but it is a faster read and they do get credit for using Freedom of Information Act to get a copy of another buried report.

        http://www.nraila.org/...

        I am not a huge conspiracy nut -- but both of these reports are buried, hard to find, only public due to Freedom of Information Act (thank goodness for the 1st amendment), not reported in mainstream media ... and absolutely prove that control laws being proposed won't work and that citizens use guns a lot defensively with better outcomes compared to those without guns.

        I don't know the facts of the MO dispute.  I can say that it seems we have three idiots.  The second that gun came out and two warning shots were fire the prudent thing to do would be to get off that gravel bar and back into the boat and go someplace else (and report the guy).  Not to pick up a rock or rocks and move to grab the guys arm.  If you put three idiots together it is not hard to see someone getting hurt or dead, gun or no gun.

        Since the results were the polar opposite of what Obama wanted it to say, this report has been suppressed (or under reported anyway) in the main stream news and has not been mentioned by Obama in his gun control speeches.  

        •  Kleck's Work is Problematic to Say the Least (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erratic, Tod

          As has been pointed out repeatedly over the years (and if you look at the report it relies largely on Kleck's work) the estimates by Kleck are based on several problematic assumptions:

          1) People are accurate in their account of what a defensive gun use is.  People tend to present themselves in a more positive light than reality when asked about themselves.  This might mean that they think they actually had a legitimate gun use, but actually didn't.  Cases such as the clown who shot some young men who turned around in his driveway is a recent example--if you asked him he was simply defending himself.  In reality, he was the criminal.  

          2)  People have an accurate view of time.  People don't have accurate time horizons.  When you ask someone about whether something has happened in the recent past, highly emotional events often seem more recent.  I do this all of the time as do most people.  So when Kleck asks about the last year, the events could be any number of years.

          3)  A small sample of rare events leads to an accurate extrapolation of the phenomenon.  The problem being that while he had a sample size of 5,000 for the entire survey, the actual sample of people reporting DGUs was still tiny and especially subject to false positives.  Extrapolating from them ignores that the tiny subsample would have far greater margin of errors.  

          The problem is that there is very little reliable research on DGUs, but by using the numbers as Kleck has, just in reports of actual hitting the perpetrator we would see thousands more perpetrators wounded or killed that simply don't exist in reports by police.  

          The survey of current research relies on what research there is even though that research is clearly flawed.

      •  Seperate (0+ / 0-)

        Of the 30,000 fireearm deaths, about 19,000 of those are suicides (about 10,000 people commit suicide with plastic bags every year)

        That leaves us with a combined (roughly) 11,000 deaths per year combined from police shootings, self defense, criminal activity, and accidents.

        The CDC determined that firearms stopped 498,000 burgleries in 1994. FBI Averages show that firearms are used about 300 justafiable homicides per year.  The NCVS estimates that firearms are used 100,000 times per year for self defense (Save Life, Limb, or prevent rape/assault).
        Based off of the justafiable homicide number, that means simply showing a gun causes the violent offender to run away 99.7% of the time.

        •  Cheating (0+ / 0-)

          If you count the times guns were used in a "good way", but nobody died, and compare them to all the times guns were used in a "bad way", but only count the times where somebody did die, you are cooking the books.

          Putting aside the fact that the statistics relied upon are questionable on their own, and haven't been replicated by anybody else, to get an "apples to apples" comparison you would have to count all the times that guns were used in a "bad way", but nobody died - all the domestic abuse cases where a wife beater waived a gun around but didn't actually kill anybody, all the cases where somebody was shot, but survived, all the robberies, all the rapes, and on and on.  Those obviously add up to a very large number.

          I expect that people only count fatalities, both justified and not, because that's a reasonably large number to extrapolate from and they are better investigated and understood than non-fatalities.  There is certainly no reason to think that non-fatal gun threats skew significantly in favor of "good" threats.

          •  Update (0+ / 0-)

            Tod, didn't think about that one. Did a bit more research

            About 11,000 deaths outside of suicide occur each year About 300 of those 11,000 deaths are from justifiable homicide where people defend themselves.
            Another 350 of those 11,000 deaths are police justifiable homicides.  
            That means that about 10,350 combined criminal homicides, negligent discharge murders occur each year.
            Additionally firearms are used in about 456,971 additional crimes (this includes instances where the person had the firearm on/close to them, but did not present it.

            If we total this, we find the below.
            We have a total of about 467,321 used in crimes, resulting in about 10,350 murder victims.
            We have a conservative total of 598,000 times a firearm was used to prevent a crime, resulting in about 300 justifiable homicides.

            The statistics in the first post are from government institutions. The CDC, and the NCVS by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. I did not use the numbers by Kleck

            The statistics in the second post are from government institutions. The CDC, the NCVS by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the National Institute of Justice.

             

            •  Well (0+ / 0-)

              The report you linked to is not by the CDC.  It's the Institute of Medicine only requested by the CDC.  Per its website:

              The Institute of Medicine (IOM) is an independent, nonprofit organization that works outside of government to provide unbiased and authoritative advice to decision makers and the public.
              There's still an "apples/oranges" problem when the report compares reported gun crimes on one side with estimated self defense on the other side.  Limited the gun crimes counted to those reported will understate them, while relying on estimated self defense can lead to overstatement, (the shooter in the case that started this thread would no doubt report the shooting as just such a prevention of other crime as would Zimmerman), or at the very least relying on such estimates and surveys presents a much greater margin of error.

              If one accepted the data for the sake of argument, I suppose it would be for the proposition that gun possession prevents other crimes.  If that were the case then one would expect that other countries where civilians aren't armed to the teeth would have much higher robbery rates, etc. but that's not the case.  We have higher gun death rates than everybody else, but don't have correspondingly lower robbery rates, or lower rates for any other type of crime supposedly prevented by all those privately owned guns.

              I also take issue with dismissing all the gun suicides.  One of the problems is that attempted suicides by gun have a dramatically higher "success" rate than other forms of suicide.  Yes, people kill themselves in other ways, but much more often they survive the attempts made other ways and get the help they need.  

              •  Difficult (0+ / 0-)

                A simple straight comparison between cultures is difficult.  Suicide for example. about 20,000 people in the US commit suicide each year with handguns (over 50% of suicides are with a firearm). Japan has almost no firearms in civilian hand, yet they have a suicide rate of 22 compared to 12 for America.  UK's Suicide rate, with handguns outlawed, is tied with that of the U.S.

                UK has twice the contact crime victomization rate as the US
                http://t2.gstatic.com/...

                Brazil and Mexico have strict gun control and extreme limits on firearms ownership, yet they have much higher crime and murder rates.

                Switzerland is well armed, and has among the lowest crime rates in Europe or the world.

                Here is an interesting link
                http://www.nationmaster.com/...

                U.S. Assault rate is less than half of the UK
                U.S. Rape rate is less than half of the UK(9 W. European countries have a higher rate than the U.S.)

                Interesting article
                http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

                Final thought, we should compare homicide rates, not only homicides commited by firearm.

    •  But no one had a gun except Crocker (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SilentBrook

      So, what's the point of the comments about having a gun pointed at you?

      I really think anyone who gets so cranked up over someone peeing is nutso anyhow.

      •  He was nutso, I agree (0+ / 0-)

        the point is that if you meet someone nutso -- with a gun, knife, baseball bat, whatever ... it is prudent to leave and avoid confrontation.  Even if you have a gun, pissing on a sandbar is no reason to shoot someone -- it is prudent to leave.  Many of these cases where a nut job shoots someone also involves someone without the commons sense to de-escalate and leave ... does not make shooting them right, it makes them kind of nutso as well.  If I see someone with a gun protecting his sandbar I'm leaving.  Even though I normally carry a gun for self defense (and have a permit to do so).  

        •  BAC (0+ / 0-)

          of the cousins is lurking in my mind. Pissing is a clue. Picking up rock(s) to defend against a gun waving idiot adds to my suspicions Getting back into the boat would be normal behavior. Another clue. But wait... It is all speculation. That's right, we, none of us, have a clue about what really took place there. None of us were there. None of us have seen a video of it.  None of us will be called for this jury.

          Speculation is accusation.

          Don't do it.

          There is nothing more exciting than the truth. - Richard P. Feynman

          by pastol on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:58:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site