Skip to main content

The National Rifle Association (NRA) website has an ongoing feature called the Armed Citizen. The feature reports confirmed stories of individuals using guns either at home, on the street, or in their place of business to thwart intruders, robbers, or burglars.

During December 2013, the Armed Citizen reported six such incidents; the first one dated December 3, the last one December 31-- a period of 29 days. If you want a look at the feature, you can find it here: www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx.

However, not mentioned in the Armed Citizen was that during the same 29-day period, based on average numbers (source: www.bradycampaign.org), 2,436 Americans were killed by a gun (1,479 by suicide) and another 5,597 were wounded by one (290 by attempted suicide). That’s a total of 8,033 “bad” uses of a gun. To put it another way, for each “good” use of a gun during those 29 days, there were 1,388 “bad” uses of a gun.

Of course, the NRA might not have reported or been aware of all the confirmed “good” uses of a gun that occurred during that 29-day period, but it’s unlikely they missed 8,027 of them in order for the “good” numbers to at least equal the “bad” ones.

The website also failed to mention that if there is a gun in a home, it is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure a member of the gun-owner’s family (due to domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting) than to be used in self-defense (source: www.bradycampaign.org).

Not included in my numbers are those times when a gun is used to frighten, threaten, terrify, bully, intimidate, or coerce innocent individuals, including family members. It’s another “bad” use of a gun that has yet to be quantified and reported.

Please help reduce the carnage caused by guns that goes on day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. Call, write, email, or FAX your representatives in Washington, D.C. and tell them to support common sense gun control. Do it today. And do it again next week. And do it again every week after that until they get the message.

You’ll find contact information here:
www.contactingthecongress.org

Originally posted to Tom Begnal on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:57 AM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA) and Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  you mean me and my kid are two thirds of the good (6+ / 0-)

    uses?

    When we went small game hunting? or maybe we were most of the uses, because we like the looks of them on the wall and that would make 4.

    or maybe you figure when they are only used to hurt someone that's a good use? Don't understand how you get so few good uses, I must know ten people that went hunting in December. Nationwide including those that just went target shooting it might be millions.

    I think there's something wrong with your numbers.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:08:19 AM PST

    •  I'd add, 13 million big game hunters alone (6+ / 0-)

      throw in those duck folks, and rabbits and what not and you've got a lot of good uses, or I think so anyway.

      “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

      by ban nock on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:33:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Would you be happier if Tom changed "Good" to (14+ / 0-)

      ... "Defensive" and "Bad" to "Offensive?"

      "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

      by Bob Johnson on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:56:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  False Equivalance (26+ / 0-)

      Your question assumes that the "good" use of successfully killing an unarmed duck, or whatever, is equal to the "bad" use of a husband blowing the wife's brains out in a domestic dispute.  A one to one ratio of successful entertainment or recreation on one hand to murder on the other hand would not mean that the good outweighs the bad.

      It's reasonable to put the "making loud noises and killing animals is fun" issue to the side and just focus on the self defense argument in support of guns compared to the deaths and injuries caused by guns.  That's what the diarist obviously did.

      But then you knew that already.  

      •  Yeah, but then he likes to make nonsensical (12+ / 0-)

        arguments that distract and try to make fun of the very serious issue of the epidemic in this country of gun-related deaths. Because people that take such things seriously are just silly and by God, he has him a RIGHT to own them thar guns.

        His idea of freedom reigning means the rest of us having to live in terror.

        Hell of a country we got us.


        "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

        by Pescadero Bill on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:51:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He does "have a Right" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neo Control, Shamash

          It was even written in "The Bill of Rights" to clear up any confusion.

          I'm sorry that you find living in the USA to be "living in terror"; I certainly don't find life in the USA to be terrifying.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:03:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What an Odd Thing to Say (9+ / 0-)

            Since the whole gun industry depends on fear.

            Well, fear and fetish.

            •  Oh? I am surrounded by people that own guns. (0+ / 0-)

              They didn't buy their firearms out of 'fear' nor 'fetish'.

              Where did you come up with this absurdity?

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:36:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Easy (7+ / 0-)

                If you take away all the gun sales to people who are afraid of drug addicts breaking down their doors, or afraid of the zombie apocalypse, and manufacturers could only sell guns to the guys who want to go out to the woods and kill bunnies the manufacturers would all go bankrupt.  The business model depends on people being afraid and buying guns as a response to that fear.

                People can say that they aren't afraid any more because they have their guns to keep them warm at night, but only because they have first been conditioned for years to be afraid, and that the gun is the cure to that fear.  The thing is, the fix only lasts for a while, and then people decide that one gun isn't enough.  They need more guns and bigger guns to not be afraid.  The business model is based on selling more and more guns to the same people because they are afraid that 9 guns isn't quite enough to be safe.  They really need 10.  Then 10 isn't enough and they really need 11, and on it goes.

                That's why gun sales keep going up, even though the number of households with guns in them keeps going down.  The target customer is not the hunter with 2 guns, but the guy with an arsenal and a safe house for when the UN swoops down with their black helicopters.

                •  I'm afraid that I am unaware of the 'zombie sales' (0+ / 0-)

                  In fact, your comment seems to be nothing but a fantastical opinion-barf.

                  But maybe I'm wrong; Next time you push for gun control be sure to let everyone know that if they don't agree with you they are paranoid of zombies & if they don't buy into zombies they are 'fetishists'.

                  Why not?
                  It couldn't fail much worse than the AWB & mag bans did.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:06:41 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  But "living in terror" is exactly what the NRA ... (8+ / 0-)

            ... wants you to do.

            Their whole rationale in recent years has been to push the idea that we all need guns to defend ourselves against the hordes of evil-doers which will be smashing down our doors any minute.

            "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

            And yet for the entire month of December, the NRA could only find six instances in a country of nearly 314 million people of said armed good guy stopping said armed bad guy. Meanwhile, David Waldman, in his Dec. 29 "GunFail" installment, found 47 incidents of people who were nearly hit, and others wounded or killed in gun-related accidents in just over one week of news reports in December (12/21-27).

            So much for gun ownership making one safer.

            I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

            by ObamOcala on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:32:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again, the NRA list isn't intended to be (0+ / 0-)

              comprehensive.

              The  CDC report commissioned by Pres Obama concluded that: "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year".

              GunFail is anecdote.
              Actual statistics aren't used because it negates the fear-mongering his diaries are intended to create:
              Motor Vehicles: 42,000
              Poisoning: 39,000
              Falls:        25,000
              Fire:           2,700
              Choking:     2,500
              Drowning:   2,000
              Firearms:       600

              The fact of the matter is that eating a turkey leg is over four times more likely to cause accidental deaths than firearms are.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:52:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  seems like you're trying not to understand (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, coquiero

      "Good uses" are those highlighted by the NRA. Methinks the NRA didn't go into hunting for obvious reasons. They're trying to scare people into buying guns, but the hunting market is already pretty well saturated.

      Maybe the article should be headlined about use against humans: defensive or criminal/accidental.

      -5.38, -2.97
      The NRA doesn't represent the interests of gun owners. So why are you still a member?

      by ChuckInReno on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 07:14:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Defensive Gun Use (23+ / 0-)

    The NRA and other gun enthusiasts like to tell us there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses in America every year, based on some "research" written up by Gary Kleck in 1995.

    However, as your article suggests, only a few lawful uses of a gun to defend against an actual criminal action can ever be confirmed when all the facts are known.

    Guns can be used defensively to protect oneself or a home, but rarely are.  Far and away more common are OFFENSIVE uses of a gun - threatening, menacing, and of course actual shootings of family, neighbors, and visitors

     

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:15:51 AM PST

    •  You're wrong, Hugh. (10+ / 0-)

      The gun fanciers keep the "defensive gun uses" secret because it maintains their element of surprise when the bad guys try busting in through the back door.

      Hell, they don't want everyone doing it! Then the bad guys will quit giving them opportunities to play hero!

      "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

      by Bob Johnson on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:44:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They do talk about 2.5 mil DGUs a lot (15+ / 0-)

        If it's a secret, they talk about it an awful lot.

        Gun enthusiasts frequently tell us about the 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) every year.  They talk about it a lot.

        I have often challenged gun enthusiasts to show us the list of confirmed lawful gun uses to defend against criminal attacks - to show us the "other side" of the gunFAIL diaries that list all the problems people have with guns.  And despite repeating that there are 2.5 million DGUs every year, no gun enthusiast has tried to show us such a list.

        Now Mr. Begnal has taken up the gauntlet to do what the gun enthusiasts will not do: count the number of verified lawful defensive gun uses.  And when you do that, you see exactly what Mr. Begnal shows us - that actual lawful defensive gun uses are rare, and are far outnumbered by criminal and accidental gun uses.

        The bottom line: guns DO NOT provide protection and safety; guns kill and injure the people who buy them and those they live with.

        If you want to be safe, you should get those guns out of your home.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:42:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tom Bengal citing a noncomprehensive list from (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buddabelly, Shamash, Neo Control

          the NRA vs. the Center of Disease Control commissioned by Pres Obama.

          “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,”--CDC
          Truly a conundrum for the ages.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:13:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A telling omission, heh (5+ / 0-)

            http://mediamatters.org/...

            Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
            Curious that of all things, the Kleck citation would be edited out -- usually the gun lobby is proud to cite him.
            Kleck is best known for his 1995 study with Marc Gertz that claims that up to 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use occur every year. Media figures and the National Rifle Association frequently cite this study to bolster their claims that owning firearms makes people safer.

            But critics point to the study's "serious methodological difficulties" -- it extrapolates a very rare event, the slightly more than one percent of respondents to a survey that said they had used a gun in self-defense over the past year, to the entire population of 200 million adults. This means that even slight deficiencies in the accuracy of the survey, whether due to false positives or a sample that is not perfectly indicative of the overall population, can lead to large differences in the result. Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway has labeled Kleck's result "an enormous overestimate" and pointed out that the results require one to believe, for instance, that "burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time."

            And even in the committee Kleck got to serve on, an embarrassment in itself for the Obama administration, their report offers uncertainty, nuance and detail that the gun lobby would rather omit. Now, queue up the usual outrage over Hemenway, we'll see if that messenger gets shot for pointing out a mathematical impossibility built into the Kleck study.

            Guns don't kill people. People kill guns. -- this message brought to you by the Night Vale chapter of the N.R.A.

            by tytalus on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:46:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So can the low estimate of 108,000. (0+ / 0-)

              The CDC concluded that there is more DGU than criminal uses.....and certainly more than the 'eight' that this diary falsely tries to claim.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:59:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Speaking of false claims (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero, Glen The Plumber, fcvaguy
                The CDC concluded that there is more DGU than criminal uses.....and certainly more than the 'eight' that this diary falsely tries to claim.
                Meanwhile, in reality the diary is about one month, not one year
                December Gun Score: “Good” use -- 6; “Bad” use -- 8,033
                and contrasts solid statistics on gun violence with NRA propaganda, not estimates of 'DGUs'
                During December 2013, the Armed Citizen reported six such incidents; the first one dated December 3, the last one December 31-- a period of 29 days. If you want a look at the feature, you can find it here: www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx.
                and the number the NRA came up with was 6, not 8.

                Guns don't kill people. People kill guns. -- this message brought to you by the Night Vale chapter of the N.R.A.

                by tytalus on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:16:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And the number the CDC came up with was.... (0+ / 0-)

                  " 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,”

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:19:52 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Lawful vs. unlawful gun use (3+ / 0-)

            The papers that claimed 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year intentionally included illegal gun uses in their count of "defensive gun uses".

            When only lawful gun uses are counted, the number of defensive gun uses (lawful defensive gun uses) drops to around 100,000 defensive gun uses a year.

            But you needn't take my word for it.  Simply go ahead and compile a list of all the confirmed (confirmed meaning say with a police report) lawful gun uses defending against a criminal attack.  Compare that list with the number accidental shootings written about in the gunFAIL diaries, or the number of criminal shootings reported in your newspaper.

            Here is the truth: lawful defensive gun shootings: very rare; criminal and accidental shootings: much too common.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:05:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  And the CDC in their study commitioned by (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddabelly, Neo Control, Shamash

      President Obama:

      “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,”
      Isn't it strange that the only way you can justify your viewpoint is to be in direct contradiction of the facts?

      But good job preferring an article that
      1) Is not meant to be comprehensive
      and
      2) Is published by the NRA.

       

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:09:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  be nice to see that study (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, Ducktape, greengemini, coquiero, ask

        not saying it doesn't exist, but the only sources I see repeating this are pro gun outfits, and no one gives the name of the study.  I can't find it on the CDC website.  

        Maybe if we could all read it, we might understand it a bit better.

        •  How about an overview from Slate? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neo Control

          Slate

          That Slate article includes a link that will direct you to PDF and HTML links to the study.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:00:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pretty inconclusive (0+ / 0-)

            It discounts the 3 million figure and then speculates that 100,000 is too low.  It goes on to point out that
             

            the prevalence of firearm violence near “drug markets … could be a consequence of drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense against thieves or other adversaries who are likely to be armed,” says the report. In these communities, “individuals not involved in the drug markets have similar incentives for possessing guns.”
            All I see is more guns yields more guns.  And having had a gun stuck to my head by some nut I did not know, but who wanted to make a point, I can say that I would rather he be disarmed, than my having a handy gun in my pocket.
            •  The CDC disagreed. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, Kasoru

              They concluded that DGUs are used "at least" as often as offensive uses by criminals.

              How can you look at your blockquote that specifically points out the violence bred by the prohibition on drugs & conclude "guns breed more guns"?
              That blockquote shows that prohibition breeds crime & crime breeds violence.

              "I would rather he be disarmed"
              By the laws already on the books he should be.
              Obviously he wasn't, so how do you think that disarming people that did nothing wrong will help?

              I'm sorry that happened to you, but I'm not willing to take liberties away from innocent people because of the crimes of the guilty.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 05:33:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Bozos with guns (7+ / 0-)

    1. December 3, TN- the guy HEARD his BACK window breaking, called 911 and then reached for a gun. What an idiot! He had no idea who was coming into his house. His best course of action would have been step 1- call the cops and step 2- get the hell out of the house- or, grab your cell phone and get the hell out at the same time! I don't understand this obsession with wanting to hurt another person over your stuff.  Sure, they broke into his home, but in this country, burglary doesn't carry the death penalty.  This guy had time to retreat, he chose not to. I can't find an article that states time or if anyone else was home- if someone can provide a link, I will be willing to rethink.  However, at this point- it wasn't a good guy with a gun, no life was in immediate jeopardy and property NEVER trumps human life.

    2. December 9, WI- this wasn't an armed robbery (at least it's not mentioned in the story), somebody walked in and demanded money and the clerk pulled a gun at some point.  No life was in danger, no life was saved. Again, property doesn't trump life.

    3. December 11, VA- This one really pissed me off, the headline is SO misleading. No one was "fought off". An older gentleman heard noises and went to investigate. He found a burglar inside a closet in the barber shop ATTACHED to the property and shot the guy.  Where do I even start...  If you hear strange noises, fine, investigate- if you SEE someone, leave and call the cops. You don't open fire like its the OK Corral for chrissake... that's how 15 year old stepdaughters get killed.

    It goes on and on like this.  I found 1, only 1, where I can see that level of force even remotely justified- and it was an armed robbery, as for the rest of them, alll I can say is: if it were law enforcement officers pulling guns and shooting at these people, the officers would be fired, charged and probably sued.

    How can we have one standard for trained, professional law enforcement officers and a totally different, more lax standard when it comes to Joe Blow on the street who has a duty to retreat! It is BEYOND ridiculous to me that it is okay for some shmuck to open fire whenever his fragile little ego is threatened ("Oh, no- you won't do that to me!")

    This isn't going to lead to less crime, what it WILL lead to are more dead people. Criminals aren't going to stop being criminals- they will just start SHOOTING FIRST, it will eliminate someone else getting "the drop" on them.  We will see armed robbery by way of AR15 and AK47 spray before anyone knows a robbery is in progress. We will see homeowners getting mowed down while they are "investigating" a strange noise- "shoot first and ask questions later"- it is only a matter of time before the "bad guys" adopt the mindset of the "good guys"- and the blood bath will begin.

    The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu

    by dawgflyer13 on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:28:06 AM PST

    •  In Fairness (8+ / 0-)

      In most states, a property owner is allowed to defend their home and business if there is a criminal intrusion or trespass.  So the law says that you can use your gun if someone is breaking into your home or business.

      So these are examples of lawful defensive gun use.

      In general, I agree that no one should lose a life for the crime of stealing goods.

      It seems to me that the very lethality of guns is what makes them attractive to gun enthusiasts.  Let's face it: if defending yourself or your property is the ONLY concern, there are many non-lethal ways to accomplish that.  But I think too many gun enthusiasts like guns for the very reason that the gun can kill and main.  So when such a lethal-loving gun owner hears the back window breaking, they are not thinking about what is safest, but instead thinking about how they can now use their lethal firepower.  This explains some of the gun-owner's behavior that seems otherwise thoughtlessly dangerous.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:58:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed, 100% (4+ / 0-)

        The lethality is the key. It's the power of life and death, almost god-like to these people. That's why I like the references to it as a religion.

        It's also the ultimate ego booster in a world where many feel totally powerless... They've got the gun, so you had better not mess with them- until they meet the person with the bigger gun.  

        The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu

        by dawgflyer13 on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:24:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who are "these people"? (0+ / 0-)

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:03:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "These people" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero

            would refer to the ones in the story who had other options but chose, instead, to reach for a gun. "These people" are the ones who feel that the solution to almost any criminal situation is to reach for a gun. "These people" are the ones who feel that they have zero duty to retreat and it's their role to substitute for the police rather than calling law enforcement and allowing them to do their jobs.

            They are the ones who:

            -Shoot their stepdaughters by accident because she is coming through a window.
            -Shoot people that are standing on their front porch, that just need help.
            -Shoot their sons on the front lawn who are just playing practical jokes.

            (Just to name a few examples... go to the Gun FAIL blog for many, many more)

            They are the ones that value "their stuff" more than a human life.

            The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu

            by dawgflyer13 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 07:30:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  This is America where killing someone is always (8+ / 0-)

    Good.

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:44:57 AM PST

  •  Perfect example (3+ / 0-)
    Not included in my numbers are those times when a gun is used to frighten, threaten, terrify, bully, intimidate, or coerce innocent individuals, including family members.
    Like the time George Zimmerman's wife called 911 because he was threatening her and her father with a gun.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by deebee on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:59:24 AM PST

  •  Thank you and Peace to you, Tom Begnal. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, Glen The Plumber
  •  stupid math (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose

    Your disingenuous title compares a small compilation of anecdotes to a national statistic.  

    •  Welcome to Daily Kos! (0+ / 0-)

      Hope you enjoy your stay.

      "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

      by Bob Johnson on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:58:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site