During the coronavirus lockdown, there was a public debate over whether gun stores should be deemed “essential.” During this outbreak of rioting, such an inquiry seems quaint. Now, as ever, there is no greater prophylactic against a criminal on the rampage than a loaded firearm in the hands of a free man.
Linda has turned to the courts of this State for redress, asking that the city be held liable in damages for its negligent failure to protect her from harm. With compelling logic, she can point out that, if a stranger, who had absolutely no obligation to aid her, had offered her assistance, and thereafter Burton Pugach was able to injure her as a result of the negligence of the volunteer, the courts would certainly require him to pay damages. (Restatement, 2d, Torts, § 323.) Why then should the city, whose duties are imposed by law and include the prevention of crime (New York City Charter, § 435) and, consequently, extend far beyond that of the Good Samaritan, not be responsible? If a private detective acts carelessly, no one would deny that a jury could find such conduct unacceptable. Why then is the city not required to live up to at least the same minimal standards of professional competence which would be demanded of a private detective?
Linda's reasoning seems so eminently sensible that surely it must come as a shock to her and to every citizen to hear the city argue and to learn that this court decides that the city has no duty to provide police protection to any given individual. What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense (former Penal Law, § 1897). Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." (My emphasis)
Every minute brought some new shock and a fresh surge of adrenaline: more and more of those roving gangs, some sticking around for minutes. Squad cars racing down in convoy, sirens blaring. The smashing of windows (a hair salon on the block, I learned in the morning, had been smashed in). The screeching of tires. The shouting of men: “Stop, you motherf–ker!”
Why won’t the men in blue stay in front of our house?
At two in the morning, it couldn’t be denied that one particular roving gang was roving no more; its members were obviously staking out our building. Now cackling, now going ominously silent. Should I race upstairs and bring a kitchen knife? How would this scenario play out? Would they just smash our lobby and leave? What could stop them if they wanted to take the elevators up to our homes?
Two things, before my calm gets damaged further.
a) most businesses are not insured against civil unrest. Most will get nothing.
b) when you say “are your possessions worth a human life?” Most people’s possessions are their lives. They spent days of their lives and strength and health to acquire them.
As for their being “worth” a human life… Humans who think it’s okay to hurt people and take their stuff are only going to cost more lives in the long run. The right to be secure in your possessions is part of what made America great. Who will work, invest, innovate, if at any minute the government can decide their work is non-essential and brownshirts at the service of the democrats can burn it all down?
You allow this to continue, you have Mogadishu, not the US.
On December 29, an armed gunman entered the West Freeway Church of Christ in Texas and shot two members of the congregation. Within six seconds, a third member of the congregation drew a weapon and shot the gunman dead.
The events were captured on live-streamed video, with the dramatic events — in the minds of many observers — highlighting the benefits of privately owned firearms as a defense against armed criminals. Moreover, the gunman, who had a criminal history, obtained his gun illegally, and demonstrated one of the central pitfalls of the gun-control narrative: namely, that those with criminal intent are not easily restrained by laws controlling access to firearms.
To many people who aren't left-leaning journalists, it is hardly "terrifying" that some other private citizens of unknown expertise were armed in the congregation. After all, these people never fired a shot once they saw the shooter had been incapacitated. None of them provided any reason to suspect they pose any risk to anyone else.
On the other hand, 2019 has provided plenty of reminders of what sort of "expertise" and heroism government-provided security forces offer.
Original question: “How many ‘good guys with guns’ have saved the day against criminals in the US?”I'm curious as to whether or not he'll respond.
The lowest estimate for defensive gun usage in the U.S. is approximately 108,000 per year - that’s (carry the one…) 295 times a day. The vast majority of these defensive gun uses involve no shots fired. As a result, no mention in the news. A few do make it, like these:
Man holds suspected burglar at gunpoint in east Tulsa
Citizen holds assault suspect at gunpoint at Wenatchee gas station
Deputies: Homeowner pulls gun on intruder with face he won't forget
Couple holds home invasion suspect at gunpoint
NH Dad Pulls Gun on Intruder Until Police Arrive
Michael Hill
4h ago
You claim 295 times a day then as evidence for decades all over America give just FIVE cases.
How damned stupid do you think we are?
Self-Defense Gun Use is Rare, Study Finds...
Kevin Baker
Original Author · 3h ago
“How damned stupid do think we are?”
I gave five specific instanced in the past few weeks where NO SHOTS WERE FIRED, and the story still made the (local) news.
How stupid do you have to be to misrepresent that?
EDITED TO ADD: A Violence Policy Center paper? Really? An organization dedicated to the banning of all handguns is supposed to be nonpartisan? Pull my other leg.
Michael Hill
2h ago
Boring NRA propaganda.
Don’t cry. We won’t take your guns away.
Kevin Baker
Original Author · 1h ago
OK, I’ll see your 2015 VPC paper and raise you a 2013 Centers for Disease Control report. They’re a shill for the NRA, right? Who was President in 2013?
From Page 15 of Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence:
“Defensive use 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 (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 a 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.”
108,000/365 = 295.89 defensive gun uses PER DAY. Absolute minimum.
CDC propaganda? National Crime Victimization Survey propaganda? Or fact?
And you’re right, you won’t.
UPDATE II: He came back for more.Michael Hill
4m ago
Lies, lies lies in your article:
“According to the Congressional Research Service, public mass shootings “have claimed 547 lives and led to an additional 476 injured victims” since 1983 (Bjelopera et al., 2013, pp. 7-8). “
Real world with actual data for this year alone:
List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 - Wikipedia
More lies in your article:
“with ESTIMATES of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (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 a 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.
So it is anything from 108,000 to 500,000 to 3,000,000. What kind of crazy figures are those? They are EXTRAPOLATIONS from a small number of responses.
The great stsistics LIE:
Fascinating new book that shows how easily we're misled by statistics
Kevin Baker
Original Author · Just now
So the CDC - and by extension the National Crime Victimization survey are lying. But the Violence Policy Center isn’t. And Wikipedia is never wrong. Because you say so. Check.
(Wikipedia? Seriously? Well, you believe the VPC, so…)
Michael HillKevin Baker
6h ago
A Government body lying? Who’d have believed it?
As to wikipedia your arm waving is a decade out of date as they have long ago proved what they say by giving references, etc.
So another failure.
Original Author · 3h ago
So the references Wikipedia uses are dependable, but the CDC and Justice Department aren’t because they’re government entities.
What happens when Wikipedia cites government entities?
But hey, let’s use the all-knowing oracle that is Wikipedia - Defensive gun use - Wikipedia
Excerpt - “Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's definition of a defensive gun use, survey design, country, population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach 4.7 million per year. ”
So let’s take that absolute lowest estimate, 55,000 defensive gun uses per year as our basis. That’s 150 per day. Are you going to tell me that’s false too?
While out walking along the edge of a pond just outside my house in The Villages with my soon to be ex-husband, discussing property settlement and other divorce issues, we were surprised by a huge 12-ft. Alligator which suddenly emerged from the murky water and began charging us with its large jaws wide open. She must have been protecting her nest because she was extremely aggressive.The .25ACP. It ain't much, but it beats harsh language!
If I had not had my little Beretta .25 caliber pistol with me, I would not be here today! Just one shot to my estranged husband's knee cap was all it took. The 'gator got him easily, and I was able to escape by just walking away at a brisk pace. It's one of the best pistols in my collection, plus the amount I saved in lawyer's fees was really incredible. His life insurance was a big bonus.
Handguns put holes in bodies.I'm advised that quote is from Clint Smith, President and Director of Thunder Ranch. And I think that's a pretty fair assessment.
Rifles put holes through bodies.
Shotguns, at the proper range and with the proper load, remove significant portions of bodies and splatter those portions all over the ground.
Here's the truth:
1. Criminals will always have guns, this is not about them.
2. Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms. Humans have a right to defend themselves. If we didn't have the Second Amendment, we would create it.
3. You can't control everything; but if it makes you feel better, go with a simple law preventing violent offenders from buying firearms. Make it "violent" offenders rather than "white collar" offenders, or most of Capitol Hill won't be allowed to own them.
4. Get a gun, get legal, be responsible, trust yourself. Don't trust yourself? Then don't carry. But for God's sake then, shut the f**k up about it, because that's where your involvement ends.
Chuck and I were married one year ago, on the Fourth of July. Sure, we celebrated our first wedding anniversary in a hospital. But thanks to the Second Amendment, my crack-shot husband and the pistol he used, we were able to have a first anniversary.
In his new book, 1919, The Year of Racial Violence: How African Americans Fought Back, David F. Krugler, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin–Platteville, looks at the actions of people ... who resisted white incursions against the black community through the press, the courts, and armed defensive action. The year 1919 was a notable one for racial violence, with major episodes of unrest in Chicago; Washington; and Elaine, Arkansas, and many smaller clashes in both the North and the South. (James Weldon Johnson, then the field secretary of the NAACP, called this time of violence the “Red Summer.”) White mobs killed 77 black Americans, including 11 demobilized servicemen (according to the NAACP’s magazine, the Crisis). The property damage to black businesses and homes—attacks on which betrayed white anxiety over new levels of black prosperity and social power—was immense.Worth your time to read. And the top-rated comment:
--
While there is a notable cluster of examples of black communities fighting back in the racial conflicts of 1919, the history of armed self-defense goes back even further. Law professor Nicholas Johnson points to fugitive slaves who armed themselves against slave-catchers as some of the earliest examples of the practice. In another dark period of racial violence at the end of the 19th century, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, a journalist and investigator of lynching, advocated "boycott, emigration, and the press" as weapons against white aggression, outlining the rationale in her 1892 pamphlet Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases. When those peaceful strategies failed, Wells-Barnett thought a more active strategy was the answer, observing: "The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense." For this reason, she wrote, "[A] Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give."
Anyone who found this article interesting should immediately read Justice Thomas's concurrence in McDonald v. Chicago, a gun control case wherein Thomas argues very persuasively that the right to bear arms was intended to be one of the "privileges" protected by the 14th Amendment, specifically aimed at giving newly freed slaves in the South the right to carry weapons to protect themselves from whites.I am a gun enthusiast, but I too have made that argument repeatedly here in this blog. I concur with Mr. Alexander - American jurisprudence would have been better had the "privileges and immunities" clause been resurrected.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/08-1521/concurrence2.html
I am by no means a gun enthusiast, but Thomas's concurrence makes some excellent points and had it been the majority opinion, American jurisprudence would have been the better for it. - John Marshall Alexander Jr.
I agree with the Court that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to keep and bear arms set forth in the Second Amendment "fully applicable to the States." I write separately because I believe there is a more straightforward path to this conclusion, one that is more faithful to the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history.Which is what Alan Gura argued for and was told to shut up about by people on our side. But the Court dodged the opportunity, not (I believe) wanting to upset the mountain of bad law that a century of stare decisis has created.
Applying what is now a well-settled test, the plurality opinion concludes that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it is "fundamental" to the American "scheme of ordered liberty," and " 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,' ". I agree with that description of the right. But I cannot agree that it is enforceable against the States through a clause that speaks only to "process." Instead, the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause.
--
The notion that a constitutional provision that guarantees only "process" before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words. Moreover, this fiction is a particularly dangerous one. The one theme that links the Court's substantive due process precedents together is their lack of a guiding principle to distinguish "fundamental" rights that warrant protection from nonfundamental rights that do not. Today's decision illustrates the point.
--
(A)ny serious argument over the scope of the Due Process Clause must acknowledge that neither its text nor its history suggests that it protects the many substantive rights this Court's cases now claim it does.
I cannot accept a theory of constitutional interpretation that rests on such tenuous footing. This Court's substantive due process framework fails to account for both the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the history that led to its adoption, filling that gap with a jurisprudence devoid of a guiding principle. I believe the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment offers a superior alternative, and that a return to that meaning would allow this Court to enforce the rights the Fourteenth Amendment is designed to protect with greater clarity and predictability than the substantive due process framework has so far managed.
I acknowledge the volume of precedents that have been built upon the substantive due process framework, and I further acknowledge the importance of stare decisis to the stability of our Nation’s legal system. But stare decisis is only an "adjunct" of our duty as judges to decide by our best lights what the Constitution means. Moreover, as judges, we interpret the Constitution one case or controversy at a time. The question presented in this case is not whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised, but only whether, and to what extent, a particular clause in the Constitution protects the particular right at issue here. With the inquiry appropriately narrowed, I believe this case presents an opportunity to reexamine, and begin the process of restoring, the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment agreed upon by those who ratified it.
I'm fortunate to never have had a personal moment where I've needed a firearm - though I've had a handful of situations that fortunately deescalated before I felt the need to draw my firearm. That being said, I live in many many of other peoples moments where they are glad to have a firearm or wishing they had one.
I'm a 9-1-1 and police dispatcher.
It is not uncommon for one of two scenarios to play out for me when a homeowner calls in what they suspect is someone breaking into their house (sometimes it is a false alarm going off, or a drunk banging on the door, or legitimate home invasions - but it always is real to these people when they are waiting for police.)
1.They have a gun and they usually listen to my advice to patiently maintain a defensive stance in bedroom or with kids in kids bedroom. Wait for police to arrive.
2.They do not have a gun and they spend the same time either hiding in complete fear, arming themselves with utterly ridiculous items (seriously I've had grown men tell me they are armed with a wiffle bat.), or spend the whole time worrying about if the police will get there in time.
In my professional opinion the majority of people in group 1 while being afraid enough to call police generally do ok knowing they have a viable means for defense. The people in group 2 generally wish at that moment they were a member of group 1, and owned a firearm.
*there is a very minority group of people who have chosen to arm themselves with other weaponry with varying levels of practicality and are more similar to group 1. Samurai swords, throwing knives, crossbows, etc... I respect but question their choice of defensive weapons over a firearm but they generally seem confident.
James Darkhollow's answer to the question "What are some specific examples where being a gun owner got you out of a bad situation?" at Quora.com
Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year?And the instructions for questions 11b through 11l state:
Generally, 18 U.S.C. § 922 prohibits the shipment, transportation, receipt, or possession in or affecting interstate commerce of a firearm by one who: has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; has been convicted of a felony, or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (this does not include State misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment of two years or less); is a fugitive from justice; is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance; has been adjudicated mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution; has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship; is an alien illegally in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa; or is subject to certain restraining orders. Furthermore, section 922 prohibits the shipment, transportation, or receipt in or affecting interstate commerce of a firearm by one who is under indictment or information for a felony, or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.Mr. Ellis is under indictment. He
Victims Strip Suspect Naked, Take His Gun During Robbery In OKCHere's the perp:
OKLAHOMA CITY -
Several victims fought back against a suspect armed with a gun, leaving the man naked and injured outside an Oklahoma City hair salon.
Employees told police due to the busy holiday, they were working late at "Head Honchos" near N.E. 36th Street and Lottie. Just after midnight on Christmas Eve, a woman said a suspect identified as 23-year-old Corneilyus Howeth jumped into her car and pointed a gun at her.
The victim managed to call her brother, who was inside the hair salon just a few feet away. He rushed outside to help, but said Howeth pointed the gun at him and pushed him back into the salon. The victims said Howeth demanded all their money and kept asking for someone who wasn't there.
A few moments later, someone else walked into the salon. Witnesses said Howeth turned to point the gun at the newcomer, and that's when one of the victims tackled the suspect.
According to the police report, the two struggled over the weapon. The victim hit Howeth with a table leg, and another person in the salon jumped into the fight to help subdue Howeth. The victims told police they managed to take the gun from Howeth. They then stripped off his clothes, pushed him outside, and locked the door before telling someone to call 911.
The victims were not seriously injured. Howeth did sustain some minor injuries and was taken to a hospital for treatment before being booked into the Oklahoma County jail for robbery with a firearm.
How about if people just start running around here, policing the city on their own? How much worse is it going to get?I guess he's never heard of Sir Robert Peel and his Nine Principles of Modern Policing, number seven of which is:
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.How much worse? Wrong question. How much better?
So, basically, the civilians of Austin, Texas in 1966 were better prepared to respond to a shooter than the Marines of 2013.
She told us she heard a man banging loudly on her front door while another walked around to the back.
"I'm a young woman, I'm pregnant, I'm home alone. I'm not going to answer the door - I mean, I know better," said Alex.
Alex said her husband had just left 20 minutes before. Immediately, she knew something wasn't right and made the split decision to grab her husband's handgun.
"By myself with 911 on one hand and the gun on the other and I'm just a nervous wreck. I don't know what to do ...I yelled and I told the 911 'Oh my gosh, he broke in!'"
Alex said she's never felt comfortable with the idea of using a gun.
Still, her husband insisted on showing her how to use one just a few months ago.
"Nervous...It took me a very long time to pull the trigger and he said, 'when you're in a situation like that- you're not going to think twice,'" recalled Alex.
She said that exactly what happened.
