Mother and daughter shoot a robber armed with a shotgun in their store.

[Jorge Luis Borges]

My point though was that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense, and that is an accurate statistic.


Kellermann, Arthur L.MD, MPH, et al. “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home.” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 45 (1998): 263-67

You've now stated two distinct things as if they were indistinct, and that is misleading. I do not know whether it is unintentional. For what it is worth, the precis of the study you quoted does the same, leading to a very silly conclusion.

First, you made the claim that 22 people are shot by themselves, a friend, or a family member for each person shot in self defense. The numbers of the study in question back this up. Far more people are shot in assaults, homicides, accidents, and attempted or completed suicides than are shot in self-defense. That's here:

And statistically, 22 people were shot by a friend, family member, or themselves for that one instance of a someone being shot in self defense.

Then you said something notably different, which is that a gun is much more likely to be used in a murder, suicide, or accident than used in self-defense. And that is not true nor does the study attempt to prove that, although they sloppily use such language. It's a well-established fact that the vast majority of uses of a gun in self-defense in the US do not involve firing the gun while the study you cited only looked at incidents in which people were injured by guns. So while estimate vary widely, it is a commonly accepted figure that there are about two million defensive uses of handguns annually in the US.

So the conclusion you made here:

a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense

is a) false and b) unsupported by the data you provided, which did not track self-defense uses of firearms but only the much narrower category of self-defense shootings.


There was a recent book out, I'll have to find the name, wherein a researcher from Harvard suggested that the uses of guns in crimes not involving shootings is also much higher than reported, because most people use guns to intimidate and threaten far more often than they will use them to murder. So there's plenty of room for discussion on whether guns are a net positive or negative in terms of violent crime. The answer seems to be that it depends on where and when we are discussing, because in most states the crime rate fell as the amount of gun ownership and legal concealed carry licenses rose. But in some states like Illinois the murder rate shot up as guns became more available. Its a complicated discussion, and conflating different things like self-defense usage of guns with self-defense shootings is unhelpful and confusing.

 

[hillelslovak87]

also within arms distance, don't extend your arms so they can grab at the gun, tuck your arm into your chest like the top of a bend over row.

Same as holding a football, or your other hand when throwing a punch. Keep the shit tight, and fire away.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

[

You've now stated two distinct things as if they were indistinct, and that is misleading. I do not know whether it is unintentional. For what it is worth, the precis of the study you quoted does the same, leading to a very silly conclusion.

First, you made the claim that 22 people are shot by themselves, a friend, or a family member for each person shot in self defense. The numbers of the study in question back this up. Far more people are shot in assaults, homicides, accidents, and attempted or completed suicides than are shot in self-defense. That's here:

Then you said something notably different, which is that a gun is much more likely to be used in a murder, suicide, or accident than used in self-defense. And that is not true nor does the study attempt to prove that, although they sloppily use such language. It's a well-established fact that the vast majority of uses of a gun in self-defense in the US do not involve firing the gun while the study you cited only looked at incidents in which people were injured by guns. So while estimate vary widely, it is a commonly accepted figure that there are about two million defensive uses of handguns annually in the US.

So the conclusion you made here:

is a) false and b) unsupported by the data you provided, which did not track self-defense uses of firearms but only the much narrower category of self-defense shootings.


There was a recent book out, I'll have to find the name, wherein a researcher from Harvard suggested that the uses of guns in crimes not involving shootings is also much higher than reported, because most people use guns to intimidate and threaten far more often than they will use them to murder. So there's plenty of room for discussion on whether guns are a net positive or negative in terms of violent crime. The answer seems to be that it depends on where and when we are discussing, because in most states the crime rate fell as the amount of gun ownership and legal concealed carry licenses rose. But in some states like Illinois the murder rate shot up as guns became more available. Its a complicated discussion, and conflating different things like self-defense usage of guns with self-defense shootings is unhelpful and confusing.

You wrote a lot here, but are not offering proof for your arguments beyond an appeal to authority with what you recall a "Harvard" researcher suggesting in a book (I don't care who says it or where the person works, but rather if it is published in a peer reviewed journal, which hopefully this author refers to in his/her book. I hope though you are not referring to the Crime Prevention Research Center guy who put out that shit study that was being forwarded around the conservative listservs last week, as I know he writes a lot of pro gun books) as well as you telling me that things you say are a "well-established fact" and are a "commonly accepted figure." And if you have a better study than the one I referenced, please provide that as well, but again, that is a widely cited study, despite your concerns about its conclusions and generalizability.

 

[neverwas]

can we have a whip round for these women to get some legit firearms training? what in the hell was that old women doing wrestling with the guy?

 

[HIMBOB]

Lucky she was armed, otherwise she might have missed out on getting pistol whipped and shot at with her daughter.

These bonding moments are all too rare.

 

[nhbbear]

I don't really care about guns or if people want to own them, but this is an instance where our 2nd amendment can shine.

Yeah, I agree, but the flip side of this is that the bad guy had a gun as well, so where did he get it? And I hope he gets life in prison with no chance of ever getting out. Fuck this guy, I hope his wounds never really heal and hurt like a motherfucker on cold days in prison.

 

[nhbbear]

Lucky she was armed, otherwise she might have missed out on getting pistol whipped and shot at with her daughter.

These bonding moments are all too rare.

That was good. Right on target

 

[HIMBOB]

That was good. Right on target

So I am not the only one who can see it.

 

[woodguyatl]

Where in here does it say if the perp is running away you get to shoot him in the back?

You can shoot until the fight is over. If he turns his back to duck behind a counter or behind a door way you can still shoot. He was not running away he was moving to a safe position before resuming the attack as evidenced by the fact that he moved to the safe position and then resumed the attack and tried to take the victim’s gun.

 

[Byron Carter]

I don't really care about guns or if people want to own them, but this is an instance where our 2nd amendment can shine.

She should have emptied the mag at this point, but look at her finger, she lets off that one shot and removes her finger from the trigger to assess the bad-guy.

Absolutely should have stood over him and finished the job.

Good work though girls - making America safe again!

 

[machidafan99]

WTF? The thug was like the terminator. Would not go down. Bath salts suspected.

 

[flashNsmash]

Lucky she was armed, otherwise she might have missed out on getting pistol whipped and shot at with her daughter.

These bonding moments are all too rare.

 

[Stoic1]

Lucky she was armed, otherwise she might have missed out on getting pistol whipped and shot at with her daughter.

These bonding moments are all too rare.

Bob,

WTF?

I thought you were categorically against gun ownership... Or would you feel differently if she shot him with an AR15?

 

[Andy Capp]

You can shoot until the fight is over. If he turns his back to duck behind a counter or behind a door way you can still shoot. He was not running away he was moving to a safe position before resuming the attack as evidenced by the fact that he moved to the safe position and then resumed the attack and tried to take the victim’s gun.

Fair enough, but when I watched the video (admittedly with no audio, and only the once) it appeared as though he was leaving and only came back because they started shooting. I'm happy to be wrong because I want to believe the guy deserved to have his face blown off; that's just not how it looked to me when I watched it.

 

[Atomic 187]

Where in here does it say if the perp is running away you get to shoot him in the back?

It doesn't. That's open to interpretation and for a DA, prosecutor, or jury to decide based on evidence. However, in a Castle Law state you have a huge advantage if you can show reasonable fear

 

[Atomic 187]

If that thug died...it would be 2 white women open fire at trouble black man trying to borrow some items....thoughts and prayers from CNN...

But if he's alive, he'll come back and slap them with a civil suit for all his pain and suffering. Such bullshit

Welcome to America!

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

[



You wrote a lot here, but are not offering proof for your arguments beyond an appeal to authority with what you recall a "Harvard" researcher suggesting in a book (I don't care who says it or where the person works, but rather if it is published in a peer reviewed journal, which hopefully this author refers to in his/her book. I hope though you are not referring to the Crime Prevention Research Center guy who put out that shit study that was being forwarded around the conservative listservs last week, as I know he writes a lot of pro gun books) as well as you telling me that things you say are a "well-established fact" and are a "commonly accepted figure." And if you have a better study than the one I referenced, please provide that as well, but again, that is a widely cited study, despite your concerns about its conclusions and generalizability.

What point exactly do you need proof for? What I referred to as a commonly accepted figure I took from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

The author I can't remember from Harvard I was citing because he was putting forward arguments in your favor.

I don't need any evidence at all to demonstrate that you established facts related to self-defense shootings and then acted as if those numbers were the totality of self- defense usages of guns. And that is deceptive and inaccurate.

This, here:

My point though was that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense

That's false. The total self-defense usages of guns nationwide would be somewhere between 1000 and 2000 if that were true. Very, very low end estimates of self-defense usages of guns annually are in the 60K range, that is, about double the shooting deaths from all causes every year.

 

[HIMBOB]

Bob,

WTF?

I thought you were categorically against gun ownership... Or would you feel differently if she shot him with an AR15?

I'm for sensible gun ownership. If you actually read what I wrote instead of manufacturing some attempt at a gotta moment, you'd know that.

I must have told you personally I like Australian gun laws about a dozen.

If can't grasp that I'm not surprised you struggle with even slightly complex ideas.

Anyway,
Here's what I saw in the video,

Guy comes into store with a shotgun.
Holds them up,
Guy empties till,
Guy starts to leave his objective now complete,
Woman draws her gun and shoots at him,
Robber think he needs to stop her shooting before he can leave so comes after her,
Robber fights with woman,
Daughter almost shoots mother,
Robber takes woman's gun and pistol whips her,
Robber points woman's gun at daughter (not sure if he shot at her)
Robber gets shot
Women leave the same way the robber attempted to.


You really think having a gun helped them? The mother lost her gun, got pistol whipped with it and almost shot by her daughter.

 

[woodguyatl]

Fair enough, but when I watched the video (admittedly with no audio, and only the once) it appeared as though he was leaving and only came back because they started shooting. I'm happy to be wrong because I want to believe the guy deserved to have his face blown off; that's just not how it looked to me when I watched it.

I initially thought he was fleeing as well, but did not have a problem with the women's parting shot given the high stress situation and that he was the aggressor. I think he returned despite being shot at. If he returned because he was shot at the women had even greater reason to be concerned.

 

[Andy Capp]

I initially thought he was fleeing as well, but did not have a problem with the women's parting shot given the high stress situation and that he was the aggressor. I think he returned despite being shot at. If he returned because he was shot at the women had even greater reason to be concerned.

I disagree. If he was trying to leave, money in hand or not, they had no right to fire on him. That's revenge, not self defense.