|
|
| Post Number: 31
|
gunslinger 
Group: Members
Posts: 6029
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 09 2013, 8:18 am |
|
   |
A year to get a permit seems like a long time to me.
--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 32
|
|
|
| Post Number: 33
|
|
|
| Post Number: 34
|
|
|
| Post Number: 35
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4057
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 09 2013, 3:10 pm |
|
 |
Oh, BTW, George Washington thought it was a good enough reason to own a gun to "protect myself from the government", I don't know of anyone thinking he was "over the top wacko".
No, you didn't! Not again!!
Just one more example of right wing lies that try to claim totally false quotes as coming from the founding fathers.
Even you should be able to figure out that George Washington trusted the US government.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 36
|
Montanalonewolf
Group: Members
Posts: 4795
Joined: Mar. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 09 2013, 7:38 pm |
|
|
(TigerFan @ Mar. 09 2013, 9:46 am)
QUOTE
(Montanalonewolf @ Mar. 08 2013, 9:25 pm)
QUOTE Your missing the point = incomprehension. Got nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. And I contend that you failed to make the point. Nothing to comprehend.
The point is obvious but I'll lay it out anyway.
Do you wear a seatbelt and have insurance because you want to be in a crash? No, for "just in case".
Did you learn first aid and CPR because you want to use those skills? No, for "just in case".
Do you have fire extinguishers and smoke detectors because you want your house to catch fire? No, for "just in case".
Do I have and carry guns because I want to have armed baddies attack me? Hell no. But I still have them "just in case".
In 41 years of driving somewhere around 2.5 million miles, I've never had a crash. In 56 years of life, I've never been involved in a housefire. In the many years I've been certified for CPR, I've never used it.
But I did have to use a gun once and a few more times pulled one but didn't have to shoot. Based on my personal history, I'm more justified in carrying a gun "just in case" than being prepared for any of those other "just in cases".
--------------
Ignorance is curable with education. Stupidity is refusing to be educated.
Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 37
|
joebiker
Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 10 2013, 12:46 am |
|
|
(Ben2World @ Mar. 08 2013, 1:52 pm)
QUOTE Statistically, it has been shown that cooperating with intruders maximizes our chances of safety.
I just want to throw one fly into the ointment here. I remember a survey (some years ago, so I don't remember actual percentages) that was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. This survey found that when a homeowner was confronted with an intruder, the most dangerous course of action for the homeowner was to physically resist the "evildoer" (sorry, couldn't resist) with his or her bare hands. A large majority of people who did this were injured or killed. The second most dangerous option, and it was a close second, was to attempt to cooperate with the intruder. A majority of these folks also ended up injured, raped or killed. As Gomer Pyle liked to say, Surpraaahse, surprise!
The lowest proportion of injured homeowners was found among those who met an intruder with a firearm (the "gunslut" contingent, apparently), whether they ended up discharging the weapon or not.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 38
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4057
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 10 2013, 11:47 am |
|
|
Joe, how about giving us a citation/link to said survey, just so we know that it is something more than your personal fantasy?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 39
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4057
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 10 2013, 1:00 pm |
|
|
This is a fairly well balanced, and quite rational treatment of the subject, covering a sensible range of issues that a family should consider when protecting against, or when responding to a home invasion. Worth taking the time to read, IMO.
http://www.crimedoctor.com/home2.htm
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 40
|
joebiker
Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 10 2013, 9:53 pm |
|
|
(wwwest @ Mar. 10 2013, 11:47 am)
QUOTE Joe, how about giving us a citation/link to said survey, just so we know that it is something more than your personal fantasy?
wwest,
I wish I could do that....like I previously stated, I read this years ago, and I honestly do not remember where, or what the specific percentages were. I do vividly remember the gist of it, because I was frankly surprised by the apparently grim fate of the majority of the "collaborators", if you will.
I've got no problem whatsoever with your request of a citation, and, once again, I regret not being able to provide one to you. Perhaps you might search whatever files the DOJ might have available.
That being said, I find your insinuation that this is possibly a "personal fantasy" of mine to be rude, insulting, and uncalled-for.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 41
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39564
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 10 2013, 10:00 pm |
|
|
This look familiar? Binged it. Third hit from the top. Seemed easy enough.
National Crime Victimization Survey
September 2010, NCJ 227379
Victimization During Household Burglary
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf
Didn't read it through so if you can find support for your memory a page number would be great.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 42
|
joebiker
Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 10 2013, 10:38 pm |
|
|
High Sierra Fan,
Thanks for taking the time to find that document. It is definitely not the one I remember. This one is much more recent (2010) and the study I mentioned was probably 10 years ago, possibly more. Also, the percentages of injured victims are clearly less than those cited in my previous post.
This more recent document did mention on the first page a change in the definitions used to classify burglaries vs home invasions. Possibly a difference in the way these crimes are classified and thus counted results in a disparity. It also addresses the weapons possessed by the bad guy but not by the prospective victim, unless I missed something.
Or maybe I'm plain old mistaken. I really don't think so, but if that's the case, I'll certainly admit it.
But "fantasizing", as someone else suggested, I most certainly am not.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 43
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39564
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 10 2013, 11:35 pm |
|
|
Sure.
Yeah the problem is that far back (10 years plus) and the interwebs figures most stuff's clay tablets got too wet and dissolved or something (joke) so why bother? Huge hassle for science.
I looked at it a bit more and it didn't seem to mention the victim in reference to weapons that I could see either.
Eta: OR
Search using "Victimization During Household Burglary" ( the survey report looked like one of a series so I figured they might repeat the title if I copied it exactly).
Set the time frame to custom, 1/1/1990 to 1/1/2002... Hit "search"
This one, at a quick glance, mentions house residents defensive use of a firearm and the distribution of outcomes accompanying such use.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
"Self-defense with firearms
*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon.
*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.
About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92
Average annual number of victimizations
in which victims used firearms to defend
themselves or their property
Attacked Threatened
Total offender offender
All crimes 82,500 30,600 51,900
Total violent crime 62,200 25,500 36,700
With injury 12,100 7,300 4,900
Without injury 50,000 18,200 31,800
Theft, burglary,
motor vehicle theft 20,300 5,100 15,200
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Includes
victimizations in which offenders were unarmed. Excludes
homicides."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 44
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39564
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 12:01 am |
|
|
The National Crime Victimization Survey data set has a guide!
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/NCVS/
Better enumeration is likely reachable through that, or not given "data sets" are sometimes the firehose of information...
"About NCVS
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) series, previously called the National Crime Survey (NCS), has been collecting data on personal and household victimization since 1973. An ongoing survey of a nationally representative sample of residential addresses, the NCVS is the primary source of information on the characteristics of criminal victimization and on the number and types of crimes not reported to law enforcement authorities. It provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders. Twice each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of roughly 49,000 households comprising about 100,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. The survey is administered by the U.S. Census Bureau (under the U.S. Department of Commerce) on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (under the U.S. Department of Justice).
The NCVS was designed with four primary objectives: (1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, (2) to estimate the number and types of crimes not reported to the police, (3) to provide uniform measures of selected types of crimes, and (4) to permit comparisons over time and types of areas. The survey categorizes crimes as "personal" or "property." Personal crimes cover rape and sexual attack, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and purse-snatching/pocket-picking, while property crimes cover burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and vandalism. The data from the NCVS survey are particularly useful for calculating crime rates, both aggregated and disaggregated, and for determining changes in crime rates from year to year."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 45
|
Buggyboo
Group: Members
Posts: 1119
Joined: Feb. 2013
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 9:58 am |
|
|
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 11 2013, 12:01 am)
QUOTE The National Crime Victimization Survey data set has a guide! http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/NCVS/Better enumeration is likely reachable through that, or not given "data sets" are sometimes the firehose of information... "About NCVS The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) series, previously called the National Crime Survey (NCS), has been collecting data on personal and household victimization since 1973. An ongoing survey of a nationally representative sample of residential addresses, the NCVS is the primary source of information on the characteristics of criminal victimization and on the number and types of crimes not reported to law enforcement authorities. It provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders. Twice each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of roughly 49,000 households comprising about 100,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. The survey is administered by the U.S. Census Bureau (under the U.S. Department of Commerce) on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (under the U.S. Department of Justice). The NCVS was designed with four primary objectives: (1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, (2) to estimate the number and types of crimes not reported to the police, (3) to provide uniform measures of selected types of crimes, and (4) to permit comparisons over time and types of areas. The survey categorizes crimes as "personal" or "property." Personal crimes cover rape and sexual attack, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and purse-snatching/pocket-picking, while property crimes cover burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and vandalism. The data from the NCVS survey are particularly useful for calculating crime rates, both aggregated and disaggregated, and for determining changes in crime rates from year to year."
Multiple rants spinning into nothingness.
Not even remotely close to the topic posted.
Please start another thread on your subject and not hijack this one!
--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"
Charlton Heston
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 46
|
WalksWithBlackflies
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Group: Members
Posts: 8754
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 12:10 pm |
|
|
I've rigged my house with booby traps, a la "Home Alone"... so I'm good.
--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 47
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39564
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 12:52 pm |
|
|
(Buggyboo @ Mar. 11 2013, 6:58 am)
QUOTE
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 11 2013, 12:01 am)
QUOTE The National Crime Victimization Survey data set has a guide! http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/NCVS/Better enumeration is likely reachable through that, or not given "data sets" are sometimes the firehose of information... "About NCVS The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) series, previously called the National Crime Survey (NCS), has been collecting data on personal and household victimization since 1973. ....." Multiple rants spinning into nothingness. Not even remotely close to the topic posted. Please start another thread on your subject and not hijack this one!
http://forums.backpacker.com/cgi-bin....2307631
http://forums.backpacker.com/cgi-bin....2307857
Given the topic is victims and their choices the NCVS is quite relevant, actual data versus anecdote and emotion.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 48
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4057
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 2:54 pm |
|
|
Yah, but the gun nuts much prefer anecdotes and emotion.
Facts tend to erode their arguments severely.
Thanks for the survey info, very good to see some data over time.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 49
|
joebiker
Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 3:07 pm |
|
|
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 10 2013, 11:35 pm)
QUOTE Sure.
Yeah the problem is that far back (10 years plus) and the interwebs figures most stuff's clay tablets got too wet and dissolved or something (joke) so why bother?
"Self-defense with firearms
*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
High Sierra Fan,
Thanks again for your diligence. And aside from the"clay tablet" bit at the start, thanks for not suggesting that I am delusional. As far as clay tablets, we had progressed, for the most part, to papyrus by the time I graduated college.
So, from the data you uncovered, it does seem that the "gunsluts" fared better than other than other prospective victims.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 50
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39564
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 4:04 pm |
|
|
(joebiker @ Mar. 11 2013, 12:07 pm)
QUOTE
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 10 2013, 11:35 pm)
QUOTE Sure.
Yeah the problem is that far back (10 years plus) and the interwebs figures most stuff's clay tablets got too wet and dissolved or something (joke) so why bother?
"Self-defense with firearms
*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
High Sierra Fan, Thanks again for your diligence. And aside from the"clay tablet" bit at the start, thanks for not suggesting that I am delusional. As far as clay tablets, we had progressed, for the most part, to papyrus by the time I graduated college. So, from the data you uncovered, it does seem that the "gunsluts" fared better than other than other prospective victims.
Hey that clay tablet snark was from envy: when I was in graduate school in the sixties and seventies it was cave paintings....and according to student's reaction in the lab the first 25 years of my research carreer happened pre "clay tablets" and so is relegated to cave paintings and similar era work...... I swear when I pull out a reprint they expect a stone tablet, nothing as fancy as clay or that new fangled wax that's reusable... lol
But I should have initially had more faith in the interwebs as I've previousely found Svante August Arrhenius 1896 paper on the effect of atmospheric CO2 on ground temperature...
http://globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf Though it's obviousely from others reposting it in more recent times and not a direct linkage from 1896.
Okay, NOW that's way off topic... LOL My bad. Sorry Buggy, professional habits die hard.
Oh and yes, thta's what I actually expected (armed victim versus unarmed in a burglary situation) just from common sense.... statistically who's going to suffer the most damage when a kitchen fire starts, the person with a fire extinguisher to hand or the one without?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 51
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4057
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 4:18 pm |
|
|
Yes, but actually, the data begs the question on the pertinent issue:
What was the injury rate among those victims who neither attacked the offender, nor threatened the offender?
What was the rate of injury for the passive, compliant victim who did nothing to attract violence from the offender??
That would indeed be an interesting bit of data.
Not at all surprised that those who attacked had a slightly better chance of not being injured in turn, it is what I have always advocated to my family, but of course we have big, loud dogs who would lead said attack, making it much easier, IMO.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 52
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39564
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 4:31 pm |
|
|
"What was the injury rate among those victims who neither attacked the offender, nor threatened the offender?"
Yes they do conflate those, at least in that section, probably because their focus was firearm usage? How about the 2010 survey?
The 2002 does blend "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon."
The 2010 doesn't mention the victim with reference to firearm possession at all that I could see. but in table 20 does give some injury statistics.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 53
|
joebiker
Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 4:44 pm |
|
|
wwest,
First off, let's try to get along now, OK?
The high injury rate for passive, compliant victims was exactly what made the data so surprising, at least for me, and why I remember it at all. Rest assured, no fantasizing here, that compliance was stated to be a close second to the most dangerous response possible; most dangerous being to physically resist without recourse to a weapon.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 54
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4057
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 4:44 pm |
|
|
IIRC the data does discriminate between potential victims who used the firearms against the burglar and those that didn't. "Attacked" versus "threatened".
I have two nits to pick with your comment.
A. I don't believe that attack and threaten were limited to firearms, but covered all forms of attack and threaten, i.e. fists, full nelson, baseball, butcher knife or bowling ball, etc.
B. Attack means that the victim actively engaged the offender, while threatened means the victim talked about, or started to engage the offender, but did not actually batter him/her in any way.
I want to know about the people who neither attacked nor threatened, but simply complied with the offender from the get go. What was their injury rate??
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 55
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39564
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 11 2013, 4:52 pm |
|
|
". I don't believe that attack and threaten were limited to firearms"
Well, The table I copied was directly stated to be limited to firearms, in the very title:
"Average annual number of victimizations
in which victims used firearms to defend
themselves or their property
Attacked Threatened
Total offender offender "
I expect the survey has covered your other concern so that's where you'll find your answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
