Posted on 01/17/2019 4:46:07 AM PST by rellimpank
Last week, a 25-year-old woman was standing at a bus stop before dawn in the Fernwood neighborhood on Chicago’s Far South Side when she was approached by a teen who attempted to rob her with a gun. Instead, the woman, a concealed carry permit holder, pulled out her own gun and shot and killed the 19-year-old.
On its face, this story may seem to make the case for the merits of concealed carry as a method of self-protection, especially for people living in high-crime neighborhoods. But the fact is that this scenario is an outlier. It is extremely rare for a legal gun owner to use a gun successfully in self-defense.
A 2015 Harvard study analyzing data from the National Crime Victimization Surveys found that self-defense gun use is rare — victims use guns in less than 1 percent of contact crimes. That same year, there were more than 9,000 criminal homicides involving a gun, compared with just 265 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm, according to the Violence Policy Center. This amounts to about 34 criminal homicides for every one justifiable homicide involving a gun.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I agree - sorta. CCW doesn’t “guarantee” my safety, but it sure as hell makes me “feel: safer. (I thought libs were all about feelings, nothing more than feelings...)
Hey, I carry a gun ‘cause cops are too damned heavy...!
There are numerous problems with the authors approach.
One of the most obvious is that the FBI UCR only catches about 20% or less of justified homicides.
The other is her bias. She has made the choice to be unarmed. She *has* to take the stand that having a gun is more dangerous than not having a gun. If she admitted otherwise, she would have to admit she has made a serious mistake about the nature of reality. It is very hard for an adult to do that.
Her fantastical option is to remove all guns from society, so she will not have to worry about being attacked by someone with a gun.
That is how many leftists *think*. In impractical, fantastical, extremes based on false assumptions about reality.
The sequence goes like this:
I don’t like guns, or want to learn about them.
Therefore, I don’t want anyone to have them.
Therefore, make a law outlawing them.
Problem solved!
Just vote, and magically, the “problem” will go away!
The woman in the story who could have been shot/killed and the people who have been killed/raped/run over by illegal aliens are all acceptable losses as far as Dems are concerned. And they won’t even acknowledge the existence of victims.
I thought Chicago banned concealed and carry guns? If so, the teen probably thought she’d be an easy mark. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who attempts to rob people at gun point.
A 2015 Harvard study analyzing data from the National Crime Victimization Surveys found that self-defense gun use is rare — victims use guns in less than 1 percent of contact crimes.
The characterization that defensive firearm use is "rare" is only in relation to the amount of "contact crimes." What is left unsaid is that there is a lot of "contact crimes" and that even at just 1% that is still on the order of millions of defensive firearms uses every year. Millions.
That same year, there were more than 9,000 criminal homicides involving a gun, compared with just 265 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm...
Note two things here. One, they are only looking at homicides, not non-lethal uses. Most defensive firearms uses do not involve killing the criminal. In fact the vast majority don't involve firing any shots at all. The second very carefully crafted part here is that they restrict their data to private citizens. No-doubt they are discounting any off duty law enforcement uses - while off duty law enforcement are often carrying and users of their firearms for self defense or defense of others. I'll bet you they also discounted uses by anyone who was a private security guard, private personal security, or anyone else they could reasonably (or not) excluded from their "private citizen" label. (eg. maybe even former military) All this to skew their numbers.
Ok, I said one paragraph but I just have to take a shot at one more statement - can't leave this one hanging out there:
In recent years, many states have relaxed their concealed carry laws, on the theory that concealed-gun carriers deter crime. But there is no credible evidence that permissive laws prevent or deter crime...
Really? No credible evidence? There are multiple studies that say exactly the opposite - that increasing private firearms ownership reduces violent crime, while reducing private firearms ownership increases crime. Multiple studies. The fact that they choose to brush these off as not credible is their own willful spin, not reality.
The entire article seems to be put together like this. Very carefully constructed and worded to sound irrefutable and convincing. But it is about 99% pure BS.
The left wants to take guns from non-violent people and leave them in the hands of violent criminals so they can waltz right in and take what is “rightfully” theirs from their “oppressors.”
So don't protect yourself and there'll be less killing!
The original article doesn’t allow comments. I’m sure that is by design because it was so easy to pick apart.
Also, the Chicago Tribune website is a MESS. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a website with as many ads at the bottom.
Not only that, but she ignores the hard-to-quantify deterrence effect -- thugs who want to commit crimes against persons, but don't because they fear the person might shoot back. The gun is not "used" at all -- it's not even drawn. The mere possibility that it might be there stops the crime from happening.
How can liberals so be profoundly stupid and still feed themselves?
No, it doesn't. Nothing guarantees my safety.
Having a defensive weapon on my person gives me a better fighting chance.
And that's really all I ask for.
I agree completely. This isn't "opinion," this is deception.
Don’t blame me.the few dozen mega death fully automatic death rays (according to libtard definition ) and the few hundred thousand full cartridge projectiles that I used to own all accidentally fell in the Tennessee river. Now you’re free to assault me because all I have to defend myself is bear spray!
Color me SHOCKED!
This woman needs to compare Chicago and Houston.
I can’t get the list to post or I would.
Notice that they only count justifiable homicides in calculating defensive gun use.
In the vast majority of cases, the CCW gun is not fired. I once discouraged a guy from trying to get into my car while I was at a red light by displaying my gun. He went away without further fuss. No body, no shot fired, no police report -- but a valid defensive use.
In the 2017 Justifiable Homicide statistics, there were 429 police justifiable homicides, and 353 civilian justifiable homicides. So civilians kill almost as many criminals as police do. Meanwhile, not many people claim that law enforcement having guns make us all less safe.
A “Havard Study”.....oh, you mean that place that just took in the lil’ hogster...that “Havard”. Yeah. They’ve got about as much credibility as a dung beetle. They lost all respect and credibility ages ago....nothing but dumb-azz libs there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.