Here's a Canadian lawyer's take on some of their laws. In Canada, carrying any weapon (even pepper spray) for self defense if you live in a "bad" neighborhood is illegal because that's not considered a real reason. Yet, Canadian police can declare a neighborhood "bad" and expand their powers of entrapment. Interesting...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4PkALVUmQ4&t=545s

casinterest wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

casinterest wrote:

You posted an opinion piece. So without your research, Your assertion is false.

You can't even post an opinion so what does it say about the subject?

BTW you clearly didn't even read that article that has multiple links and sources listed.
Start with this "opinion" from that piece lol. Takes a while to load the data.
https://www.justfacts.org/guncontrol.asp

You can always scroll down and read the references of this "non researched" example I posted for you to read.

So I asked you to post a fact about your absolutely incorrect and fabricated 400,000 number, and you couldn't do it.
So we will go with my study.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... ggests-no/

Hemenway noted that one commonly cited statistic about guns—that 2.5 million people use them each year to defend themselves or their property — is based on faulty analysis from a 1990s study. A more reliable source of information, the National Crime Victimization Survey, pegs the number of people who use guns in this manner at roughly 100,000, according to Science Vs podcast host Wendy Zukerman. Hemenway added that there is no good evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. There is some evidence that having a gun may reduce property loss, “but the evidence is equally compelling that having another weapon, such as mace or a baseball bat, will also reduce the likelihood of property loss,” he said.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/ncvs


If Guns make us more safe, why do they account for 80% of homicides in the US.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

According to National Victimization Survey website:
"...Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 240,000 persons in about 150,000 households..."

That's hardly representative of the whole country.

PixelPilot wrote:

casinterest wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

You can't even post an opinion so what does it say about the subject?

BTW you clearly didn't even read that article that has multiple links and sources listed.
Start with this "opinion" from that piece lol. Takes a while to load the data.
https://www.justfacts.org/guncontrol.asp

You can always scroll down and read the references of this "non researched" example I posted for you to read.

So I asked you to post a fact about your absolutely incorrect and fabricated 400,000 number, and you couldn't do it.
So we will go with my study.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... ggests-no/

Hemenway noted that one commonly cited statistic about guns—that 2.5 million people use them each year to defend themselves or their property — is based on faulty analysis from a 1990s study. A more reliable source of information, the National Crime Victimization Survey, pegs the number of people who use guns in this manner at roughly 100,000, according to Science Vs podcast host Wendy Zukerman. Hemenway added that there is no good evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. There is some evidence that having a gun may reduce property loss, “but the evidence is equally compelling that having another weapon, such as mace or a baseball bat, will also reduce the likelihood of property loss,” he said.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/ncvs


If Guns make us more safe, why do they account for 80% of homicides in the US.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

According to National Victimization Survey website:
"...Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 240,000 persons in about 150,000 households..."

That's hardly representative of the whole country.

So you do not understand statistics ? That is far larger than most sampling sizes in many studies.

casinterest wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

casinterest wrote:

So I asked you to post a fact about your absolutely incorrect and fabricated 400,000 number, and you couldn't do it.
So we will go with my study.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... ggests-no/




https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/ncvs


If Guns make us more safe, why do they account for 80% of homicides in the US.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

According to National Victimization Survey website:
"...Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 240,000 persons in about 150,000 households..."

That's hardly representative of the whole country.

So you do not understand statistics ? That is far larger than most sampling sizes in many studies.

To counter 400K number (this is violent crimes ONLY btw. Total estimates of crime prevention by armed citizens is north of 2 million) you present a sample of 240K as factual.
Statistical data means nothing if you are trying to determine actual cases. It's just a random number taken from a random environment during a random period.

All my findings point to numbers ridiculously higher than what you are claiming based on the NCVS.

This below is a decent opinion on the subject and it gives solid reason why NCVS is not exactly a good source for this information:
"...The problem with appealing to the NCVS is that it never actually asks respondents about defensive gun uses. Instead, respondents have the option to volunteer this information if they indicate being the victim of a crime. As such, it is hard to take the NCVS seriously as being a reliable estimate of defensive gun use, given that it doesn’t even field a single question about that topic..."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... an-crimes/

johns624 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

[ And in a dozen or so states where permitless concealed carry is allowed, what does an illegal gun even mean?

It means a gun carried by someone who can't legally possess a gun. Permitless carry doesn't mean that everyone can carry a gun.

A distinction without a difference

So 400000 violent crime stopped...

According to this
https://www.statista.com/topics/2153/cr ... Keyfigures

1.3 mio violent crimes a year.
So a whopping ~1/3 of the total comitted is stopped.
But as it's been debunked it's not hard to see that the figure is a bit high.

johns624 wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

One day it'll finally click in - hopefully. But until then, keep up with all those thoughts and prayers and all hail 2nd Amendment. Simply mind boggling in a Country that sees public shootings literally on a daily basis is so protective of some piece of paper that was written over 200 years ago.

Or, you could be like Canada and ban a bunch of legally owned guns because someone who smuggled one in illegally and couldn't own it, used it to kill some people. The RCMP was all behind the ban because it kept people from questioning their part in the deal. The man had been reported to them and owned a car made up to look like an RCMP patrol car, and they did nothing. The guns were already extremely restricted.
PS--Ever seen Runkle of the Bailey on Youtube? Quite enlightening.

Or, you could be like Canada and ban a bunch of legally owned guns because someone who smuggled one in illegally and couldn't own it, used it to kill some people kill 22 people and commit the worst mass shooting in modern Canadian history. The RCMP was all behind the ban because it kept people from questioning their part in the deal and has been under intense scrutiny as to the actions of the Mounties that day, with officers appearing before the Mass Casualty Commission which is currently underway. The man had been reported to them and owned a car made up to look like an RCMP patrol car, and they did nothing. The guns were already extremely restricted.
PS--Ever seen Runkle of the Bailey on Youtube? Quite enlightening.

Fixed that for you...

Nothing has kept the RCMP from being questioned. In fact, the Commission has an explicit mandate to look at their response - https://masscasualtycommission.ca/about/mandate/

skyservice_330 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

One day it'll finally click in - hopefully. But until then, keep up with all those thoughts and prayers and all hail 2nd Amendment. Simply mind boggling in a Country that sees public shootings literally on a daily basis is so protective of some piece of paper that was written over 200 years ago.

Or, you could be like Canada and ban a bunch of legally owned guns because someone who smuggled one in illegally and couldn't own it, used it to kill some people. The RCMP was all behind the ban because it kept people from questioning their part in the deal. The man had been reported to them and owned a car made up to look like an RCMP patrol car, and they did nothing. The guns were already extremely restricted.
PS--Ever seen Runkle of the Bailey on Youtube? Quite enlightening.

Or, you could be like Canada and ban a bunch of legally owned guns because someone who smuggled one in illegally and couldn't own it, used it to kill some people kill 22 people and commit the worst mass shooting in modern Canadian history. The RCMP was all behind the ban because it kept people from questioning their part in the deal and has been under intense scrutiny as to the actions of the Mounties that day, with officers appearing before the Mass Casualty Commission which is currently underway. The man had been reported to them and owned a car made up to look like an RCMP patrol car, and they did nothing. The guns were already extremely restricted.
PS--Ever seen Runkle of the Bailey on Youtube? Quite enlightening.

Fixed that for you...

Nothing has kept the RCMP from being questioned. In fact, the Commission has an explicit mandate to look at their response - https://masscasualtycommission.ca/about/mandate/

Yeah, but nothing will be done about it. Everyone will still have a job and things will stay as they are.

MaverickM11 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

[ And in a dozen or so states where permitless concealed carry is allowed, what does an illegal gun even mean?

It means a gun carried by someone who can't legally possess a gun. Permitless carry doesn't mean that everyone can carry a gun.

A distinction without a difference

No, the same as the difference between a social drinker having one drink and driving home and a drunk driver.

ReverseFlow wrote:

So 400000 violent crime stopped...

According to this
https://www.statista.com/topics/2153/cr ... Keyfigures

1.3 mio violent crimes a year.
So a whopping ~1/3 of the total comitted is stopped.
But as it's been debunked it's not hard to see that the figure is a bit high.

Can you show me where it was debunked please?
Also you can say if 400K stopped and 1.3M were committed it would make a total of 1.7M crimes. So we're talking around 23% so less than 1/4th. Not sure if/what is the legal distinction here as your link is unclear how were the numbers calculated and sources are behind paywall.
Not to even mention all not reported cases.

johns624 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

It means a gun carried by someone who can't legally possess a gun. Permitless carry doesn't mean that everyone can carry a gun.

A distinction without a difference

No, the same as the difference between a social drinker having one drink and driving home and a drunk driver.

How would anyone know whether you're a trained marksman with excellent safety protocols or Joe Blow with a loaded pistol in his ass crack that he regularly drunkenly waves around his wife?

MaverickM11 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

A distinction without a difference

No, the same as the difference between a social drinker having one drink and driving home and a drunk driver.

How would anyone know whether you're a trained marksman with excellent safety protocols or Joe Blow with a loaded pistol in his ass crack that he regularly drunkenly waves around his wife?

The same way you can tell if that car heading towards you in the opposite direction on a two-lane road is being driven by a professional NASCAR driver or by a 22 year old dude with no license who has been on a three-day booze and meth bender.

TriJets wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

No, the same as the difference between a social drinker having one drink and driving home and a drunk driver.

How would anyone know whether you're a trained marksman with excellent safety protocols or Joe Blow with a loaded pistol in his ass crack that he regularly drunkenly waves around his wife?

The same way you can tell if that car heading towards you in the opposite direction on a two-lane road is being driven by a professional NASCAR driver or by a 22 year old dude with no license who has been on a three-day booze and meth bender.

In other words you can't.

So like I said, distinction without a difference.

MaverickM11 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

How would anyone know whether you're a trained marksman with excellent safety protocols or Joe Blow with a loaded pistol in his ass crack that he regularly drunkenly waves around his wife?

The same way you can tell if that car heading towards you in the opposite direction on a two-lane road is being driven by a professional NASCAR driver or by a 22 year old dude with no license who has been on a three-day booze and meth bender.

In other words you can't.

So like I said, distinction without a difference.

Sure, but you and I don't need to know the difference 99% of the time. If Jim has a pistol in a holster under his shirt chances are we'll never see it. If Jim is a moron and gets drunk and starts flashing his pistol around, that's illegal and at that point the police can get involved.

PixelPilot wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

So 400000 violent crime stopped...

According to this
https://www.statista.com/topics/2153/cr ... Keyfigures

1.3 mio violent crimes a year.
So a whopping ~1/3 of the total comitted is stopped.
But as it's been debunked it's not hard to see that the figure is a bit high.

Can you show me where it was debunked please?
Also you can say if 400K stopped and 1.3M were committed it would make a total of 1.7M crimes. So we're talking around 23% so less than 1/4th. Not sure if/what is the legal distinction here as your link is unclear how were the numbers calculated and sources are behind paywall.
Not to even mention all not reported cases.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/
2.5mio is more like 100000 so the 400000 would probably decrease too.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/ncvs#methodology-0

This one has got all crime listed:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/202 ... -of-crime/

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/guns
Oddly only stuff till 2010 there. And it us federal so not sure it counts state crimes?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
This has its references listed so if you're not happy with Statista you could use these.

Old figures but from thd Wiki page:
"National Crime Victimization Survey

A 1994 study examined NCVS data and concluded that between 1987 and 1990, there were approximately 258,460 incidents in which firearms were used defensively in the United States, for an annual average of 64,615. "

ReverseFlow wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

So 400000 violent crime stopped...

According to this
https://www.statista.com/topics/2153/cr ... Keyfigures

1.3 mio violent crimes a year.
So a whopping ~1/3 of the total comitted is stopped.
But as it's been debunked it's not hard to see that the figure is a bit high.

Can you show me where it was debunked please?
Also you can say if 400K stopped and 1.3M were committed it would make a total of 1.7M crimes. So we're talking around 23% so less than 1/4th. Not sure if/what is the legal distinction here as your link is unclear how were the numbers calculated and sources are behind paywall.
Not to even mention all not reported cases.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/
2.5mio is more like 100000 so the 400000 would probably decrease too.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/ncvs#methodology-0

This one has got all crime listed:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/202 ... -of-crime/

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/guns
Oddly only stuff till 2010 there. And it us federal so not sure it counts state crimes?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
This has its references listed so if you're not happy with Statista you could use these.

Old figures but from thd Wiki page:
"National Crime Victimization Survey

A 1994 study examined NCVS data and concluded that between 1987 and 1990, there were approximately 258,460 incidents in which firearms were used defensively in the United States, for an annual average of 64,615. "

I already posted about NCVS as pretty much every link goes back to that one particular study.
No need to repeat myself but you are free to go up and read about how they collect their data and why in the case of defensive weapon use they are not a reliabe source.