Here's the mask:
Surveillance camera video of the attack (with a 2x4) at the link.
The Little Caesars employee, Heriberto Feliciano, 28, had a concealed-carry permit and was able to get out the gun and shoot the attacker 4 or 5 times.
I checked the WaPo comments section to see if people had gone into yeah-but-we-still-need-gun-control defensiveness. Here's the most-liked comment:
As a progressive demanding more gun control....i respect and i am glad this man was able to defend himself and was armed.The second-most-liked comment is great: "Never bring a 2x4 to a gun fight."
You see deplorables....you can do both...
1. want better gun control and,
2. respect responsible gun ownership
......in fact im not sure how you can be a responsible gun owner and not support better gun control.
The yeah-but-we-still-need-gun-control defensiveness does show up in the third-most-liked comment:
A rare positive case of a man with a gun defending himself against an attacker. He had a permit and didn't have an assault rifle. He wasn't mentally ill or an ex con and didn't buy his gun unrecorded at a gun show or on line. Lucikly the apparently crazy attacker didn't have a gun.
So does this support an argument why there should be no controls on gun purchases or carrying guns? I don't think so.
पोस्ट्स
१५३ टिप्पण्या:
Strawman, Strawman, here little Strawman....
We really should have common sense vote control. Democrat party members, communists, socialists and women should have to pass a test to make sure that they can be trusted with the vote.
How about being in favor of enforcing the relevant laws we already have and also in favor of responsible gun ownership. See progressives, you can do both.
Most leftist complainers do not know what current gun laws are.
There is much nonsense about "gun show loopholes," etc.
If you wear a mask like that in public, you deserve to get shot.
The basic problem with gun control is that criminals don't obey the law.
Just the tip...
I want to wear one of those masks to the local Starbucks. Let’s test their commitment to inclusion.
Rare defensive use?
The CDC and FBI estimate 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.
Odd definition of rare.
A rare positive case of a man with a gun defending himself against an attacker.
Yeah, it's only happened 2.5 million times. And your government wasn't even keeping those kind of statistics because they want you to call police.
Birkel, I'm slowing than you.
The CDC and FBI estimate 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.
You can't provide a link to either the FBI or the CDC to support this bullshit statistic because it doesn't exist. Its source is not the CDC or FBI, but a bullshit extrapolation based on a bullshit survey by John Lott, who by the way lost the raw data.
Field Marshall Freder is up early this morning.
I don't understand. Why didn't he just call the Police?
Field Marshall Freder is up early this morning.
Gotta get up early to patrol the bullshit. And there will be a lot of bullshit and outright lies in this thread. Defensive use threads always brings out a bunch of made up, incorrect, and bullshit "statistics".
Birkel, I'm slower than you.
Less accurate, too.
Why didn't he just call the Police?
Yeah. He would have been only hit a couple of dozen times with a 2X4. And maybe kicked in his face and body when he was down. What's the big deal?
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
Meanwhile, Chicago weekend shows the value of strict gun laws:
Eight killed, 30 injured in Chicago during Memorial Day Weekend shootings.
Which group of 2nd amendment supporters is advocating no controls on on gun purchases or carrying guns? You are being completely disingenuous with your last sentence.
Since most defensive gun uses per year are not reported, last year's numbers are 9,586,734.
Fair warning: the Little Caesars mascot does carry a spear.
And a Roman toga is like an ancient version of shorts worn in the Colosseum.
The employee was wearing shorts, the attacker long pants and a mask.
Draw your own conclusions.
"CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year."
...after jumping a Little Caesars employee.
Et tu, Brute?
In Florida you can order a pistol with extra bullets from Little Caesar's delivered in 30 minutes or less...and it will still be warm.
@mockturtle, the morning of one of the recent school shootings, I was driving through Chicago listening to WBBM (or course) for traffic and weather together on the 8s, and I heard the report of 3 killed overnight by guns (on the south side). And it occurred to me that this was sadly normal for Chicago, and what a hellhole kind of place to live, how such a thing is so everyday. And how no one outside of Chicago would give a peep about it.
Then on the drive back up to Wisconsin, later that day, heard about the school shooting. (Not sure which one, now. Santa Fe?) And I pondered the difference in reaction to the two events.
Freder:
Angry and librul with an ugly heart is no way to go through life.
When I first started in 1966 Illinois still had the anti-Klan provision in the Disorderly Conduct statute. One was subject to arrest if one appeared on the "public way hooded, robed or masked"
"Et tu, Brute?"
Et tu, Bozo?
Pizza pizza. Bang bang.
Happiness is a warm gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zei3xnivwFk
"... and I heard the report of 3 killed overnight by guns (on the south side). And it occurred to me that this was sadly normal for Chicago, and what a hellhole kind of place to live, how such a thing is so everyday. And how no one outside of Chicago would give a peep about it."
Chicago is a big place MM, these shootings are almost all drug/gang related on the south side. And it's like Madison and Allied Drive....no one cares as long as the violence stays there.
Why didn't he only call the police? The time for police to arrive (If, and only if, he was able to call "911") AND take effective action is likely to have resulted in his (And others') death or great bodily injury.
The immediate (Often the mere display) use of guns prevents more harm from criminal attacks at a rate many, many, times the harm caused by such thugs.
There are all kinds of restrictive laws on gun purchases and gun use and always have been.
AA's last paragraph about "no controls" is total B.S.
The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.
From the Reason link above.
"No controls" is a quote from the idiot WaPo commenter. Correcting others is a surefire way to be wrong.
That said, Freder Frederson is too bubbled to know he is wrong.
A rare positive case of a man with a gun defending himself against an attacker.
It's not rare. People think it is because the media rarely covers these cases.
Attacking a Little Caesars employee is as low as you can get. They don't even use Italian sausage anymore because it can't fit into their price model.
but a bullshit extrapolation based on a bullshit survey by John Lott, who by the way lost the raw data.
He sounds like a climate "scientist".
Freder Frederson appears to confuse John Lott with Gary Kleck. It was the latter who estimated annual defensive gun uses (DGUs) at 2.5 million back in the 1990s (when the crime rate was much higher than now). For a link discussing the issue see:
http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o
"..the agency [CDC] had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998..."
(Note that Kleck is reconsidering his analysis of the CDC surveys to account for the fact that his survey was national in scope while the CDC surveys were of sample states and he will release his work later.)
"Attacking a Little Caesars employee is as low as you can get. They don't even use Italian sausage anymore because it can't fit into their price model."
Seems like you're contradicting yourself here.
Freder knows the Narrative.
The Narrative is always right. Because.
Gun owners only shoot themselves or their kids.
A game of Rock Paper Scissors Pistol Stick got out of hand.
Seems like you're contradicting yourself here.
How?
Attack the guys with the $50 pizzas, not $5. Don't steal Banquet pot pies.
I get annoyed with this argument: "[how can you] be a responsible gun owner and not support better gun control?"
Every time there's a major shooting in the news, we get calls for "better" gun control. But rarely are specifics provided, and rarer still is an analysis showing that the "better" regulation being called for would have actually stopped that shooter from getting a gun.
For all the calls for better tracking of "gun show" sales and sales between private individuals, I've yet to see a major mass shooting caused by guns obtained from one of those routes.
Let's have evidence-based controls, not emotional demands and logic-free calls for things that are "better."
Don't get all number-y on Freder.
NOT FAIR!
And once that Obama shrine is finished, Chicago will calm down.
I am all for figuring out how to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people but not without due process. We can't just arbitrarily call people mentally ill because someone helps them pay their bills etc. No Constitutional right should ever be taken away without due process. But ultimately, laws really only serve to punish people who break them. Criminals do not obey laws so they do not deter them except in the rare case where they actually try to buy a gun legally. In that case, nothing stops them from building a homemade bomb or buying a gun from a stranger or the black market if they are denied a purchase legally. People determined to cause chaos will find a way. The problem gun owners like me have with gun control proponents are (1) they rarely know what they are talking about (2)they only want gun control and are not only close minded to any other solutions but mock anyone who suggests them (3)they call us terrorists and other vile names which really deters our willingness to even listen to them.
If the attacker were black and been shot and killed by a white policeman the reaction would have written itself . . . and it would not have been favorable.
His thoughts were on his wife and 2 children with 1 more shortly, when Juan’s 2x4 shattered his collarbone. Can she find job2? Violent crime, even theft makes people a slave to their fears forever “You’re worthless”. “besides what you have you stole from me, I had no choice”, “live with it” “So who should have the bad day? Sigh? Better for civil society to die because death is all around us and we know how to deal with it. Endure a rape when no was not, When the fear of tiny clasp held shell would end it. With the prosthetic on same AMZN Page. This is about equality, civil society. A quick trial by jury and judge drawn from neighbors and next day death in the public square if they so order it restores it. Giving away middle-class homes makes recipients middle class? No. So Sad for our children we are such fools to tolerate this inequality and the slavery that results.
The Progressives think that the police are Racist Thugs and that the Citizenry should solely rely on the police for protection. The reason so many young black males shoot each other is because of Racist Police Thugs. The solution is Diversity Training by Diversity Consultants.
The Progressives don’t want to walk the beat. They want $$$$ for Diversity Consulting Contracts. Black on black crime pays the bills for these douchebags.
Meanwhile the violent crime rate has increased. Guess Diversity Consulting doesn’t work. But they make money, which is what counts. Maybe Netflix can pay them tens of millions for some of their bullshit ideas.
Let's use the Obama-era rhetorical multiplier and just say ten million defensive gun uses -- saved or created.
"So does this support an argument why there should be no controls on gun purchases or carrying guns? I don't think so."
Boy, have I got some good news for this person. Even in my state of Texas, we control who can buy guns and we control who can carry. The problem is solved. Now let's all be happy.
PatHMV said... Every time there's a major shooting in the news, we get calls for "better" gun control. But rarely are specifics provided, and rarer still is an analysis showing that the "better" regulation being called for would have actually stopped that shooter from getting a gun.
And one specific that is mentioned, in horror, are concealed carry permits.
When your first and only solution to a crime is to punish and penalize the people who did not commit or participate in said crime and are ,in general, more law abiding and responsible that the average, your doing it wrong.
Gun control kills, every day. Gun controllers are fraudulent cowards. Bugger off you ignorant twits, just bugger off. And enjoy the horrific consequences that you have created and are directly responsible for.
"So does this support an argument why there should be no controls on gun purchases or carrying guns?"
-- Is anyone making that argument?
If I recall correctly, John Lott (Princeton Prof.?) was very pro gun control and performed an extensive study to prove his point.
He changed his mind, like any good, objective scientist should, when the data came in and it was opposite of what he expected.
By Leftist logic, Prof. Lott is an alt-right gun nut because ad hominem attacks are all they understand.
The very lowest-number-estimate for defensive gun use is 100,000 a year.
That's not 2.5M, but it's a lot more than than 13,000 gun homicides a year that drives the narrative.
There are 1.6M emergency room visits for assault each year. Could have been 1.7.
The main problem with those who still demand more gun control in spite of things like this is that there is no important functional difference between normal handguns and SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLES. In fact in some ways handguns are much better suited to mass shooting because of the ability to conceal them versus a long arm rifle. In fact the most deadly mass shooting in an Academic environment occurred in Virginia Tech, and it was performed with two handguns. The killer there took over thirty lives, if I recall correctly. Also I believe most mass shooting are performed with handguns.
So the worry form people concerned about gun-rights is that the gun-control advocates get their wish and strticter gun control laws are enforced banning or severely restricting certain gun that are ASSAULT RIFLES. And then there is no real impact on these mass shooting incidents. And then the gun-control people will double down and demand more and more restrictions and bans on guns because the first didn't work and clearly it was because they didn't go far enough. And once these bans are in place it will be almost politically impossible to undue them, because any politician that lifts the ban will then be blamed for the next terrible shooting even if the ban may have not prevented it in the first place. From the Gun-rights crowd, the other side looks like people who are trying to fight drunk driving by banning the most popular and dangerous looking cars used by drunk drivers, rather than address the underlying problem of the people choosing to drink and drive.
George Spix said...
His thoughts were on his wife and 2 children with 1 more shortly, when Juan’s 2x4 shattered his collarbone. Can she find job2? Violent crime, even theft makes people a slave to their fears forever “You’re worthless”. “besides what you have you stole from me, I had no choice”, “live with it” “So who should have the bad day?
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
hmm... I made lots of mistakes in my post as per usual, but want to point out that undue should be undo.
Not early enuf, Freder
Posted at by Glenn Reynolds on May 25, 2018 at 8:00 am Link
The FBI’s recently released “Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017” report [PDF] indicates 10 percent of crimes that qualify for inclusion in the paper were stopped by a law-abiding citizen with a gun. The figure represents more than a three-fold increase from the agency’s 2000-2013 study [PDF], when the figure was 3.1 percent.
The 2014 and 2015 report, the first biennial study on the topic released by the agency, adds statistical weight to the long-term trend. During those years, 5 percent of the attacks were stopped by armed citizens. It states, “In 2 separate incidents, a citizen with a valid firearms permit exchanged gunfire with the shooter before the shooters were restrained and taken into custody by law enforcement.” In only one of those incidents during 2014 and 2015 was an armed citizen shot and killed during an active-shooter scenario, the report stating that the “…citizen with a valid firearms permit pursued shooters inside a store, but was shot and killed before he fired his weapon....”
"He had a permit..." Fact not in evidence.
Blogger PatHMV said...
'Let's have evidence-based controls, not emotional demands and logic-free calls for things that are "better."'
So much for the possibility of bipartisan solutions...
Don't steal Banquet pot pies
One time in the dead of winter, I had a case of frozen Banquet Pot Pies in my back seat. I ran into a store to do an errand and when I came back outside the store, after a lot longer in the store than I expected, the car window was smashed.
Someone had put two more cases of Banquet Pot Pies in my back seat.
Think about the option of calling the police. You have to ask the attacker to stop so you can call 911, then talk to 911 for a while to make them believe you have an emergency, and tell them where you are. Then the attacker can continue the attack while you wait. And what is the real reason you call the cops anyway? Answer: To get a good guy to show up with a gun to defend you.
In this case the victim skipped the deadly bureaucracy that leads to so many victims left helpless until too late. Imagine if you accidently stepped out into traffic, but the law said you had to call the cops to get you back on the sidewalk before you got run over, so you stand there in the street talking to 911 on your phone.
Maybe the attacker was frustrated he couldn't use the bathroom at Starbucks.
“Chicago is a big place MM, these shootings are almost all drug/gang related on the south side. And it's like Madison and Allied Drive....no one cares as long as the violence stays there.”
Apparently, last weekend, being hot, was the first of the year where wild mobs congregated in better parts of town to cause mayhem. At least one baseball bat was brought along. Sure, not the black on black murders on the south side, but also not something that is tolerated in much of the country. Showing that even the middle class in Chicago is at risk, in their own areas.
Daley kept a lid on it. Rahm won’t. Or can’t. And Chicago’s middle class hasn’t really realized they’re next on the food chain.
I pulled my gun out once for defensive reasons when I encountered a wild boar in the woods. I didn't have to shoot so I didn't report it to the CDC.
A rare positive case of a man with a gun defending himself against an attacker.
A thing is common (objective) but not reported on widely (subjective) therefore it is rare.
A thing like mass shootings is rare (objective) but reported on widely (subjective) therefor it is common, it is a problem that needs immediate attention, it is a crisis that necessitates overriding any petty concerns about individual rights (think of the children!) and so on.
What a world.
Self defense is a fundamental human right.
Nice centrist people demanding I get some permit or other State permission before I can provide for my own self defense are disgusting.
"[how can you] be a responsible gun owner and not support better gun control?"
Sounds like a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
I have a question: what, precisely, constitutes "Common Sense Gun Control"? That's what all these gun control people advocate for but without specifics how can we implement it?
-sw
I am an American. I have the unalienable right to liberty. To have that I must be secure in my person.
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I support common sense 2x4 control. It's hard to understand why the National Lumber Association is enabling all these assaults.
I suggest we follow the common sense suggestions of the judge in the UK who wants all knives to have rounded off points. I suggest we require all 2x4's to be made of Styrofoam.
Problem solved.
Where has Freder disappeared to?
Very few if ANY NRA members are saying there should be NO control on gun purchases. This is a statement that is made so much that people get very tired challenging it.
Someone legally and rightfully defending themselves isn't all that rare, newspapers like the WaPo reporting on it is what's rare.
Over half the gun violence happens in just 2% of American counties. Seven counties account for a huge chunk, and the gun death rates in those 7 are over 100 times what they are in the remaining 3000 counties. There are some very specific things that all those ecounties have in common including very strict gun control. It's not common sense to insist that the 3000 counties give up their rights because of the stupidity of those 7 seven counties.
There are some very specific things that all those ecounties have in common including very strict gun control.
Yes and some other things we are not allowed to talk about.
It's not rare. Most "uses" of guns don't result in anyone being shot. Everyone walks away unhurt.
" didn't buy his gun unrecorded at a gun show."
I've purchased a gun at a gun show. Guess what - you don't leave the gun show with a gun. There is a waiting period.
Progressives toss out so much BS.
I would be a bit surprised if Freder returns to this thread, but will post his same comment in a different one when Ms. Althouse writes it.
"unrecorded"
You buy a gun at a gun show, it's recorded.
Again - leftists are clueless. If they want to remain un-armed, fine and dandy. Nobody wants angry teenagers using their father's weapons to exact revenge at Mean Girl High.
Shall we call the police? Oh right, someone did - 35 times.
When you have a generation of Bullies like David Hogg, someone might snap. Lets look into that.
What is Common Sense Gun Control? Whatever the gun grabbers think that they can get away with. And, after that, no doubt they will redefine what is reasonable and common sense, and come back for more. And more. What is common sense about banning Modern Sporting Rifles (aka Assault Weapons)? Out of the millions legally in civilian hands, only a handful have ever been used to kill anyone illegally. What is the purpose of relegating long gun owners to only 60 year old, or older, technology? Will it save any lives? Of course not - it will cost them (“deplorable” lives, of course, which don’t count). You just have to look at progressive enclaves to see what they want to do: eliminate detachable magazines (CA); limit detachable magazines to much smaller than the police and criminals possess (multiple states); eliminate being able to temporarily (even for a couple minutes) borrow someone else’s firearms (WA); limit and tax purchase of ammunition (CA); microstamping firing pins (CA); requiring “smart guns” when technologically feasibe (NJ); etc.
Lumber Violence!
Always bring a gun to a 2/4 fight.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
" didn't buy his gun unrecorded at a gun show."
I've purchased a gun at a gun show. Guess what - you don't leave the gun show with a gun. There is a waiting period.
Progressives toss out so much BS.
Depends on the state. My state doesn't have a waiting period, so presumably I could purchase a firearm at a show and leave with it that day. If I purchased the firearm from a dealer/FFL holder I would have to fill out the appropriate federal form (4473), present appropriate identification, and undergo a federal background check before the seller could actually sell me the firearm, of course...so exactly what about that is "unrecorded" is, I admit, a bit of a mystery.
The FFL dealer Always gets the "Instant background check."
Gun shows are no exception.
The waiting period, as in CA, is a state thing. No waiting but background check in AZ.
Isn't this the way things should work out? When you decide to rob someone, you take a risk, and part of that risk is that you might lose your life?
Maybe I shouldn’t be quibbling about what everyone here says about the “gun show loophole”, but here goes. Nationally, the law is that you can do at a gun show what you can do anywhere else. If a FFL is selling the gun, then you need a background check. If you are buying a handgun, you can’t sell across state lines, without going through a FFL in the purchaser’s State, and the purchaser must be 21. Etc. Some states have added other requirements, but mostly, it is what is required when buying from that purchaser elsewhere.
At one point, you could maybe go to a gun show, and find a decent selection of firearms by private parties, that therefore didn’t require a FFL, or their required paperwork and background checks. The problem though is that setting up in a gun show costs typically some money, and that money presumably comes from selling guns. If you sell a gun here or there, that doesn’t require a FFL just like in most states you don’t need a FFL to sell a gun to your neighbor. But you do need a FFL if you are in the business of selling firearms, and the Catch 22 here is that, for the most part, being able to afford a booth requires selling enough firearms there to cover the booth fee, and that usually means legally being in the business of selling firearms, which, in turn, requires a FFL. So, anymore, a large majority of the sellers at gun show have FFLs. And apparently, the ATF makes sure of that, by cruising the booths, looking for those skirting the law.
@JohnLynch - Actually, some run away unhurt ...
“The waiting period, as in CA, is a state thing. No waiting but background check in AZ.”
I suspect that you are more than willing to put up with the AZ background checks in trade for living under CA’s increasingly onerous and ridiculous gun laws.
"in fact im not sure how you can be a responsible gun owner and not support better gun control."
We disagree on what 'better' means, is the thing.
We realize this.
You don't.
("Better" doesn't mean "abandoning due process" or "makes you feel good while disarming as many people as possible", for instance.)
Forget about Freder coming back. 3 hours into a gun thread and no sign of ARM. There's the dog that didn't bark. Gee, I wonder what is different about this post.
I get annoyed with this argument: "[how can you] be a responsible gun owner and not support better gun control?"
How could we have had Obama as president for eight years including two with a Democrat-controlled Congress and not have the best of all possible gun control laws? What got repealed since then?
“A rare positive case of a man with a gun defending himself against an attacker. He had a permit and didn't have an assault rifle. He wasn't mentally ill or an ex con and didn't buy his gun unrecorded at a gun show or on line. Lucikly the apparently crazy attacker didn't have a gun.
So does this support an argument why there should be no controls on gun purchases or carrying guns? I don't think so.”
Pretty much every time you see someone talking about “assault rifles”, you are pretty sure that they are fairly ignorant gun grabbers. I should note that “military inspired” is in the same vein (AR doesn’t mean Assault Rifle, and wasn’t inspired by the military M-16 - Armalite’s AR series came first, and the M-16 was the militarized version of their 15th AR variant). The problem with using “Assault Rifle” is that that term has a precise definition in DoD regulations and in international treaties. An Assault Rifle is a select fire (making them legally machine guns) Rifle (or carbine) shooting an intermediate cartridge. Probably > 99.9% of all AR-15s are not “Assault Rifles”, because they are not select fire, but are, rather, semiautomatics. And, hence, the term “Assault Weapon” was born, defined as a scary looking, typically black, rifle or carbine, that contained a couple of scary looking, or scary sounding, features (like. “bayonet lugs” or “granade launchers”). Apparently pistol grips make these firearms too scary to own, but somehow, surprisingly, don’t do the same if attached to power tools.
Oh, and the online gun purchase scare tactic is just as bogus, if not more so, than the claimed gun show loophole. Yes, you can buy unregistered firearms on the dark web. But they are on the dark web for a reason - because it has become increasingly difficult to purchase firearms on the searchable (i.e. non dark) web, without the involvement of a FFL.
So, anymore, a large majority of the sellers at gun show have FFLs. And apparently, the ATF makes sure of that, by cruising the booths, looking for those skirting the law.
The Obama admin BATF, in the guise of "cleaning up" the FFL rolls, deleted thousands of FFLs that had low volume sales.
I've bought guns in on-line auctions and in both cases had to take possession with an FFL, and in CA, wait a week.
I don't know that there are private sales at gun shows without FFLs but I am no expert on that.
You see deplorables....you can do both...
Stupidity compounded by arrogance.
Typical leftist. We see it every day on this board.
Defensive use threads always brings out a bunch of made up, incorrect, and bullshit "statistics". - FF
I've used my weapon twice in a defensive matter. Never fired it. Never reported it.
Hence, it wasn't a statistic.
But to assholes like you, it never happened.
So, go to hell.
Rights and responsibilities. Not rites and avoidance.
Was there an assault scalpel, vacuum, etc. present?
Thank God there were no law abiding gun owners packing heat in Chicago over Memorial Day weekend, otherwise the folks who murdered 8 people might have been hurt!!
CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns
Apparently, outside Planned Parenthood, Mengele clinics, and other for-profit elective abortion (i.e. Pro-Choice) contractors, and social justice-created and saved abortion fields, there is indeed a legal and moral cause for self-defense from the not so wholly innocent (i.e. other than fetuses or offspring a.k.a. babies) in our world.
I've used my weapon twice in a defensive matter. Never fired it. Never reported it.
Hence, it wasn't a statistic.
But to assholes like you, it never happened.
The fact that you called me an asshole for criticizing very questionable statistics, indicates to me that you have quite a temper and are likely to overreact to perceived threats.
Field Marshall Freder: "The fact that you called me an asshole for criticizing very questionable statistics..."
LOL
What, specifically, makes the statistics in question "questionable"?
Specifically.
Hilarity certain to follow....
Freder Frederson said...
The fact that you called me an asshole for criticizing very questionable statistics, indicates to me that you have quite a temper and are likely to overreact to perceived threats.
If anyone wonders what Common Sense Gun Control means, it starts with confiscating guns from anyone determined, by the left, to have quite a temper and be likely to overreact to perceived threats.
There are some very specific things that all those ecounties have in common including very strict gun control.
More bullshit. And if you look at the statistics by state, it is the more gun-loving states that tend to have the highest murder rates Louisiana or some other deep south state is generally number one and Alaska, considering its largest metropolitan area has a population of just over 400,000, has a shockingly high rate of gun violence.
What, specifically, makes the statistics in question "questionable"?
I am sure you are familiar with the concept of "margin of error" in polling. Even the most carefully conducted polls have a margin of error of 3% or so. If your poll's positive response to a specific question is 1.24% (or even inflated to 1.36% or so as Kleck attempted to do), then the data are worthless (it is noise). All it tells you is that there was somewhere between 0 and a few million defensive gun uses.
Heck, I bet you would get more people who claim they were abducted by aliens or had been possessed by demons in a random poll.
>>The fact that you called me an a------- for criticizing very questionable statistics, indicates to me that you have quite a temper and are likely to overreact to perceived threats.
That's one heck of leap...
Do you apply that standard to yourself? Have you ever called someone a rude name and instantly said "Wow, I have quite a temper and am likely to overreact to perceived threats"?
The fact that you called me an asshole for criticizing very questionable statistics, indicates to me that you have quite a temper and are likely to overreact to perceived threats.
No. I calmly called you an asshole because, well, you're an asshole.
The Vault Dweller said...
The main problem with those who still demand more gun control in spite of things like this is that there is no important functional difference between normal handguns and SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLES.
Ding Ding! Ding Ding We have a winner in the I don't know what I'm talking about sweepstakes but I'll talk anyway sweepstakes."
There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle, even if you capitalize it to make it look more scary.
Field Marshall Freder is back to piss off most commenters although he is more polite than some others.
Freder, studies about guns by the CDC are heavily politicized.
It's tough enough to get any politically incorrect subject examined rationally.
Try to find valid studies on children of gay couples, for example.
Johns Hopkins had such terrible results with gender reassignment surgery that they closed the clinic and stopped doing it.
Do you see anything about those outcomes ?
Don't even think about studying race and IQ. Charles Murray is lucky to be alive.
All that has saved him is the illiteracy of most of his enemies.
It's such a deeply satisfying thing when criminals get what they deserve. Perhaps twenty years ago here, four men held up a Korean grocery, shot the owner, and fled in a car, only to plow into a nearby utility pole, killing them all instantly. The only way the story could have been better would be if they had survived the crash only to be trapped in the burning wreckage, then lingered on several weeks before finally giving up the ghost.
Earnest,
I wonder what conclusions about you Freder will draw from your last post....
Freder: "More bullshit. And if you look at the statistics by state, it is the more gun-loving states that tend to have the highest murder rates Louisiana or some other deep south state is generally number one and Alaska, considering its largest metropolitan area has a population of just over 400,000, has a shockingly high rate of gun violence."
Looking at the "proof" of your link, I see right at the top that CA with very tough gun laws had 1275 gun murders, while Alabama with 50% gun ownership had 3 gun murders, yet you think states like Alabama are the problem.
Regardless, if you live in a place where gun violence is rampant like Chicago, would you really feel safer becuase the strict gun laws do not not allow you to defend yourself, because they are not having any effect on the people who might shoot you. So the bad guys can do whatever they want with guns and you can't have one, and they know it.
"Hey man, lets jack this dude up and take his money. He looks like he has some."
"What if he fights back?"
"Then we fuck him up good, and we kill the fucker if we have to. Either way, we get what he's got."
"What if he pulls a gun?"
"Man, you funny, and stupid. This is Chicago. Look at that straight fool. He don't have no gun. The law sets these suckers up for us like sheep, and we're the wolves."
Ooh, can I play:
"Hey man, lets jack this dude up and take his money. He looks like he has some."
"What if he fights back?"
"Then we fuck him up good, and we kill the fucker if we have to. Either way, we get what he's got."
"What if he pulls a gun?"
"Good point. Let's just shoot in the back of the head before he even knows what's going on. I hope he does have a gun, those things are gold on the street."
Is nobody going to mention that London's murder rate, mostly with knives, is higher than New York city's murder rate?
England is seriously considering KNIFE control laws.
A judge last week suggested that only professionals lime chefs and butchers "need" pointy knives and the have no place in the home.
He wants the govt to set up centers where subjects can take their kitchen knives to have the ends ground round.
Voluntarily, of course. And if people don't do it Voluntarily, they'll get an ASBO and have their knives confiscated
John Henry
In the UK burglaries while residents are home, home invasions, is around 50%. In the U.S. it is around 5%.
In the UK, any yob with a baseball bat can burgle the homes of seniors with little risk and a lot of threats. In the U.S. there are many stories of granny with a gun foiling a rape or robbery. Anecdotally, of course. I don't think there are stats on that.
This senior is armed.
Milwaukie Guy [on his son's account]
Can I play too?
“Good point. Let's just shoot in the back of the head before he even knows what's going on. I hope he does have a gun, those things are gold on the street."
“No, that’s crazy. What If he turns around and shoots us first?”
“Yeah, you right. Let’s go over there and see if we can find someone without a gun.”
Freder Frederson
And if you look at the statistics by state, it is the more gun-loving states that tend to have the highest murder rates.
Thank you for providing the data. Let us run a correlation of Gun Ownership (%) with
1)Nonnegligent Manslaughter Rate (per 100,000) (2015)
2)Murder Rate(per 100,000)(2015)
3)Gun Murder Rate (per 100,000)(2015)
Results of Correlation of Gun Ownership (%) with:
1)Nonnegligent Manslaughter Rate (per 100,000) (2015): 0.061075867
2)Murder Rate(per 100,000)(2015): 0.022546235
3)Gun Murder Rate (per 100,000)(2015) 0.001556631
How to interpret a correlation coeffifient R:
0.70. A strong downhill (negative) linear relationship
–0.50. A moderate downhill (negative) relationship
–0.30. A weak downhill (negative) linear relationship
0. No linear relationship
There is an extremely weak to nonexistent relationship to gun ownership rate and murder rates.
I pulled my gun out once for defensive reasons when I encountered a wild boar in the woods. I didn't have to shoot so I didn't report it to the CDC.
Brandishing! Terroristic Threats! Lock him up! Hakuna matata!
The Field Marshall is educating us all.
"Good point. Let's just shoot in the back of the head before he even knows what's going on. I hope he does have a gun, those things are gold on the street."
You go for a walk in Oakland about 10PM and see how you do.
Your imaginary scenario is about as real as your opinion.
I truncated the correlation guide:
Exactly –1. A perfect downhill (negative) linear relationship
–0.70. A strong downhill (negative) linear relationship
–0.50. A moderate downhill (negative) relationship
–0.30. A weak downhill (negative) linear relationship
0. No linear relationship
+0.30. A weak uphill (positive) linear relationship
+0.50. A moderate uphill (positive) relationship
+0.70. A strong uphill (positive) linear relationship
Exactly +1. A perfect uphill (positive) linear relationship
Freder, you are ignoring the associative correlation and jumping headlong into cause and effect. People in high crime areas may feel the need to arm themselves more than those in lower crime areas. Duh!
I'm not suggesting that Freder is even close to being correct. I appreciate your running the numbers. But rates and percentages by their very nature do not lend themselves to Pearson's R without transformation beforehand.
Addressed to RichardJohnson.
CJW
I'm not suggesting that Freder is even close to being correct. I appreciate your running the numbers. But rates and percentages by their very nature do not lend themselves to Pearson's R without transformation beforehand.
So what transformation do you suggest? I noticed that some states, such as Alabama, do not have comprehensive murder statistics.
mockturtle
Freder, you are ignoring the associative correlation and jumping headlong into cause and effect. People in high crime areas may feel the need to arm themselves more than those in lower crime areas. Duh!
But the numbers say there is NOT a correlation between gun ownership and murder rate for the 50 states. See my previous post.
@CJW
Not a statistician at all, but perhaps changing the data into gun ownership per 100,000 compared to gun homicides per 100,000. Though I think comparing the data on a statewide level might be too large. If there was a way to get data on a county by country basis, or even smaller on a town or neighborhood by neighborhood basis it would be better.
Why no concerns about responsible alcohol sales after a drunk driving killing? Alcohol is easier to get and leads to far more deaths.
Yes, Richard, I see that. Good work.
If you do correlations of rates, then a log transformation should provide a linear equivalent. Percentages? I think a logit transformation is the one. It's been decades since this was professionally important to me. Cheers!
The above is why Althouse is a daily read. People go straight from laughing at an incompetent into having a good discussion about statistical analysis.
You damned bunch of geniuses!
According to Freder Analysis there appears to be a margin of error of +/- 100% in the earlier study Freder was critiquing.
Discuss.
CJW
. Percentages? I think a logit transformation is the one. It's been decades since this was professionally important to me. Cheers!
That will take a while for me to absorb. Not helped by my version of Excel no longer backed up by online help. Though there is a YouTube that appears helpful
But rates and percentages by their very nature do not lend themselves to Pearson's R without transformation beforehand.
But if you change percentage into guns per 100,000, then correlate with murder rate per 100,000, that would appear to be something you can finesse without dealing with logit and all that. When you do that, you get the same answer as with %.
That is my lazy man's approach. I am awaiting a statistician to shoot me down.
You see deplorables....you can do both...
1. want better gun control and,
2. respect responsible gun ownership
The first comment doesn't make much sense. The deplorables agree both are possible, progressives believe they are not.
RichardJohnson,
Sorry no on the rates to rates question. If you're measuring linear relationships, the underlying metric of your variables must be measured on a linear metric as well. That is, the difference between 1 and 2 and 2 and 3 and so on must measure the same thing. The difference between 1 per 1000 and 10 per thousand is much greater than the difference between 500 per thousand and 510 per thousand. And yet linear measures like Pearson's R will give those two differences equal weight. Just about every serious calculator these days will do log transforms. That's what you need to do.
Vault Dweller
Though I think comparing the data on a statewide level might be too large. If there was a way to get data on a county by country basis, or even smaller on a town or neighborhood by neighborhood basis it would be better.
Here is one on concealed carry. Data Shows Highest Rates of Illinois Concealed Carry Permits in Low-Crime Zip Codes — Not More Dangerous Chicago Neighborhoods.
After controlling for population, a completely different picture emerges of the state’s permit holders. We see that permit ownership in Illinois is concentrated in mostly white, rural areas with little crime. In other words, the people obtaining concealed-carry permits in Illinois are those least likely to have to use a weapon for protection.
That fits with a pattern that shows up in the results of various of gun violence studies. One study by political scientists M. V. Hood III and Grant W. Neeley examined the characteristics of concealed-carry permits owners in Dallas. They found that “[p]ermit holders were overwhelmingly white males and resided in areas with little violent crime. Those areas with high violent-crime rates were the least likely to contain a high number of residents with concealed-handgun permits.” An analysis comparing permit-holder rates in Texas and North Carolina revealed that permits were concentrated in mostly “rural and suburban areas where crime rates are already relatively low, among people who are at relatively low risk of victimization — white, middle-aged, middle-class males.”
An article limited to subscribers- which means I can't get the spreadsheet for free- shows that Cook County has the lowest concealed carry rate in the state. Not the lowest murder rate, though.
The difference between 1 per 1000 and 10 per thousand is much greater than the difference between 500 per thousand and 510 per thousand. And yet linear measures like Pearson's R will give those two differences equal weight.
But as I converted to both being per 100,000 I don't see the pointl
Here's the harsh truth about what Freder and the rest of the gang truly, truly want: Link to picture
Michael K said...
"The Field Marshall is educating us all.
"Good point. Let's just shoot in the back of the head before he even knows what's going on. I hope he does have a gun, those things are gold on the street."
You go for a walk in Oakland about 10PM and see how you do.
Your imaginary scenario is about as real as your opinion."
Here's the thing about fredeer, ARM et al. They don't know what current gun laws are. They have no idea what procedure is involved in purchasing a firearm but they are damn certain that there aren't enough laws and it's too easy to buy a gun. That makes them, in this instance anyway, morons.
Statistically more people are saved by the presence of a firearm in a law abiding persons hands. In most cases the gun isn't even fired.
But fascist hypocrits have to be fascist hypocrits.
Sorry RichardJohnson. I gave it my best shot. One either understands metrics and why they matter to linear modeling, or they don't. I can see why you think your ratios to ratios modelling still makes sense. Honestly, I do. It sounds like apples to apples, but it is not accurate linear analysis, period. I'm not dancing away. I just realize that a comment thread is not the place to bring someone up to speed on technical subjects.
And ARM is still not here. (S)he who has almost never missed the chance to comment on a "gun" thread.
CWJ: In retrospect, it would have been better had you done the actual logit etc. transformations/computations yourself.
Which I have done, or at least attempted.
Liberals, afraid of being shot by other liberals, want to take guns from conservatives.
Uh huh.
"After controlling for population, a completely different picture emerges of the state’s permit holders. We see that permit ownership in Illinois is concentrated in mostly white, rural areas with little crime. In other words, the people obtaining concealed-carry permits in Illinois are those least likely to have to use a weapon for protection."
Of course, accentuating this, is that Chicago made it quite hard to get a CCW, or to practice. Apparently, there was maybe one range available to civilians for practicing in all of the city. This was due, in large part, on aggressive zoning on the part of the city - there was a list of types of facilities (such as schools, parks, etc) where you couldn't have civilian shooting rages within a specified distance, and, probably not coincidentally, very little of the city qualified for such, as a result. Wouldn't be surprised if some of the other big cities with low CCW numbers had tried to do the same. Obviously, in rural Anerica, that is not the case. Shooting ranges are welcomed, and if you don't have one close, there is plenty of other places to shoot. Here in NW NT, we have a range on the other end of town owned by the trap club. Also, the National Forest is 5 minutes from the house (have to get 100 feet from a road or campground). Plus, my partner's kids learned to shoot on their ranch 5 miles west of here. All avenues missing in many big cities. Let me add that we have all of the larger Mammalian predators indigenous to the continental US in this county, which is another thing that distinguishes big cities from rural America. Which is ask whether those statistics are the result of chance, coincidence, correlation, or causation. My guess is all of above.
"Blogger CWJ said...
And ARM is still not here. (S)he who has almost never missed the chance to comment on a "gun" thread."
Maybe it finally dawned on him that he's full of shit.....
nah.
he's probably up to some other nonsense. Probably the end of the semester and he has grades to deliver.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा