Guns for "self defense"

[Baxter]

Like blasting your ex.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-blasted-support-target-woman-bleeds-article-1.1337783

http://news.msn.com/us/did-nra-ban-zombie-targets-that-resemble-obama

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>Like blasting your ex.

Yep. You don't think women need to protect themselves against their ex
sometimes?

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/2013/woman-defends-herself-from-abuser,-the-billings-gazette,-billings,-mont-041713.aspx

A woman was at home in Billings, Mont. when her estranged boyfriend
came to her front door, and when he was refused entry, kicked in the
back door of the house. As the abusive ex-boyfriend came inside, the
woman retrieved a gun and forced him from the property. The woman then
called police, who captured the criminal a short time later.

Evidently, the firearm the woman keeps for self-defense proved more
persuasive than the order of protection issued against the
ex-boyfriend in December. (The Billings Gazette, Billings, Mont.
04/17/13)

Of course, the Leftist Way would be to stop and consider his feelings
while he's raping you and slitting your throat, right?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6dno85ufi2ek7071...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>>Like blasting your ex.
>
> Yep. You don't think women need to protect themselves against their ex
> sometimes?
>

You didn't click on the link, did you? You've made a complete fool of
yourself (again).

Again:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-blasted-support-target-woman-bleeds-article-1.1337783

[deep]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>Like blasting your ex.
>
>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-blasted-support-target-woman-bleeds-article-1.1337783

That is sick and disgusting. Shows you just how pathological the
gunhuggers are getting.

[deep]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 08:21:11 -0700, "Baxter"
<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>-
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:c6dno85ufi2ek7071...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Like blasting your ex.
>>
>> Yep. You don't think women need to protect themselves against their ex
>> sometimes?
>>
>You didn't click on the link, did you? You've made a complete fool of
>yourself (again).

Don't waste your time with Klaus. He's nothing but a pathetic
sociopath looking for someone to abuse. He will never ever present a
logical, factually based argument for anything, so don't bother
trying.

[Ivan Bodley]

"deep" wrote in message news:a3gno85mau6pgqu5r...@4ax.com...

####

Find and use the land minds to blow up JUST the girls, "butt" not the boys,
during Halloween , you retarded freak?

[Ivan Bodley]

"deep" wrote in message news:00gno8tohosd9uthe...@4ax.com...

####
Sicker and MORE disgusting than YOU wanting to blow up only little girls
during Halloween?
What DO YOU DO with the boys?

[Sancho Panza]

Entice them with candy, preferably candy corn.

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> on or about Thu, 09 May 2013 07:39:50
-0700 did write, type or otherwise cause to appear in
talk.politics.guns the following:

>On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
><baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>>Like blasting your ex.
>
>Yep. You don't think women need to protect themselves against their ex
>sometimes?
>
>http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/2013/woman-defends-herself-from-abuser,-the-billings-gazette,-billings,-mont-041713.aspx
>
>A woman was at home in Billings, Mont. when her estranged boyfriend
>came to her front door, and when he was refused entry, kicked in the
>back door of the house. As the abusive ex-boyfriend came inside, the
>woman retrieved a gun and forced him from the property. The woman then
>called police, who captured the criminal a short time later.
>
>Evidently, the firearm the woman keeps for self-defense proved more
>persuasive than the order of protection issued against the
>ex-boyfriend in December. (The Billings Gazette, Billings, Mont.
>04/17/13)
>

As I've said, firearms improve reading comprehension. As in this
case, where her having a firearm improved not only his reading
comprehension, but his memory: "Oh, right - it does say "no contact"
doesn't it!"
--
pyotr filipivich
Gungrabber: Why would anyone need a 30 or 40 shot magazine
for any kind of sporting or protective purpose?
Bennet Langlotz: Why does the government *need* me to
take the time to reload?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<deep> wrote in message news:a3gno85mau6pgqu5r...@4ax.com...

And he's scared to admit what he is.

[deep]

I'm sure he would shoot himself in the head if he actually realized
what he really was. So he lives in his own little fantasy world of
lies and hate instead.

[hal lillywhite]

On May 9, 8:26 am, deep wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
>

> <baxter.spambl...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >Like blasting your ex.
>

> >http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-blasted-support-target-w...

>
> That is sick and disgusting.  Shows you just how pathological the
> gunhuggers are getting.

Doesn't that at least cause your BS meter to twitch a bit? Do you
really think an organization as politically astute as the NRA would
endorse such a thing? The guy rented space at the convention which
hardly constitutes endorsement.

Any reference to any NRA document endorsing such a thing? I thought
not. This is just the leftist media trying to make their enemies look
bad even if they have to be dishonest to do it.

[deep]

Nobody has to be dishonest to make the NRA look bad. They will to to
any level of deceit to further their agenda and care nothing about the
deaths of people, even children.

[Too_Many_Tools]

On May 9, 10:30 am, deep wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2013 08:21:11 -0700, "Baxter"
>
>
>
>
>

> <baxter.spambl...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >-
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------

> >Free Software - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com

> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------
>
> >"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >news:c6dno85ufi2ek7071...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
> >> <baxter.spambl...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Like blasting your ex.
>
> >> Yep. You don't think women need to protect themselves against their ex
> >> sometimes?
>
> >You didn't click on the link, did you?  You've made a complete fool of
> >yourself (again).
>
> Don't waste your time with Klaus.  He's nothing but a pathetic
> sociopath looking for someone to abuse.  He will never ever present a
> logical, factually based argument for anything, so don't bother

> trying.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You have to excuse Klaus...he is currently occupied with building the
altar to The Great TMT.

Laugh..laugh..laugh...

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

On May 9, 9:39 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
>

> <baxter.spambl...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >Like blasting your ex.
>
> Yep. You don't think women need to protect themselves against their ex
> sometimes?
>

> http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/2013/woman-defends-herse...

>
> A woman was at home in Billings, Mont. when her estranged boyfriend
> came to her front door, and when he was refused entry, kicked in the
> back door of the house. As the abusive ex-boyfriend came inside, the
> woman retrieved a gun and forced him from the property. The woman then
> called police, who captured the criminal a short time later.
>
> Evidently, the firearm the woman keeps for self-defense proved more
> persuasive than the order of protection issued against the
> ex-boyfriend in December. (The Billings Gazette, Billings, Mont.
> 04/17/13)
>
> Of course, the Leftist Way would be to stop and consider his feelings
> while he's raping you and slitting your throat, right?

Looks like the crazy NRA ex-boyfriend was stopped by a liberal woman.

TMT

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 08:21:11 -0700, "Baxter"

<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:c6dno85ufi2ek7071...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Like blasting your ex.
>>
>> Yep. You don't think women need to protect themselves against their ex
>> sometimes?
>>

>You didn't click on the link[..]

You didn't admit that people use guns all the time for legitimate self
defense, did you?

[hal lillywhite]

On May 9, 12:44 pm, deep wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:20:44 -0700 (PDT), hal lillywhite
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:
> >On May 9, 8:26 am, deep wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
>
> >> <baxter.spambl...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >> >Like blasting your ex.
>
> >> >http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-blasted-support-target-w...
>
> >> That is sick and disgusting. Shows you just how pathological the
> >> gunhuggers are getting.
>
> >Doesn't that at least cause your BS meter to twitch a bit?  Do you
> >really think an organization as politically astute as the NRA would
> >endorse such a thing?  The guy rented space at the convention which
> >hardly constitutes endorsement.
>
> >Any reference to any NRA document endorsing such a thing?  I thought
> >not.  This is just the leftist media trying to make their enemies look
> >bad even if they have to be dishonest to do it.
>
> Nobody has to be dishonest to make the NRA look bad.

So why is the media apparently being dishonest about this? As well as
lots of other stuff from the anti second amendment side that is either
dishonest or just plain ignorant?

[hal lillywhite]

On May 9, 1:39 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Evidently, the firearm the woman keeps for self-defense proved more
> > persuasive than the order of protection issued against the
> > ex-boyfriend in December. (The Billings Gazette, Billings, Mont.
> > 04/17/13)
>
> > Of course, the Leftist Way would be to stop and consider his feelings
> > while he's raping you and slitting your throat, right?
>
> Looks like the crazy NRA ex-boyfriend was stopped by a liberal woman.

And your claim that he is NRA and she liberal is based on exactly what?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:65foo8l9aa0elt9ht...@4ax.com...

How does it work that the majority of the time they try to 'use guns for
legitimate self defense', they fail miserably? And why all the
accidental/stupidity injuries and deaths from guns?

[deep]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 18:10:12 -0700, "Baxter"

<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>-
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:65foo8l9aa0elt9ht...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 08:21:11 -0700, "Baxter"
>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:c6dno85ufi2ek7071...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
>>>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Like blasting your ex.
>>>>
>>>> Yep. You don't think women need to protect themselves against their ex
>>>> sometimes?
>>>>
>>>You didn't click on the link[..]
>>
>> You didn't admit that people use guns all the time for legitimate self
>> defense, did you?
>>
>How does it work that the majority of the time they try to 'use guns for
>legitimate self defense', they fail miserably? And why all the
>accidental/stupidity injuries and deaths from guns?
>

In all fairness, you can't blame the guns for that. It's just that
most people who own guns are incredibly stupid. And as Ron White
pointed out "you can't fix stupid".

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:kmhhd0$5fs$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Cite please that the majority of times the use of a gun in self defense
fails miserably.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:kmhivr$qn5$3...@dont-email.me...

> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:kmhhd0$5fs$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:65foo8l9aa0elt9ht...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 08:21:11 -0700, "Baxter"
>>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:c6dno85ufi2ek7071...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
>>>>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Like blasting your ex.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. You don't think women need to protect themselves against their ex
>>>>> sometimes?
>>>>>
>>>>You didn't click on the link[..]
>>>
>>> You didn't admit that people use guns all the time for legitimate self
>>> defense, did you?
>>>
>> How does it work that the majority of the time they try to 'use guns for
>> legitimate self defense', they fail miserably?
>
> Cite please that the majority of times the use of a gun in self defense
> fails miserably.
>

Oh! You want cites?! Where's YOUR cite for "people use guns all the time
for legitimate self defense"??

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Yep, and let me guess, you didn't produce any and you're not going to
attempt to change the subject.

> Where's YOUR cite for "people use guns all the time for legitimate self
> defense"??

Well, I don't remember making any such claim, but since you ask.

http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

Now, I expect an immediate posting of a cite by you to support the claim you
actually did make.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message

news:kmhm5d$6vo$3...@dont-email.me...

> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>

>>> Cite please that the majority of times the use of a gun in self defense
>>> fails miserably.
>>>
>> Oh! You want cites?!
>
> Yep, and let me guess, you didn't produce any and you're not going to
> attempt to change the subject.
>
>> Where's YOUR cite for "people use guns all the time for legitimate self
>> defense"??
>
> Well, I don't remember making any such claim, but since you ask.
>
> http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
>
> Now, I expect an immediate posting of a cite by you to support the claim
> you actually did make.
>

---------------
One of the gun lobby's favorite talking points is that America's arsenal of
300 million civilian firearms makes us safer by preventing millions of
crimes. This contentious idea has taken fire as of late for relying on bogus
stats and ignoring that most criminal shootings involve people who know each
other, not gun-toting homeowners and midnight intruders. A new report from
Violence Policy Center shoots even more holes in the argument that a
well-armed society is a safer society.

The report finds that less than 3 percent of gun-related homicides are
committed in self-defense (mouse over charts for the raw numbers):


The gun lobby often claims that firearms are used for self-defense an
estimated 2.5 million times a year. But according to the Department of
Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, the actual number is just a
fraction of that:


Guns are used for self defense (both successfully and unsuccessfully) by
less than 1 percent of all violent crime victims:


The typical gun is more likely to be stolen than to be used in an attempt to
stop a crime:


In another twist on the self-defense argument, the NRA likes to claim that
women in particular need guns to guard against bullies and rapists. But
crime statistics unearthed by the Violence Policy Center indicate that only
about 10 percent of those who shoot people in self defense are women:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/charts-debunking-myth-guns-self-defense



20/20 took a group of college students of varying familiarity with guns, and
provided them with professional training exceeding the level required by
most states for concealed carry permits. Then the producers recorded the
students reacting to simulations in which an aggressive, active gunman
entered a classroom. In every simulation, the student failed to stop the
aggressor and was badly or fatally wounded; in one instance, the student
narrowly missed shooting a victim of the assault.

http://fair.org/home/the-self-defense-self-delusion/

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

news:kmhon9$m3g$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:kmhm5d$6vo$3...@dont-email.me...
>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>> Cite please that the majority of times the use of a gun in self defense
>>>> fails miserably.
>>>>
>>> Oh! You want cites?!
>>
>> Yep, and let me guess, you didn't produce any and you're not going to
>> attempt to change the subject.
>>
>>> Where's YOUR cite for "people use guns all the time for legitimate self
>>> defense"??
>>
>> Well, I don't remember making any such claim, but since you ask.
>>
>> http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
>>
>> Now, I expect an immediate posting of a cite by you to support the claim
>> you actually did make.
>>
> ---------------
> One of the gun lobby's favorite talking points

...is how liberals always try to change the subject when they are asked to
back up their bullshit claims. Like now for example.

I fulfilled my end of the bargain by producing a cite to support a claim
that I didn't even make.

Now it's your turn to produce cites to support the claim you DID make.

Either you can, or your failure to do so shall be taken as evidence you're
lying.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message

news:kmhoop$hlj$3...@dont-email.me...

> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:kmhon9$m3g$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:kmhm5d$6vo$3...@dont-email.me...
>>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite please that the majority of times the use of a gun in self
>>>>> defense fails miserably.
>>>>>
>>>> Oh! You want cites?!
>>>
>>> Yep, and let me guess, you didn't produce any and you're not going to
>>> attempt to change the subject.
>>>
>>>> Where's YOUR cite for "people use guns all the time for legitimate self
>>>> defense"??
>>>
>>> Well, I don't remember making any such claim, but since you ask.
>>>
>>> http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
>>>
>>> Now, I expect an immediate posting of a cite by you to support the claim
>>> you actually did make.
>>>
>> ---------------
>> One of the gun lobby's favorite talking points
>
> ...is how liberals always try to change the subject when they are asked to
> back up their bullshit claims. Like now for example.
>
> I fulfilled my end of the bargain by producing a cite to support a claim
> that I didn't even make.

No you didn't. You linked to discredited researcher, and his table of
"implied" uses.

>
> Now it's your turn to produce cites to support the claim you DID make.
>
> Either you can, or your failure to do so shall be taken as evidence you're
> lying.
>

I already did - you snipped those cites - for instance:
=========

The report finds that less than 3 percent of gun-related homicides are
committed in self-defense (mouse over charts for the raw numbers):

The gun lobby often claims that firearms are used for self-defense an
estimated 2.5 million times a year. But according to the Department of
Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, the actual number is just a
fraction of that:

Guns are used for self defense (both successfully and unsuccessfully) by
less than 1 percent of all violent crime victims:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/charts-debunking-myth-guns-self-defense

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 18:10:12 -0700, "Baxter"

<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:


>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:65foo8l9aa0elt9ht...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 08:21:11 -0700, "Baxter"
>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:c6dno85ufi2ek7071...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
>>>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Like blasting your ex.
>>>>
>>>> Yep. You don't think women need to protect themselves against their ex
>>>> sometimes?
>>>>
>>>You didn't click on the link[..]
>>
>> You didn't admit that people use guns all the time for legitimate self
>> defense, did you?
>>
>How does it work that the majority of the time they try to 'use guns for
>legitimate self defense', they fail miserably?

Go ahead and prove that with some facts.

See if you can do that without changing the subject immediately.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Which is why you'll be broken forever.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Oh! You want cites?! Where's YOUR cite [..]

That's kinda what we thought.

You're dismissed.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

ROFLMAO

If you're going to use an anti-gun publication as your cite, at LEAST
make sure it supports what you're trying to say.

YOUR CLAIM:

>>>> Cite please that the majority of times the use of a gun in self defense
>>>> fails miserably.
>>>>

MOTHER JONES' CLAIM

"There aren't as many self defense uses of guns as the NRA claims."

Try again, Baxter. Try reading for comprehension this time.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Irrelevant to your claim that "... the majority of times the use of a
gun in self defense fails miserably...."

STEEEEEERIKE ONE!

>>>>

>The gun lobby often claims that firearms are used for self-defense an
>estimated 2.5 million times a year. But according to the Department of
>Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, the actual number is just a
>fraction of that:

Irrelevant to your claim that "... the majority of times the use of a
gun in self defense fails miserably...."

STEEEEEERIKE TWO!

>Guns are used for self defense (both successfully and unsuccessfully) by
>less than 1 percent of all violent crime victims:
>
>
>http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/charts-debunking-myth-guns-self-defense
>

Irrelevant to your claim that "... the majority of times the use of a
gun in self defense fails miserably...."

STEEEEEERIKE THREE!

YOU'RE OUTTA THERE!

Once again, Baxter tries moving the goal posts and talks about
something else to cover up the fact that he can't prove his claim.

Case closed.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:7jopo85mvdbsa1b49...@4ax.com...

Actually: "less than 3 percent of gun-related homicides are committed in
self-defense" and "Guns are used for self defense (both successfully and

unsuccessfully) by less than 1 percent of all violent crime victims"

And then there's the example you snipped of a zero percent success rate -
with *trained* people.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

We're not talking about ALL violent crime victims. Try reading for
comprehension. Let's repeat what your claimed, until you get it.

"the majority of times the use of a gun in self defense fails
miserably."

Once more.....

"the majority of times the use of a gun in self defense fails
miserably."

Prove it.

>And then there's the example you snipped of a zero percent success rate -
>with *trained* people.

Now you're claiming that a gun has NEVER been used successfully in
self defense?

Really?

ROFLMAO

Can you read English at all?

[Ivan Bodley]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
news:h40qo81cif1gtn9na...@4ax.com...

####

Me thinks that Baxter is in cahoots with "Steady Eddy", but doesn't post to
'Alt.drugs.hard' under the same name....or are are they the same?

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:kmhhd0$5fs$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:65foo8l9aa0elt9ht...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 08:21:11 -0700, "Baxter"
>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:c6dno85ufi2ek7071...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
>>>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Like blasting your ex.
>>>>
>>>> Yep. You don't think women need to protect themselves against their
>>>> ex sometimes?
>>>>
>>>You didn't click on the link[..]
>>
>> You didn't admit that people use guns all the time for legitimate
>> self defense, did you?
>>
> How does it work that the majority of the time they try to 'use guns
> for legitimate self defense', they fail miserably?

Care to post a cite on that or did you just make it up?

And why all the
> accidental/stupidity injuries and deaths from guns?

Because with 80 million people having them, you will have accidents just
like with cars.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:fajoo894a1stmager...@4ax.com:

Change the word "most" to "many" and I would agree with you.

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Couple of points

1. He asked you first.

2. From your own government:

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.

*In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
or armed with weapons other than firearms. On average between 1987
and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime
victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who
also had a firearm. (Because the NCVS collects victimization data
on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for
self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms.
Questionnaire revisions introduced in January 1993 will permit
separate consideration of police and civilian firearm cases.)

Offenders shot at victims in 17% of handgun crimes, 1987-92

Percent
_______

Shot at victim 16.6%
Hit victim 3.0
Missed victim 13.6
Nongunshot injury 1.6
No physical injury 12.0

Didn't shoot at victim 83.4%
Other attack/attempt 19.9
Verb. threat of attack 15.4
Weapon present 46.8
Other threat .8
Unknown action .5

Average annual number 699,900

Note: Excludes homicides.

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:kmhon9$m3g$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

The NCVS estimates that guns are used in self defense 80,000 to 108,000
times per year. I pretty much agree with that although the NCVS NEVER
asks about defensive uses. It gets its information from the free form
narrative of the respondent.

> Guns are used for self defense (both successfully and unsuccessfully)
> by less than 1 percent of all violent crime victims:

If you wish to look at that, per the NCVS, there were 43.6 million
criminal victimzations in 1993. Of those 4.4 million were violent crimes
like rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault. Of those
violent crimes 1.3 million stated that they faced an offender with a
firearm. That means that 97% of the victimizations did not.

That said, about 29% of the victims of violent crime did, in fact, face a
firearm. Ergo, if 1% of those victims defended themselves with a
firearm, that would represent 3% of the people faced with a violent crime
had a firearm. 3% is about the average percentage of folks with a CCW.
Is it a match? No, but it does give you something to think about,
particularly when you are also looking at the outcomes of self defense
with a firearm which was given to you a few posts ago.

> The typical gun is more likely to be stolen than to be used in an
> attempt to stop a crime:

I notice no cite here but I don't think the statement is too far off.

> In another twist on the self-defense argument, the NRA likes to claim
> that women in particular need guns to guard against bullies and
> rapists. But crime statistics unearthed by the Violence Policy Center
> indicate that only about 10 percent of those who shoot people in self
> defense are women:
>
> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/charts-debunking-myth-guns-self
> -defense

Would you like to remove that option from those 10%?

> 20/20 took a group of college students of varying familiarity with
> guns, and provided them with professional training exceeding the level
> required by most states for concealed carry permits. Then the
> producers recorded the students reacting to simulations in which an
> aggressive, active gunman entered a classroom. In every simulation,
> the student failed to stop the aggressor and was badly or fatally
> wounded; in one instance, the student narrowly missed shooting a
> victim of the assault.
>
> http://fair.org/home/the-self-defense-self-delusion/

I have seen that set of videos. It is rather one-sided in how they
presented it. The "shooter" knew who the "CCW person" was as indicated
by how quickly he "shot" them. You need to really look at those videos
to understand what I am saying, but if you know anything about guns and
self defense you can easily see how it was rigged. For one thing the CCW
person stood up to fire at the assailant and never once went to cover.
That is NOT what professional training teaches you. The student also
wearing a long sweatshirt that added to the time to get the gun out. He
was not clad like most folks in that setting would be and, as I indicated
up above, it appeared that in each case, the shooter knew which student
it was to be.

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:kmi2ap$cqu$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

And you referred to anti-gun sources to support your claims. YOu did
exactly the same thing you accuse Scout of doing but seem to feel that in
your case it is alright.

>> Now it's your turn to produce cites to support the claim you DID
>> make.
>>
>> Either you can, or your failure to do so shall be taken as evidence
>> you're lying.
>>
> I already did - you snipped those cites - for instance:
> =========
> The report finds that less than 3 percent of gun-related homicides are
> committed in self-defense (mouse over charts for the raw numbers):
>
> The gun lobby often claims that firearms are used for self-defense an
> estimated 2.5 million times a year. But according to the Department of
> Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, the actual number is
> just a fraction of that:

That number is 80,000 to 108,000 per year (a number which YOU and,
probably Mother Jones, didn't present) and that comes from a survey that
NEVER asks about DGUs.

> Guns are used for self defense (both successfully and unsuccessfully)
> by less than 1 percent of all violent crime victims:
>
>
> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/charts-debunking-myth-guns-self
> -defense
>
>
>
>
>

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:kmiukq$1sr$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Having viewed those videos several times, I would put them almost on the
same plane as the exploding gas tanks in pickup trucks or the altered
police dispatch audio in the Zimmerman case.

[Ivan Bodley]

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
news:XnsA1BC67FF3...@216.196.121.131...

####

I have owned and used cars and guns, and have never had an incident or
accident with either since I was a teen.
Being I became a semi- professional Auto-Body repair tech at 18, and passed
the ASE Specialty test at 19, maybe that's why I never touched bumpers with
another car?( I would hate fixing my own wrecks)
Funny that.
My old Boss told me to take that ASE test with him, and I SMOKED HIM!
Along with an I-CAR seminar test weeks later!
http://www.ase.com/About-ASE.aspx
http://www.i-car.com/html_pages/about/vision.shtml

Maybe THAT'S what Baxter really wants?
"If you don't understand how a car works, you should NOT be able to own or
operate one!"

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1BC67FF3...@216.196.121.131...

> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
> news:kmhhd0$5fs$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>

> And why all the
>> accidental/stupidity injuries and deaths from guns?
>
> Because with 80 million people having them, you will have accidents just
> like with cars.
>

The difference is that we require automakers to make their cars safer while
we don't even allow research into making guns safer.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA1BC689CF...@216.196.121.131...

> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
> news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>>

>> Oh! You want cites?! Where's YOUR cite for "people use guns all the
>> time for legitimate self defense"??
>
> Couple of points
>
> 1. He asked you first.
>
> 2. From your own government:
>
> 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.
>

Really?! Afraid to post the source? Because those are 20 year-old
statistics?

Care to post just the percent of crimes stopped by 'people using guns for
legitimate self defense'?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA1BC6C9E1...@216.196.121.131...

> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
> news:kmhon9$m3g$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>

>> The gun lobby often claims that firearms are used for self-defense an
>> estimated 2.5 million times a year. But according to the Department of
>> Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, the actual number is
>> just a fraction of that:
>
> The NCVS estimates that guns are used in self defense 80,000 to 108,000
> times per year. I pretty much agree with that although the NCVS NEVER
> asks about defensive uses. It gets its information from the free form
> narrative of the respondent.
>

===========
In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides1
involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation�s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its
Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR).2 That same year, there were 8,275
criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2010, for every justifiable
homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal
homicides.3 And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the
thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings
(606) that year.4

The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated
claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of justifiable
homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal
homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings. And
contrary to the common stereotype promulgated by the gun lobby,14 those
killed in justifiable homicide incidents don�t always fit the expected
profile of an attack by a stranger: in 35.7 percent of the justifiable
homicides that occurred in 2010 the persons shot were known to the shooter.

The devastation guns inflict on our nation each and every year is clear:
nearly 32,000 dead, more than 73,000 wounded, and an untold number of lives
and communities shattered. Unexamined claims of the efficacy and frequency
of the self-defense use of firearms are the default rationale offered by the
gun lobby and gun industry for this unceasing, bloody toll. The idea that
firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that
the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms
into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the
regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and highcapacity
ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false.
When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is
that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used
in self-defense.15

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

[deep]

Good analogy. So how come we don't regisgter our guns like we do our
cars?

[Ivan Bodley]

"deep" wrote in message news:gheqo8tooc6i0640t...@4ax.com...

###

I don't HAVE to "register cars", you RETARD!
You don't either, you retard!
Why do YOU claim to have all the guns you say you have anyway, DuDu?
Are they all registered with the claymore mines you want to blow up just the
little girls, ...but NOT the boys?

[Bert]

Are you suggesting that cars are registered as a means to prevent
accidents?

Really?

Please provide evidence to support that.

And, how's it working out?

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[RD Sandman]

"Ivan Bodley" <bas...@bass.gov> wrote in
news:518d3467$0$25615$607e...@cv.net:

Baxter would probably have to call a cab.

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:kmjcjc$iq4$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1BC67FF3...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>> news:kmhhd0$5fs$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>
>> And why all the
>>> accidental/stupidity injuries and deaths from guns?
>>
>> Because with 80 million people having them, you will have accidents
>> just like with cars.
>>
> The difference is that we require automakers to make their cars safer

And we still have over 40,000 people getting killed every year.

> while we don't even allow research into making guns safer.

Bullshit. I don't know what research is not allowed. Please be
specific. They have already tried ballistics fingerprinting, fingerprint
ID to make the gun operate and microstamping, none of which have really
worked in real world conditions.

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 10, 1:09 pm, Leroy Eileen Baxter, a/k/a "Baxter the Usenet
SPAM'er" <bax...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>
>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1BC689CF...@216.196.121.131...
>
>>"Baxter" <bax...@baxcode.com> wrote in

>> news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>>> Oh! You want cites?! Where's YOUR cite for "people use guns
>>> all the time for legitimate self defense"??
>
>> Couple of points
>
>> 1. He asked you first.
>
>> 2. From your own government:
>
>> 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.
>
> Really?! Afraid to post the source? Because those are 20 year-old
> statistics?
>
> Care to post just the percent of crimes stopped by 'people using guns for
> legitimate self defense'?
>

Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review
Committee on Law and Justice (CLAJ)
[Beginning @ Page 102]

The Use of Firearms to Defend Against Criminals

While a large body of research has considered the effects of firearms
on injury, crime, and suicide, far less attention has been devoted to
understanding their defensive and deterrent effects. Firearms are used
to defend against criminals. For example, the presence of a gun may
frighten a criminal away, thereby reducing the likelihood of loss of
property, injury, or death.

In this chapter, we consider what is known about the extent and nature
of defensive gun use (DGU). Over the past decade, researchers have
attempted to measure the prevalence of defensive gun use in the
population. This measurement problem has proved to be quite complex,
with some estimates suggesting just over 100,000 defensive gun uses
per year and others suggesting 2.5 million or more defensive gun uses
per year.

A primary cause of this uncertainty is the disagreement over the
definition of defensive gun use—in particular, whether it should be
defined as a response to victimization or as a means to prevent
victimization from occurring in the first place. There is also
uncertainty regarding the accuracy of survey responses to sensitive
questions and the related problems of how to effectively measure
defensive gun use, the types of questions that should be asked, and
the methods of data collection. These disagreements over definition
and measurement have resulted in prevalence rates that differ by a
factor of 22 or more. While even the smallest of the estimates
indicates that there are hundreds of defensive uses every day, there
is much contention over the magnitude and the details.

Since answers to this debate precede any serious investigation into
other related questions, we focus our attention on summarizing and
rating the DGU estimates from the various gun use surveys. We find
that fundamental problems in defining what is meant by defensive gun
use may be a primary impediment to accurate measurement. Finally,
after reviewing the literature that attempts to count the annual
number of defensive gun uses in the United States, we then consider
the small set of studies that evaluate the effectiveness of firearms
for defense.

COUNTING DEFENSIVE GUN USES

How many times each year do civilians use firearms defensively? The
answers provided to this seemingly simple question have been
confusing. Consider the findings from two of the most widely cited
studies in the field: McDowall et al. (1998), using the data from 1992
and 1994 waves of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS),
found roughly 116,000 defensive gun uses per year, and Kleck and Gertz
(1995), using data from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS),
found around 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.

Many other surveys provide information on the prevalence of defensive
gun use. Using the original National Crime Survey, McDowall and
Wiersema (1994) estimate 64,615 annual incidents from 1987 to 1990. At
least 19 other surveys have resulted in estimated numbers of defensive
gun uses that are similar (i.e., statistically indistinguishable) to
the results founds by Kleck and Gertz. No other surveys have found
numbers consistent with the NCVS (other gun use surveys are reviewed
in Kleck and Gertz, 1995, and Kleck, 2001a).

To characterize the wide gap in the estimated prevalence rate, it is
sufficient to consider the estimates derived from the NSDS and recent
waves of the NCVS. These two estimates differ by a factor of nearly
22. While strikingly large, the difference in the estimated prevalence
rate should, in fact, come as no surprise. As revealed in Table 5-1,
the two surveys are markedly different, covering different
populations, interviewing respondents by different methods, using
different recall periods, and asking different questions.

The NCVS is an ongoing annual survey conducted by the federal
government (i.e., the Census Bureau on behalf of the Department of
Justice) that relies on a complex rotating panel design to survey a
representative sample of nearly 100,000 noninstitutionalized adults
(age 12 and over), from 50,000 households. To elicit defensive gun use
incidents, the survey first assesses whether the respondent has been
the victim of particular classes of crime—rape, assault, burglary,
personal and household larceny, or car theft—during the past six
months, and then asks several follow-up questions about self-defense.
In particular, victims are asked:

TABLE 5-1 Comparing Sampling Design of the NCVS and NSDS

National Crime Victimization Survey
National Self-Defense Survey

Coverage

•Noninstitutionalized U.S. population, age 12 and over, each year
since 1973

•Defensive gun use questions to victims (self-reported)
•U.S population, age 18 and over, with phones, 1993

•DGU questions to all respondents

Sample design

•Rotating panel design

•Stratified, multistage cluster sample of housing units

•Telephone and personal contacts
•One-shot cross-section

•Stratified by region (South and West oversampled)

•Random digit dialing

Sample size

Approximately 50,000 households and 100,000 individuals
4,997 individuals

Response rate

Approximately 95% of eligible housing units
61% of eligible numbers answered by human beings

Sponsorship

U.S. Census Bureau for U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Network

Estimated defensive gun use

116,398 annual incidents using 1993-1994 data from redesigned survey
2,549,862 annual incidents

SOURCE: McDowall et al. (2000: Table 1). Used with kind permission of
Springer Science and Business Media.

Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it
was going on?

Did you do anything (else) with the idea of protecting yourself or
your property while the incident was going on?

Responses to these follow-up probes are coded into a number of
categories, including whether the respondent attacked or threatened
the offender with a gun.

The NSDS was a one-shot cross-sectional phone survey conducted by a
private polling firm, Research Network, of a representative sample of
nearly 5,000 adults (age 18 and over). The survey, which focused on
firearms use, first assessed whether the respondent used a gun
defensively during the past five years, and then asked details about
the incident. In particular, respondents were first asked:

Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of
your household used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self-
protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or
elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or
work as a security guard.

If the answer was yes, they were then asked:

Did this incident [any of these incidents] happen in the past 12
months?

The discrepancies in the prevalence estimates of defensive gun use can
and should be better understood. Remarkably little scientific research
has been conducted to evaluate the validity of DGU estimates, yet the
possible explanations are relatively easy to categorize and study. The
two surveys are either (1) measuring something different or (2)
affected by response problems in different ways, or (3) both.
Statistical variability, usually reflected by the standard error or
confidence interval of the parameter, also plays some role but cannot
explain these order of magnitude differences.

Coverage

Perhaps the most obvious explanation for the wide variation in the
range of DGU estimates is that the surveys measure different
variables. In the NSDS, for example, all respondents are asked the gun
use questions. In contrast, the NCVS inquires only about use among
persons who claim to be victims of rape, assault, burglary, personal
and household larceny, and car theft. The NCVS excludes preemptive
uses of firearms, uses that occur in crimes not screened for in the
survey (e.g., commercial robbery, trespassing, and arson), and uses
for crimes not revealed by respondents.1

McDowall et al. (2000) found some evidence that these differences in
coverage play an important role. In an experimental survey that
overrepresents firearms owners, 3,006 respondents were asked both sets
of questions about defensive gun use, with random variation in which
questions came first in the interview. By holding the survey sampling
procedures constant (e.g., consistent confidentiality concerns and
recall periods), the authors focus on the effects of questionnaire
content. Overall, in this experiment, the NCVS survey items yielded
three times fewer reports of defensive gun use than questionnaires
that ask all respondents about defensive uses.

The McDowall et al. (2000) crossover experiment is informative and is
exactly the type of methodological research that will begin to explain
the sharp divergence in gun use estimates and how best to measure
defensive gun use. There remains, however, much work to be done.

1
It is well known, for example, that incidents of rape and domestic
violence are substantially underreported in the NCVS (National
Research Council, 2003).

The sample usedin this survey is not representative, and the methods
shed light on only one of the many competing hypotheses. Furthermore,
this limited evidence is difficult to interpret. Even with a
consistent sampling design, inaccurate reporting may still play an
important role. For example, estimates from an NCVS type of question
would be biased if victims were reluctant to report unsuccessful
defensive gun use. Likewise, the estimates found using the NSDS-type
survey would be biased if respondents report defensive gun uses based
on mistaken perceptions of harmless encounters.

Even if we accept the notion of fully accurate reporting, or at least
consistent inaccuracies across the surveys, details on the cause of
these differences are especially important. If these discrepancies
result because of incomplete reporting of victimization among the
classes considered (e.g., rape and domestic violence) in the NCVS,
then one must address the measurement error questions again.
Certainly, we are interested in the behavior of all victims, not just
those who self-report. If instead, the differences occur because the
NSDS-type question includes preemptive uses, then the relevant debate
might focus on which variable is of interest.

In any case, much of the confusion surrounding the debate seems to
center on what is meant by defensive gun use. Self-defense is an
ambiguous term that involves both objective components about ownership
and use and subjective features about intent (National Research
Council, 1993).2 Whether one is a defender (of oneself or others) or a
perpetrator, for example, may depend on perspective. Some reports of
defensive gun use may involve illegal carrying and possession (Kleck
and Gertz, 1995; Kleck, 2001b), and some uses against supposed
criminals may legally amount to aggravated assault (Duncan, 2000a,
2000b; McDowall et al., 2000; Hemenway et al., 2000; Hemenway and
Azrael, 2000). Likewise, protecting oneself against possible or
perceived harm may be different from protecting oneself while being
victimized.

Given this ambiguity, perhaps one of the more important and difficult
problems is to develop a common language for understanding defensive
and offensive gun use. Uniform concepts and a common language will
serve to facilitate future survey work, guide scholarly discussions,
and enhance understanding of the complex ways in which firearms are
related to crime, violence and injury. More generally, a commonly
understood language can also influence the development of firearms
policy and violence policy more generally.

2
This lack of a clear definition may also contribute to inaccurate
response. If scholars who think about these issues have yet to come up
with a clear definition for the behavior of interest, it may be
unreasonable to rely on the accuracy of respondents whom, in some
cases, may not understand or interpret the question as intended.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=167#p2000ba499960167001
FIGURE 5-1 Stages and outcome of potential criminal encounters.
SOURCE: Adapted from Kleck (1997: Figure 7.1).

Although defining and measuring different types of gun use (both
offensive and defensive) is not a simple matter, a typology similar to
the one developed by Kleck may be a useful starting point (1997:
Figure 7.1). Figure 5-1 provides a rough summary of the development of
a violent or criminal encounter. Firearms and other weapons may be
involved at different points in the development of a crime, from
threats to realized crimes and injury. At each stage of a potentially
threatening encounter, one may be interested in learning about the
basic circumstances, about firearms use and other actions, about the
intent of the respondent, and about outcomes. The relatively
subjective nature of threats, which may or may not develop into
criminal events, may justify placing these uses in a separate category
(Kleck, 2001b:236). More generally, it would seem useful to
distinguish between the more objective and subjective features of
firearms use. Eliciting and interpreting relatively objective
questions about whether and how one uses a gun may be relatively
simple and lead to consensus on these basic matters. Eliciting and
interpreting relatively subjective questions on intent may be much
more complex and less amenable to consensus conclusions.3

Ultimately, researchers may conclude that it is impossible to
effectively measure many aspects of defensive gun use. As noted above,
counting crimes averted before the threat stage, and measuring
deterrence more generally, may be impossible. Successful deterrence,
after all, may yield no overt event to count. Imagine, for example,
measuring defensive gun use for a person who routinely carries a
handgun in a visible holster. How many times has this person “used a
handgun, even it was not fired, for self-protection?” (i.e., the NSDS
definition of defensive gun use). In this regard, much of the debate
on the number of defensive gun uses may stem from an ill-defined
question, rather than measurement error per se.

Response Problems in Firearms Use Surveys

Questions about the quality of self-reports of firearms use are
inevitable. Response problems occur to some degree in nearly all
surveys but are arguably more severe in surveys of firearm-related
activities in which some individuals may be reluctant to admit that
they use a firearm, and others may brag about or exaggerate such
behavior.4 If some sampled individuals give incorrect answers
(inaccurate response) and others fail to answer the survey at all
(nonresponse), investigators may draw incorrect conclusions from the
data provided by a survey.

3
A number of scholars have made explicit recommendations for
collecting detailed narratives on the nature of the event. See, for
example, recommendations made by Cook and Ludwig (1998), Smith (1997),
and Kleck (2000). Hemenway and Azrael (2000) and Hemenway et al.
(2000) collected and analyzed detailed narratives on gun use incidents
that reveal that they are often complex and difficult to categorize.

4
These same measurement problems were discussed in a report by the
National Research Council (2001) that explored the data problems
associated with monitoring illicit drug consumption.

Inaccurate Response

In fact, it is widely thought that inaccurate response biases the
estimates of defensive gun use. Self-report surveys on possibly
deviant behaviors invariably yield some false reports. Responses are
miscoded, and respondents may misunderstand the questions or may not
correctly remember or interpret the event. In addition to these
unintentional errors, respondents may also exaggerate or conceal
certain information.

The literature speculates widely on the nature of reporting errors in
the firearms use surveys.5 Some argue that reporting errors cause the
estimates derived from the NCVS to be biased downward.6 Kleck and
Gertz (1995) and Kleck (2001a), for example, speculate that NCVS
respondents doubting the legality of their behaviors or more generally
fearing government intrusion may be inclined to provide false reports
to government officials conducting nonanonymous interviews.
Furthermore, Smith (1997) notes that NCVS respondents are not directly
asked about firearms use but instead are first asked whether they
defended themselves, and then they are asked to describe in what ways.
Indirect questions may lead to incomplete answers.

Others argue that the estimates from the NSDS and other firearms use
surveys are upwardly biased. Cook and Ludwig (1998), Hemenway (1997a),
and Smith (1997), for example, suggest that the firearms use surveys
do not effectively bound events that occur in prior interviews and
thus may result in “memory telescoping.” That is, respondents in the
NSDS are more likely to report events that occurred prior to the
observation window of interest. Furthermore, McDowall et al. (2000)
speculate that preemptive uses recorded in the NSDS but not generally
covered in the NCVS (which focuses on victims) are susceptible to a
greater degree of subjectivity and thus inaccurate reporting.

A number of other general arguments have been raised as to why these
surveys might be inaccurate. Some suggest that respondents may forget
or conceal events that do not lead to adverse outcomes (Kleck and
Gertz, 1995; Kleck, 2001a), while others suggest that respondents may
exaggerate or conceal events due to social stigma. Some have even
suggested that respondents may strategically answer questions to
somehow influence the ongoing public debate (Cook et al., 1997).

5
See Kleck (2001a) for a detailed review of the various hypotheses
about inaccurate reporting in gun use questionnaires.

6
Kleck argues that the NCVS is well designed and uses state-of-the-art
survey sampling techniques for measuring victimization, but for
exactly those reasons it is not well designed for measuring defensive
gun use.

Finally, Hemenway (1997b) raises what amounts to a mechanical, rather
than behavioral, concernregarding why the DGU estimates may be
generally biased upward. For any rare event, in fact for any event
with less than 50 percent probability, there are more respondents who
can give false positive than false negative reports. Suppose, for
example, in a sample of 1,000 respondents, the true prevalence rate is
1 percent; that is, 10 respondents used a gun defensively. Then 990
may provide false positive reports, while only 10 may provide false
negative reports. Even small fractions of false positive reports may
lead to substantial upward biases. Cook et al. (1997) further suggest
that by focusing on victims, the NCVS reduces the scope of the false
positive problem.

Although the rare events problem may be well known and documented in
epidemiological studies of disease, it is uncertain whether this same
phenomena affects inferences on defensive gun uses as well. People may
have reasons to conceal or exaggerate defensive gun uses that may not
apply when studying rare diseases. In fact, what is known about
accurate reporting of other crime-related activities provides some
evidence to the contrary. Validation studies on the accuracy of self-
reports of illicit drug use among arrestees, for example, suggest that
for this somewhat rare but illegal activity, the numbers of false
reports of use are far less than the numbers of false reports of
abstinence: self-reports of drug use are biased downward (Harrison,
1995).

Although theories abound, it is not possible to identify the
prevalence of defensive gun use without knowledge on inaccurate
reporting. Kleck and Gertz (1995) and others suggest that estimates
from the NCVS are biased downward, arguing that respondents are
reluctant to reveal information to government officials, and that
indirect questions may yield inaccurate reports. Hemenway (1997a) and
others suggest that estimates from the NSDS are biased upward, arguing
that memory telescoping, self-presentation biases, and the rare events
problem more generally lead the numbers of false positive reports to
substantially exceed the numbers of false negative reports. It is not
known, however, whether Kleck’s, Hemenway’s, or some other assumptions
are correct. The committee is not aware of any factual basis for
drawing conclusions one way or the other about reporting errors.

Nonresponse

While inaccurate response has received a great deal of speculative
attention, the problem of nonresponse has hardly been noticed.7
Nonresponse is a problem in survey sampling, but it is especially
problematic in the firearms use phone surveys like the NSDS. Although
not completely revealed by Kleck and Gertz (1995), the response rate
in the NSDS appears to lie somewhere between 14 and 61 percent.8 The
response rate in the NCVS survey is substantially higher, at around 95
percent.

7
Both Duncan (2000b) and Hemenway (1997a) recognize the potential
problems created by nonresponse in the firearms use surveys.

Survey data are uninformative about the behavior of nonrespondents.
Thus, these data do not identify prevalence unless one makes
untestable assumptions about nonrespondents. A simple example
illustrates the problem. Suppose that 1,000 individuals are asked
whether they used a firearm defensively during the past year but that
500 do not respond, so the nonresponse rate is 50 percent. If 5 of the
500 respondents used guns defensively during the past year, then the
prevalence of defensive gun use among respondents is 5/500 = 1
percent. However, true prevalence among the 1,000 surveyed individuals
depends on how many of the nonrespondents used a firearm. If none did,
then true prevalence is 5/1,000 = 0.5 percent. If all did, then true
prevalence is [(5 + 500)/1,000] = 50.5 percent. If between 0 and 500
nonrespondents used a firearm defensively, then true prevalence is
between 0.5 and 50.5 percent. Thus, in this example, nonresponse
causes true prevalence to be uncertain within a range of 50 percent.

Prevalence rates can be identified if one makes sufficiently strong
assumptions about the behavior of nonrespondents. In the DGU
literature, nonresponse is assumed to be random, thus implying that
that prevalence among nonrespondents is the same as prevalence among
respondents. The committee is not aware of any empirical evidence that
supports the view that nonresponse is random or, for that matter,
evidence to the contrary.

External Validity

A number of scholars have suggested that results from the NSDS and
other firearms use surveys are difficult to reconcile with analogous
statistics on crime and injury found in other data.

8
Kleck and Gertz report that 61 percent of contacts with persons for
the NSDS resulted in a completed interview. Presumably, however, there
were also many households in the original sampling scheme that were
not contacted. For example, using data from the National Study of
Private Firearms Ownership (NSPFO), a national phone survey designed
to elicit information about firearms ownership and use, Cook and
Ludwig (1998) report that 29,917 persons were part of the original
sampling scheme, of which 15,948 were determined to be ineligible
(phones not working, not residential, etc.), 3,268 were determined to
be eligible, and the remaining 10,701 were unknown (e.g., no answer,
answering machine, busy, etc.). Of the 3,268 that were known to be
eligible, 2,568 provided complete interviews, for a response rate of
79 percent among contacted households. The 10,701 with unknown
eligibility status must also be accounted for. If none of these
households was actually eligible, than the true response rate would be
79 percent. If, however, all of these are eligible, then the true rate
would be 18 percent [2,568/(10,701 + 3,268)]. Thus, the response rate
in the NSPOF lies between 18 and 79 percent. If the response rates are
consistent across the two surveys, the lower bound response rate for
the NSDS would be 14 percent [ (0.61/0.79)*0.18].

For example, Hemenway (1997a) points out that results from the NSDS
imply that firearms are used defensively in every burglary committed
in occupied households and in nearly 60 percent of rapes and sexual
assaults committed against persons over 18 years of age; that
defensive gun users thought they wounded or killed offenders in
207,000 incidents, yet only 100,000 people are treated in emergency
rooms for nonfatal firearms injuries; and that hundreds of thousands
of persons almost certainly would have been killed if they had not
used a firearm defensively, implying that nearly all potentially fatal
attacks are successfully defended against (Cook and Ludwig, 1998).
Cook and Ludwig (1998), Hemenway (1997a), and others argue that these
and other similar comparisons lead to “completely implausible
conclusions” and go on to suggest that these inconsistencies “only
buttress the presumption of massive overestimation” of defensive gun
uses in the NSDS (Hemenway, 1997a:1444).

Although potentially troubling, the strong conclusion drawn about the
reliability and accuracy of the DGU estimates seems premature. In some
cases, it may be that the comparison statistic is subject to error.
The reported prevalence of rape in the NCVS, for example, is believed
to be biased substantially downward (National Research Council, 2003).
More importantly, however, evidence on the apparent biases of the
estimated incident rates, wounding rates, and counts of averted
injuries does not directly pertain to the accuracy of the DGU
estimates. Kleck and Gertz (1995), in fact, note that victimization
estimates drawn using the NSDS, a survey designed to measure firearms
use rather than victimization, are subject to potential reporting
errors in unknown directions. Cook and Ludwig (1998) find evidence of
reporting errors of crime in the firearms use surveys, with many
respondents reporting that crime was involved on one hand, yet that no
crime was involved on the other. Likewise, questions about whether a
respondent thought he wounded or killed the offender and those
eliciting subjective information on what would have happened had a gun
not been used are also subject to substantial reporting biases. As
noted by Kleck and Gertz (1998), respondents may be inclined to
“remember with favor their marksmanship” and may tend to exaggerate
the seriousness of the event.

In addition to invalid response errors, sampling variability may also
play an important role in these conditional comparisons. Inferences
drawn from the relatively small subsamples of persons who report using
firearms defensively (N = 213 in the NSDS) are subject to high degrees
of sampling error. Using data from the National Study of Private
Firearms Ownership, a survey similar to the NSDS, Cook and Ludwig
(1998), for example, estimate that firearms were used defensively in
322,000 rapes (rape, attempted rape, sexual assault) but report a 95
percent confidence interval of [12,000 to 632,000].9 The lower bound
interval estimate would imply that firearms are used defensively in
less than 3 percent of all rapes and sexual assaults (Kleck, 2001a).

Replication and Recommendations

As indicated above, the estimated numbers of defensive gun uses found
using the NSDS have been reproduced (i.e., are statistically
indistinguishable) in many other surveys. Kleck (2001a:270) suggests
that replication provides ample evidence of the validity of the
findings in the NSDS survey:

The hypothesis that many Americans use guns for self-protection each
year has been repeatedly subjected to empirical test, using the only
feasible method for doing so, survey of representative samples of the
populations. The results of nineteen consecutive surveys unanimously
indicate that each year huge numbers of Americans (700,000 or more)
use guns for self-protection. Further, the more technically sound the
survey, the higher the defensive gun use estimates. The entire body of
evidence cannot be rejected based on the speculation that all surveys
share biases that, on net, cause an over estimation of defensive gun
use frequency because, ignoring fallacious reasoning, there is no
empirical evidence to support this novel theory. At this point, it is
fair to say that no intellectually serious challenge has been mounted
to the case for defensive gun use being very frequent.

Certainly, the numerous surveys reveal some phenomena. In light of the
differences in coverage and potential response errors, however, what
exactly these surveys measure remains uncertain. Ultimately, the
committee found no comfort in numbers: the existing surveys do not
resolve the ongoing questions about response problems and do not
change the fact that different subpopulations are queried. Mere
repetition does not eliminate bias (Rosenbaum, 2001; Hemenway, 1997a).

However, the committee strongly agrees with the main sentiment
expressed by Kleck and others. Evidence from self-reported surveys
will invariably be subject to concerns over reporting errors and other
biases. Still, we can hope to have a greater degree of confidence in
the survey results by relying on replications and survey sampling
experiments that serve to effectively reduce the degree of uncertainty
about the true prevalence rate. The objective of these experiments
should be consistency of results in a variety of sampling designs.
Replications and experiments should disrupt aspects of the original
study to check whether the prevalence estimate is reproduced or
altered under different survey designs. Effective replications will
vary the nature of the potential biases in order to explicitly reduce,
rather than increase, the prospects of reproducing the original
results (Rosenbaum, 2001).

9
Kleck and Gertz (1995) do not report confidence intervals for these
conditional estimates.

These ideas are not new to this controversial literature. McDowall et
al. (2000) do exactly this type of experimental evaluation by holding
certain factors constant—namely, the sampling methodology—but varying
the content of the questionnaire. Other similar experiments or
replications or both could be used to vary the nature of memory
telescoping, social presentation bias, and other plausible factors
that might influence reporting behaviors. In fact, Cook and Ludwig
(1998), Smith (1997), Kleck (2000), and many others make numerous
recommendations for experiments or replications.

The committee strongly believes that these types of studies can and
should be undertaken. Without reliable information, researchers will
continue to be forced to make unsubstantiated assumptions about the
validity of responses and thus about the prevalence of defensive gun
use.

The committee recommends a systematic and rigorous research program to
(1) clearly define and understand what is being measured, (2)
understand inaccurate response in the national use surveys, and (3)
develop methods to reduce reporting errors to the extent possible.
Well-established survey sampling methods can and should be brought to
bear to evaluate the response problems. Understanding response will be
useful for not only explaining the striking gap in DGU estimates but,
more importantly, understanding defensive gun use.

EFFICACY OF SELF-DEFENSE WITH A FIREARM

Accurate measurement on the extent of firearms use is the first step
for beginning a constructive dialogue on how firearms are used in
American society. Invariably, however, attention will turn to the more
important and difficult questions about the consequences of using a
firearm for self-defense. How effective are firearms at preventing
injury and crime? Would gun users have been better off (on average)
using alternative defensive strategies? How does the efficacy of self-
defense vary by circumstance (e.g., abilities of victim and
perpetrator, location of crime, weaponry)?

Answering these questions is essential for evaluating the costs and
benefits of firearms to society. For example, if using a firearm
defensively is no more effective than basic avoidance techniques, then
defensive gun use would have no relative benefit. In contrast, if
firearms are more effective at resisting crime and injury than
alternative methods, then civilian ownership and the use of firearms
may play a vital role in the nation’s ability to deter and fight
crime. Of course, the benefits of defensive gun use must ultimately be
weighed against the potential costs that may arise if firearms are
involved in the final stages of violent criminal encounters: defensive
gun use may lead to relatively higher risks of injury and death to
victims or offenders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE 5-2 Probability of Injury and Loss Among Victims by Means of
Self-Protection

Method
Robbery
Assault

Injury
Loss
Injury

With gun
12.8
15.2
27.9

All self-protection
34.0
52.8
58.1

No self-protection
23.6
83.6
55.2

All incidents
30.2
69.9
57.4

SOURCE: Adapted from Kleck (2001b:289, Table 7.1).

Finally, both the benefits and costs must be evaluated within the
context of offender weaponry. If criminals were not armed, would
firearms be more or less useful for protecting potential victims? If
the efficacy of self-defense depends on the number of firearms in
society, then partial equilibrium analyses that hold offender weaponry
fixed may not answer the right questions.

Empirical Evidence

While the literature on self-defense has been preoccupied with the
basic measurement questions, a handful of studies assess the efficacy
of defensive gun use.10 Using data from the NCVS, Kleck (2001b)
compares the probability of injury and crime by different defensive
actions. The results, summarized in Table 5-2, suggest that
respondents who use firearms are less likely to be injured and lose
property than those using other modes of protection. For example,
while the overall rate of injury in robbery is 30.2, only 12.8 percent
of those using a firearm for self-protection were injured. Ziegenhagen
and Brosnan (1985) draw similar conclusions about the efficacy of
armed (although not firearm) resistance when summarizing 13 city
victim surveys. Using a multivariate regression analysis, Kleck and
DeLone (1993) confirm these basic cross-tabular findings.11

10
A number of studies use samples of data collected from crimes
reported to police. Police records are presumed to understate
resistance in general and defensive gun use in particular (Kleck,
2001a; Kleck and DeLone, 1993). More importantly, these surveys cannot
reveal successful forms of resistance that are not reported to the
police at all.

11
The committee is not aware of other multivariate analyses of the
effects of resistance with a firearm on crime and injury. Researchers
have, however, evaluated the effects of armed resistance. Using data
from the NCVS, Kleck and Sayles (1990) conclude that rapes are less
likely to be completed if the victim uses armed resistance. Lizotte
(1986) draws similar conclusions using data from city victim surveys.

Defense with a firearm is associated with fewer completed robberies
and less injury. Two forms of self-defense, namely using force without
a weapon and trying to get help or attract attention, are associated
with higher injury rates than taking no self-protective action.

The results suggest interesting associations: victims who use guns
defensively are less likely to be harmed than those using other forms
of self-protection. Whether these findings reflect underlying causal
relationships or spurious correlations remains uncertain. Much of the
existing evidence reports simple bivariate correlations, without
controlling for any confounding factors. Kleck and DeLone (1993) rely
on multivariate linear regression methods that implicitly assume that
firearms use, conditional on observed factors, is statistically
independent of the unobserved factors influencing the outcomes, as
would be the case in a classical randomized experiment.12 Is this
exogenous selection assumption reasonable? Arguably, the decisions to
own, carry, and use a firearm for self-defense are very complex,
involving both individual and environmental factors that are related
to whether a crime is attempted, as well as the outcomes of interest.
13 The ability of a person to defend himself or herself, attitudes
toward violence and crime, emotional well-being, and neighborhood
characteristics may all influence whether a person uses a firearm and
the resulting injury and crime. Thus, in general, it is difficult to
be confident that the control variables account for the numerous
confounding factors that may result in spurious correlations.
Furthermore, the committee is not aware of any research that considers
whether the finding is robust to a variety of methodological
adjustments. Without an established body of research assessing whether
the findings are robust to the choice of covariates, functional form,
and other modeling assumptions, it is difficult to assess the
credibility of the research to date.

The most obvious and fundamental limitation, however, is that the data
on defensive gun uses are, as described above, potentially error
ridden. Without reliable information on the prevalence of defensive
gun use, researchers are forced to make implausible and
unsubstantiated assumptions about the accuracy of self-reported
measures of resistance. For example, Kleck, one of the most vocal
critics of DGU estimates derived from the NCVS, assumes these data are
fully accurate when measuring the efficacy of resistance (Kleck,
2001b; Kleck and DeLone, 1993).

12
Kleck and DeLone (1993) account for basic demographic characteristics
of the victim (e.g., race, gender, age, income, and education) and
some details on the event (e.g, whether the offender had a gun).

13
Not only does the potential of unobserved factors create biases of
unknown magnitude, but it is also difficult to determine the direction
of these biases. If, as suggested by the National Research Council
(1993:266), persons who use firearms were better prepared in general
to defend against crime, then the estimated associations would be
biased upward. In contrast, if firearms are used in more dangerous
situations, then the estimated associations would be biased downward
(Kleck, 2001b:292).

fewer completed robberies and less injury. Two forms of self-defense,
namely using force without a weapon and trying to get help or attract
attention, are associated with higher injury rates than taking no self-
protective action.

The results suggest interesting associations: victims who use guns
defensively are less likely to be harmed than those using other forms
of self-protection. Whether these findings reflect underlying causal
relationships or spurious correlations remains uncertain. Much of the
existing evidence reports simple bivariate correlations, without
controlling for any confounding factors. Kleck and DeLone (1993) rely
on multivariate linear regression methods that implicitly assume that
firearms use, conditional on observed factors, is statistically
independent of the unobserved factors influencing the outcomes, as
would be the case in a classical randomized experiment.12 Is this
exogenous selection assumption reasonable? Arguably, the decisions to
own, carry, and use a firearm for self-defense are very complex,
involving both individual and environmental factors that are related
to whether a crime is attempted, as well as the outcomes of interest.
13 The ability of a person to defend himself or herself, attitudes
toward violence and crime, emotional well-being, and neighborhood
characteristics may all influence whether a person uses a firearm and
the resulting injury and crime. Thus, in general, it is difficult to
be confident that the control variables account for the numerous
confounding factors that may result in spurious correlations.
Furthermore, the committee is not aware of any research that considers
whether the finding is robust to a variety of methodological
adjustments. Without an established body of research assessing whether
the findings are robust to the choice of covariates, functional form,
and other modeling assumptions, it is difficult to assess the
credibility of the research to date.

The most obvious and fundamental limitation, however, is that the data
on defensive gun uses are, as described above, potentially error
ridden. Without reliable information on the prevalence of defensive
gun use, researchers are forced to make implausible and
unsubstantiated assumptions about the accuracy of self-reported
measures of resistance. For example, Kleck, one of the most vocal
critics of DGU estimates derived from the NCVS, assumes these data are
fully accurate when measuring the efficacy of resistance (Kleck,
2001b; Kleck and DeLone, 1993).

12
Kleck and DeLone (1993) account for basic demographic characteristics
of the victim (e.g., race, gender, age, income, and education) and
some details on the event (e.g, whether the offender had a gun).

13
Not only does the potential of unobserved factors create biases of
unknown magnitude, but it is also difficult to determine the direction
of these biases. If, as suggested by the National Research Council
(1993:266), persons who use firearms were better prepared in general
to defend against crime, then the estimated associations would be
biased upward. In contrast, if firearms are used in more dangerous
situations, then the estimated associations would be biased downward
(Kleck, 2001b:292).

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=102

Any further questions, Baxter?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA1BC78E05...@216.196.121.131...

> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
> news:kmjcjc$iq4$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

>> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA1BC67FF3...@216.196.121.131...
>>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>>> news:kmhhd0$5fs$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>
>>> And why all the
>>>> accidental/stupidity injuries and deaths from guns?
>>>
>>> Because with 80 million people having them, you will have accidents
>>> just like with cars.
>>>
>> The difference is that we require automakers to make their cars safer
>
> And we still have over 40,000 people getting killed every year.

Out of how many uses?

>
>> while we don't even allow research into making guns safer.
>
> Bullshit. I don't know what research is not allowed. Please be
> specific. They have already tried ballistics fingerprinting, fingerprint
> ID to make the gun operate and microstamping, none of which have really
> worked in real world conditions.
>

Neither ballistics fingerprinting nor microstamping are going to work
without gun/owner registration. AFATG, I think putting taggants in the lead
would be more effective - but would require keeping records of who the
bullets were sold to.

I don't think you can say that "fingerprint ID" or Smart Guns have failed,
yet - but the NRA is definitely against it/them. It's also very early in
Development.

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 10, 1:17 pm, Leroy Eleen Baxter, a/k/a "Baxter the Usenet
SPAM'er" <bax...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>
>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1BC6C9E1...@216.196.121.131...
>
>>"Baxter" <baxter.spambl...@baxcode.com> wrote in

>> news:kmhon9$m3g$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>>> The gun lobby often claims that firearms are used for self-defense an
>>> estimated 2.5 million times a year. But according to the Department
>>> of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, the actual number
>>> is just a fraction of that:
>
>> The NCVS estimates that guns are used in self defense 80,000 to 108,000
>> times per year. I pretty much agree with that although the NCVS NEVER
>> asks about defensive uses. It gets its information from the free form
>> narrative of the respondent.
>
> ===========
> In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides1
> involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau
> of Investigation s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its
> Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR).2
>

You could have stopped right there, Baxter, as it "tells the tale"
that your "unbiased source" believes you stupid enough to believe that
all DGUs are reported to law enforcement authruties; let alone end up
in the UCR.

Trust me on this, Baxter: what is not reported to the FBI to be
included in the UCR would boggle your mind.

“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what
they conceal is vital."
--Aaron Levenstein

“There are no routine statistical questions, only questionable
statistical routines."
--D.R. Cox

“Statistics: the mathematical theory of ignorance."
--Morris Kline

Continuing the VPC propaganda piece Baxter is relying upon:

> That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR.
> In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun,
> guns were used in 36 criminal homicides.3 And this ratio, of course, does not
> take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or
> unintentional shootings (606) that year.4
>
> The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated
> claims of the gun lobby and gun industry.
>

Gee, Baxter: there's that gun controller bias I mentioned above.

>
> The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in
> comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional
> shootings. And contrary to the common stereotype promulgated by the gun

> lobby,14 ...
>
"Gun Lobby": more evidence that Baxters' source is far from being
unbiased.
>
> ...those killed in justifiable homicide incidents don t always fit the expected

> profile of an attack by a stranger: in 35.7 percent of the justifiable homicides
> that occurred in 2010 the persons shot were known to the shooter.
>
> The devastation guns inflict on our nation each and every year is clear:
> nearly 32,000 dead, more than 73,000 wounded, and an untold number of lives
> and communities shattered. Unexamined claims of the efficacy and frequency
> of the self-defense use of firearms are the default rationale offered by the
> gun lobby and gun industry for this unceasing, bloody toll. The idea that
> firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that
> the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms
> into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the
> regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and highcapacity
> ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false.
> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is
> that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used
> in self-defense.15
>
> http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf
>

Hint for Leroy Eileen Baxter: "VPC" = Violence Policy Center:

The Violence Policy Center is a research-based organization in
Washington, D.C., US. Its work includes lobbying the United States
Congress to end non-military and non-law-enforcement ownership of
handguns and to tighten the regulation of long guns. The VPC has drawn
the attention of Congress to gun-related cases by distributing its
published research and analysis, and numerous US gun control
organizations have used VPC reports and terminology to advance local
gun control initiatives.

The VPC formed a coalition with the Firearms Policy Project in 1994.
The coalition typically handles cases involving pro-gun
control[clarification needed] legislation that have usually been
backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other national or
state gun lobbyists.

Since the VPC has no official membership fee, it relies on donations
from the public. The main donor to the VPC is the Joyce Foundation
<http://www.joycefdn.org> which also supports other pro-gun control
organizations, including the Mayors Fund to Advance New York City
<http://www.nyc.gov/html/fund/html/home/home.shtml> and the Illinois
Council Against Handgun Violence <http://www.ichv.org>.

Advocacy concerns

The overall goal of the VPC is to ban most types of firearms in the
United States. They aim to achieve this by making their research and
analysis easily available and by presenting this material in Congress
when confronted with pro-gun legislation.
[...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Policy_Center

[Bert]

In news:kmjdk6$m8o$1...@speranza.aioe.org "Baxter"

<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

> The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year
> pale in comparison to criminal homicides,

Unless someone dies, you won't count the event as self defense?

Blood thirsty bastard.

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:kmjd57$kqa$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1BC689CF...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>> news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>> Oh! You want cites?! Where's YOUR cite for "people use guns all
>>> the time for legitimate self defense"??
>>
>> Couple of points
>>
>> 1. He asked you first.
>>
>> 2. From your own government:
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Really?! Afraid to post the source?

Not at all. This has been posted so often you should know it by heart if
you ever really read it.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

Because those are 20 year-old
> statistics?

Not quite. Do you have newer ones? If you do, I would interested. If
you don't, you are simply blowing hot air.

> Care to post just the percent of crimes stopped by 'people using guns
> for legitimate self defense'?

Already did in another post. When are you going to post some of the
cites for stuff you claim? Or is MotherJones your only source?

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

news:kmi2ap$cqu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:kmhoop$hlj$3...@dont-email.me...
>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:kmhon9$m3g$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> news:kmhm5d$6vo$3...@dont-email.me...
>>>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Cite please that the majority of times the use of a gun in self
>>>>>> defense fails miserably.
>>>>>>

>>>>> Oh! You want cites?!
>>>>
>>>> Yep, and let me guess, you didn't produce any and you're not going to
>>>> attempt to change the subject.
>>>>

>>>>> Where's YOUR cite for "people use guns all the time for legitimate
>>>>> self defense"??
>>>>

>>>> Well, I don't remember making any such claim, but since you ask.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
>>>>
>>>> Now, I expect an immediate posting of a cite by you to support the
>>>> claim you actually did make.
>>>>

>>> ---------------
>>> One of the gun lobby's favorite talking points
>>

>> ...is how liberals always try to change the subject when they are asked
>> to back up their bullshit claims. Like now for example.
>>
>> I fulfilled my end of the bargain by producing a cite to support a claim
>> that I didn't even make.
>
> No you didn't. You linked to discredited researcher, and his table of
> "implied" uses.

Ok, you didn't even look at the link then. You refusal to examine the cite
isn't my fault and doesn't alter the fact that I supported a claim which I
didn't even make. I didn't have to do anything, but I did so you wouldn't
have an excuse to fail to supply a cite to support your claim. But that's
all you have, isn't it?

Excuses.

>> Now it's your turn to produce cites to support the claim you DID make.
>>
>> Either you can, or your failure to do so shall be taken as evidence
>> you're lying.
>>
> I already did - you snipped those cites - for instance:
> =========

> The report finds that less than 3 percent of gun-related homicides are
> committed in self-defense (mouse over charts for the raw numbers):

So are you suggesting that self defense with a gun is ineffective unless the
attacker is killed?

If not, then this means nothing.

> The gun lobby often claims that firearms are used for self-defense an
> estimated 2.5 million times a year. But according to the Department of
> Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, the actual number is just a
> fraction of that:

Sure, there are all kinds of studies, which is why I cited them.

> Guns are used for self defense (both successfully and unsuccessfully) by
> less than 1 percent of all violent crime victims:
>
>

> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/charts-debunking-myth-guns-self-defense

Yea, and how many are used successfully and unsuccessfully by those that
have a firearm to use in self defense, and what is the ration of successful
to unsuccessful?

So far you've produced NOTHING that supports a claim that most uses of a gun
in self defense are miserable failures.

Once again, where is a cite to support your claim?

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

news:kmiukq$1sr$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Ok, and which of these quotes do you claim declares that most cases of self
defense with a firearm are miserable failures?

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

news:kmjcjc$iq4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Bullshit.

For example, the invention, research, implementation and even post sale
recalls to install a transfer bar in single action revolvers to help prevent
accidental discharges thus making them safer.

If you're going to try to lie Baxter, you shouldn't make your lies so
evident.

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:kmjdk6$m8o$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1BC6C9E1...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>> news:kmhon9$m3g$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>>
>>> The gun lobby often claims that firearms are used for self-defense
>>> an estimated 2.5 million times a year. But according to the
>>> Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, the
>>> actual number is just a fraction of that:
>>
>> The NCVS estimates that guns are used in self defense 80,000 to
>> 108,000 times per year. I pretty much agree with that although the
>> NCVS NEVER asks about defensive uses. It gets its information from
>> the free form narrative of the respondent.
>>
>
> ===========
> In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides1

Are you really so stupid that you think that every defensive use of a
firearm should end in a death? Never mind, I think you are.

> involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal
> Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as
> detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR).2 That same year,
> there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2010,
> for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun,
> guns were used in 36 criminal homicides.3 And this ratio, of course,
> does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun
> suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.4

I would not expect them to. After all, what does a suicide or accidental
shooting have to do with a Defensive Gun Use? Even the same government
entity that gave you this report claims that there are 80,000 to 108,000
defensive gun uses in a year. Do you think that each of their stats
resulted in a homicide?

> The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the
> exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of
> justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in
> comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal
> unintentional shootings. And contrary to the common stereotype
> promulgated by the gun lobby,14 those killed in justifiable homicide
> incidents don’t always fit the expected profile of an attack by a
> stranger: in 35.7 percent of the justifiable homicides that occurred
> in 2010 the persons shot were known to the shooter.

See, you are still mired in the fantasy that all defensive firearms uses
end with someone dead. Just what do you think a justifiable homicide is?
What do you think a DGU is? Do you even think?

> The devastation guns inflict on our nation each and every year is
> clear: nearly 32,000 dead, more than 73,000 wounded, and an untold
> number of lives and communities shattered. Unexamined claims of the
> efficacy and frequency of the self-defense use of firearms are the
> default rationale offered by the gun lobby and gun industry for this
> unceasing, bloody toll. The idea that firearms are frequently used in
> self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms
> industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an
> ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the
> regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and
> highcapacity ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the
> assertions false. When analyzing the most reliable data available,
> what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million
> guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.15
>
> http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

Ahhhh, another unbiased source who, like you, apparently, feels that if
it didn't end in a justified homicide, it doesn't count.

[RD Sandman]

Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in news:XnsA1BC9762771A1VeebleFetzer@
78.46.70.116:

> In news:kmjdk6$m8o$1...@speranza.aioe.org "Baxter"
> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>> The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year
>> pale in comparison to criminal homicides,
>
> Unless someone dies, you won't count the event as self defense?
>
> Blood thirsty bastard.
>

You said that much more eloquently than I did.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:gheqo8tooc6i0640t...@4ax.com:

We have been through this before. We don't register cars for use on
private property. Most gun use is on private property. Have a nice day.

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

news:kmji5m$4lg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

True, and whether something works doesn't really matter, when your real
objective is to engage in registration, right?

> AFATG, I think putting taggants in the lead would be more effective -
> but would require keeping records of who the bullets were sold to.

Registration yet again, and easily bypassed by simply recasting your
bullets. You can even produce jacketed stuff with minor tools.

> I don't think you can say that "fingerprint ID" or Smart Guns have failed,
> yet - but the NRA is definitely against it/them. It's also very early in
> Development.

What development?

According to you such development is ILLEGAL.....or did you lie?

[Scout]

"deep" wrote in message news:gheqo8tooc6i0640t...@4ax.com...

Because we don't operate our guns on public roads?

Oh, and we don't have to register our cars either, this has been proven to
you multiple times.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1BC682E2...@216.196.121.131...
> deep wrote in news:fajoo894a1stmager...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 18:10:12 -0700, "Baxter"

>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>-
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>-------------
>>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:65foo8l9aa0elt9ht...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 08:21:11 -0700, "Baxter"
>>>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>message news:c6dno85ufi2ek7071...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
>>>>>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Like blasting your ex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep. You don't think women need to protect themselves against
>>>>>> their ex sometimes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>You didn't click on the link[..]
>>>>
>>>> You didn't admit that people use guns all the time for legitimate
>>>> self defense, did you?
>>>>
>>>How does it work that the majority of the time they try to 'use guns

>>>for legitimate self defense', they fail miserably? And why all the

>>>accidental/stupidity injuries and deaths from guns?
>>>

>> In all fairness, you can't blame the guns for that. It's just that
>> most people who own guns are incredibly stupid. And as Ron White
>> pointed out "you can't fix stupid".
>
> Change the word "most" to "many" and I would agree with you.

Well, you have to remember, Dudu is judging this based on himself.

After all, if there's anyone that is incredibly stupid and owns guns it
would be Dudu.

[Scout]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

news:kmjdk6$m8o$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Excuse me, but are you attempting to assert that self defense is only
successful if your attacker ends up dead?

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:kmji5m$4lg$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1BC78E05...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>> news:kmjcjc$iq4$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:XnsA1BC67FF3...@216.196.121.131...
>>>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>>>> news:kmhhd0$5fs$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And why all the
>>>>> accidental/stupidity injuries and deaths from guns?
>>>>
>>>> Because with 80 million people having them, you will have accidents
>>>> just like with cars.
>>>>
>>> The difference is that we require automakers to make their cars
>>> safer
>>
>> And we still have over 40,000 people getting killed every year.
>
> Out of how many uses?

Guns are used safely many, many times.

>>> while we don't even allow research into making guns safer.
>>
>> Bullshit. I don't know what research is not allowed. Please be
>> specific. They have already tried ballistics fingerprinting,
>> fingerprint ID to make the gun operate and microstamping, none of
>> which have really worked in real world conditions.
>>
> Neither ballistics fingerprinting nor microstamping are going to work
> without gun/owner registration.

They don't work WITH registration. They flat ass don't work and don't
identify even the firearms they are supposed to. Look up the California
tests on ballistic fingerprinting. I have a copy but don't feel like
typing it in. Microstamping is a failure to even match its own specs in
the lab.

AFATG, I think putting taggants in
> the lead would be more effective - but would require keeping records
> of who the bullets were sold to.

Putting taggants into gun powder which is where they would go would
require all handloads on all powders on all bullet weights to be rerun as
it changes the characteristics of the gun powder.

I have not seen anything on taggants placed in the bullet itself so do
you have a cite I can look at?

> I don't think you can say that "fingerprint ID" or Smart Guns have
> failed, yet - but the NRA is definitely against it/them. It's also
> very early in Development.

What part of "real world conditions" did you have problems understanding?

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA1BC6D5AB...@216.196.121.131...
> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
> news:kmi2ap$cqu$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

>
>> -
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------------
>>

>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:kmhoop$hlj$3...@dont-email.me...

>>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

>>> news:kmhon9$m3g$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:kmhm5d$6vo$3...@dont-email.me...

>>>>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite please that the majority of times the use of a gun in self
>>>>>>> defense fails miserably.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>> Oh! You want cites?!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, and let me guess, you didn't produce any and you're not going
>>>>> to attempt to change the subject.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where's YOUR cite for "people use guns all the time for legitimate
>>>>>> self defense"??
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I don't remember making any such claim, but since you ask.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, I expect an immediate posting of a cite by you to support the
>>>>> claim you actually did make.
>>>>>

>>>> ---------------
>>>> One of the gun lobby's favorite talking points
>>>

>>> ...is how liberals always try to change the subject when they are
>>> asked to back up their bullshit claims. Like now for example.
>>>
>>> I fulfilled my end of the bargain by producing a cite to support a
>>> claim that I didn't even make.
>>
>> No you didn't. You linked to discredited researcher, and his table of
>> "implied" uses.
>

> And you referred to anti-gun sources to support your claims. YOu did
> exactly the same thing you accuse Scout of doing but seem to feel that in
> your case it is alright.

Yep, and clearly he didn't even bother to follow the link since it refers to
a table that indicates studies of DGUs and their results.

He asked for them, he was given them, and not only did he not look at them
but dismissed them out of hand simply because of who presented that data.

Further, I didn't have to produce anything since I didn't make the claim he
asserted I did.

Meanwhile Baxter has produced NOTHING to support his claim that most uses of
guns in self defense turn out to be miserable failures.

To date, it looks like they are miserable failures only because Baxter feels
it only counts if you kill your attacker.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"JohnJohnsn" <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:788d1e29-1b27-4799...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

On May 10, 1:17 pm, Leroy Eleen Baxter, a/k/a "Baxter the Usenet
SPAM'er" <bax...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>> ===========
>> In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides1
>> involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal
>> Bureau
>> of Investigation s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in
>> its
>> Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR).2
>>
>You could have stopped right there, Baxter, as it "tells the tale"
>that your "unbiased source" believes you stupid enough to believe that
>all DGUs are reported to law enforcement authruties; let alone end up
>in the UCR.
>
>Trust me on this, Baxter: what is not reported to the FBI to be
>included in the UCR would boggle your mind.

Which means you got nothing.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:kmjldq
$90r$1...@dont-email.me:

If, he does, indeed, own any rather than just read about them. I don't
know.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:kmjlp5$b6n$1...@dont-email.me:

The old saw that Trevor wore out.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:00:25 -0700, "Baxter"
<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

>news:XnsA1BC67FF3...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>> news:kmhhd0$5fs$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

>>
>>
>> And why all the
>>> accidental/stupidity injuries and deaths from guns?
>>

>> Because with 80 million people having them, you will have accidents just
>> like with cars.
>>

>The difference is that we require automakers to make their cars safer while

>we don't even allow research into making guns safer.
>

Accidents with guns have been on a CONTINUAL decline.

What "research" is needed? I can tell you EXACTLY what you need to do
and it won't cost you a fucking dime.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 12:20:11 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Fri, 10 May 2013 12:13:04 -0500, RD Sandman
><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>>news:kmhhd0$5fs$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>

>>> -
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

>>> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

>>> -------------
>>>
>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:65foo8l9aa0elt9ht...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 08:21:11 -0700, "Baxter"
>>>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:c6dno85ufi2ek7071...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
>>>>>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Like blasting your ex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep. You don't think women need to protect themselves against their
>>>>>> ex sometimes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>You didn't click on the link[..]
>>>>
>>>> You didn't admit that people use guns all the time for legitimate
>>>> self defense, did you?
>>>>
>>> How does it work that the majority of the time they try to 'use guns
>>> for legitimate self defense', they fail miserably?
>>

>>Care to post a cite on that or did you just make it up?
>>

>> And why all the
>>> accidental/stupidity injuries and deaths from guns?
>>
>>Because with 80 million people having them, you will have accidents just
>>like with cars.
>
>

>Good analogy. So how come we don't regisgter our guns like we do our
>cars?

Bad analogy. registration doesn't make guns safer.

[Bill Shatzer]

Baxter wrote:

> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA1BC689CF...@216.196.121.131...

>>"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>>news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

-snip-

>>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.

> Really?! Afraid to post the source? Because those are 20 year-old
> statistics?

> Care to post just the percent of crimes stopped by 'people using guns for
> legitimate self defense'?

Better yet, provide a -single- example of when a magazine holding more
than ten rounds was necessary or even useful for self defense.

The need to mow down advancing rows of bad guys seems to arise almost
exclusively in video games like Call of Duty and in movies like Zombie
Apocalypse and almost never in real life.

peace and justice,

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 10, 4:17 pm, Leroy Eleen Baxter, a/k/a "Baxter the Usenet
SPAM'er" <bax...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>"JohnJohnsn" <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:788d1e29-1b27-4799...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> On May 10, 1:17 pm, Leroy Eleen Baxter, a/k/a "Baxter the Usenet
> SPAM'er" <bax...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>>> ===========
>>> In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides1
>>> involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau
>>> of Investigation s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in
>>> its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR).2
>
>> You could have stopped right there, Baxter, as it "tells the tale"
>> that your "unbiased source" believes you stupid enough to believe that
>> all DGUs are reported to law enforcement authruties; let alone end up
>> in the UCR.
>
>> Trust me on this, Baxter: what is not reported to the FBI to be
>> included in the UCR would boggle your mind.
>
> Which means you got nothing.
>

I've got something here you don't, Leroy: a 20+ year career in
civilian law enforcement.

Here's but a single example of how the UCR numbers are manipulated:

Years ago, I had a part-time auto racing business in an industrial
complex.

One night, after a long day working on my race car, I went to sleep on
the couch in my office, rather than drive home.

During that night I was awakened by the sound of a vehicle crashing
into the building.

Upon investigation, I discovered that some unknown perp had attempted
to break into the unit next to mine; most likely to steal the
occupant's vintage 1963 split-window Corvette he kept stored there.

What the perp hadn't know was that the personnel door was welded shut,
so breaking it open was impossible. He left empty-handed.

I had immediately called the police, and the patrol unit which
responded was a good friend of mine (he was PD while I was SO) and he
wrote up the incident as an Attempted Burglary of a Business, with me
as the Reporting Party.

A few day go by and I get a phone call from a Traffic Law Enforcement
Investigator, asking for further details about the incident; which I
readly provided him.

However, when the conversation was at an end, I asked him why Traffic
Division was conducting a burglary investigation.

His reply was that the incident had been delivered to him as Criminal
Mischief w/Motor Vehicle: a misdemeanor offense handled by TLED.

You see, Baxter; since this was going to be reported to UCR as an
Unsolved Crime, it looks better statistically as an Unsolved
Misdemeanor, rather than as an Unsolved Felony.

And that sort of manipulation goes on in every LE department in the
country; from very minor to extremely major statistical manipulation.

So, Leroy Eileen Baxter; I most _definitely_ "got something"!

It's _you_ that "got nothing" here: except even more gun controller
misinformation, disinformation and out-and-out LIES.

“There are two ways of lying. One, not telling the truth and the
other, making up statistics."
--Josefina Vazquez Mota

[Scout]

"Bill Shatzer" <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in message
news:kmkkgs$ivs$1...@dont-email.me...

> Baxter wrote:
>
>> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA1BC689CF...@216.196.121.131...
>
>>>"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>>>news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
> -snip-
>
>>>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.
>
>> Really?! Afraid to post the source? Because those are 20 year-old
>> statistics?
>
>> Care to post just the percent of crimes stopped by 'people using guns for
>> legitimate self defense'?
>
> Better yet, provide a -single- example of when a magazine holding more
> than ten rounds was necessary or even useful for self defense.

It's always useful for self defense....it's only when you run out that you
have problems.

oh, and FYI, it's not the Bill of Needs....so no one has to prove they need
anything to you.

Rather it's up to you to establish why we should allow our rights to be
violated.

[RD Sandman]

Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in

news:kmkkgs$ivs$1...@dont-email.me:

> Baxter wrote:
>
>> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA1BC689CF...@216.196.121.131...
>
>>>"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>>>news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
> -snip-
>
>>>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.
>
>> Really?! Afraid to post the source? Because those are 20 year-old
>> statistics?
>
>> Care to post just the percent of crimes stopped by 'people using guns
>> for legitimate self defense'?
>
> Better yet, provide a -single- example of when a magazine holding more
> than ten rounds was necessary or even useful for self defense.

Need has nothing to do with hi-cap magazines, however, keep in mind it is
the bad guy who decides the terms of the fight, not you or the good guy.

> The need to mow down advancing rows of bad guys seems to arise almost
> exclusively in video games like Call of Duty and in movies like Zombie
> Apocalypse and almost never in real life.

Ya' never know. I would much rather have a 17 round magazine with 15
left over than to have 5 rounds and have come up a couple short. Which
situation would you prefer to be in?

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 11, 1:25 am, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon,net> wrote:
>
>
> "Bill Shatzer" <ww...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:kmkkgs$ivs$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> Baxter wrote:
>
>>>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote in message
>>> news:XnsA1BC689CF...@216.196.121.131...
>
>>>>"Baxter" <bax...@baxcode.com> wrote in

>>>> news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> -snip-
>
>>>> 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.
>
>>> Really?! Afraid to post the source? Because those are 20 year-old
>>> statistics?
>
>>> Care to post just the percent of crimes stopped by 'people using guns for
>>> legitimate self defense'?
>
>> Better yet, provide a -single- example of when a magazine holding more
>> than ten rounds was necessary or even useful for self defense.
>
> It's always useful for self defense....it's only when you run out that you
> have problems.
>
> oh, and FYI, it's not the Bill of Needs....so no one has to prove they need
> anything to you.
>
> Rather it's up to you to establish why we should allow our rights to be
> violated.
>

Here's a bit of "Liberal Illogic" from uberLiberal Michael Tomasky:

“And the idea that a group of Americans possesses an absolute “right”
to own and keep weapons that can—and in practice do—kill numerous
innocent people in seconds, destroying families and communities and
tearing at the nation’s collective soul, is barbaric and psychotic. As
the old saying goes: if you want to shoot an assault weapon, go
enlist.”

“For civilians, meanwhile, we’re one Supreme Court justice away from
getting some sanity and balance to interpretations of the Second
Amendment, and the only thing I can’t decide is whether it would be
more delicious for Barack Obama to appoint that judge or for Hillary
Clinton to do it.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/05/there-are-no-absolute-rights.html

---
“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of
small towns in the Midwest… it’s not surprising they get bitter, they
cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them
or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to
explain their frustrations.”
--Barack Hussein Obama #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one
who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O
sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were
only sufficient to assemble the people!”
--Patrick Henry

[Ivan Bodley]

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
news:XnsA1BD4EB1D...@216.196.121.131...

####

Bill and Baxter ultimately want magazines limited to one round.
After all, why does one "need" more than one? :)

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:tp5ro89lcgaufqetm...@4ax.com...

Actually it would because incompetents like you would soon be prohibited
from owning guns.

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 11, 9:43 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote:
>
>
> Bill Shatzer <ww...@cornell.edu> wrote innews:kmkkgs$ivs$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> Baxter wrote:
>
>>>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote in message
>>> news:XnsA1BC689CF...@216.196.121.131...
>
>>>>"Baxter" <bax...@baxcode.com> wrote in

>>>> news:kmhk1e$ch7$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> -snip-
>
>>>> 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.
>
>>> Really?! Afraid to post the source? Because those are 20 year-old
>>> statistics?
>
>>> Care to post just the percent of crimes stopped by 'people using guns
>>> for legitimate self defense'?
>
>> Better yet, provide a -single- example of when a magazine holding more
>> than ten rounds was necessary or even useful for self defense.
>
> Need has nothing to do with hi-cap magazines, however, keep in mind it
> is the bad guy who decides the terms of the fight, not you or the good guy.
>
>> The need to mow down advancing rows of bad guys seems to arise almost
>> exclusively in video games like Call of Duty and in movies like Zombie
>> Apocalypse and almost never in real life.
>
> Ya' never know. I would much rather have a 17 round magazine with
> 15 left over than to have 5 rounds and have come up a couple short.
> Which situation would you prefer to be in?
>

Very old, and very applicable, adage here:

"Better have `em and not need `em, than need `em and not have `em."

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"JohnJohnsn" <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:7ba7a029-3342-44b6...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

On May 10, 4:17 pm, Leroy Eleen Baxter, a/k/a "Baxter the Usenet
>>

>>> Trust me on this, Baxter: what is not reported to the FBI to be
>>> included in the UCR would boggle your mind.
>>
>> Which means you got nothing.
>>
>I've got something here you don't, Leroy: a 20+ year career in
>civilian law enforcement.

Riiight, on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog. Trolls like you claim
all sorts of things. On another forum you might even be a drag queen.

[Ivan Bodley]

"Baxter" wrote in message news:kmlm5s$sg3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

####
Yet "incompetents" like you, can own and operate a car or a 3-D printer?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:10:49 -0700, "Baxter"
<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>"JohnJohnsn" <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:7ba7a029-3342-44b6...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>On May 10, 4:17 pm, Leroy Eleen Baxter, a/k/a "Baxter the Usenet
>>>
>>>> Trust me on this, Baxter: what is not reported to the FBI to be
>>>> included in the UCR would boggle your mind.
>>>
>>> Which means you got nothing.
>>>
>>I've got something here you don't, Leroy: a 20+ year career in
>>civilian law enforcement.
>
>Riiight, on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog. Trolls like you claim
>all sorts of things.

No shit!

I remember one troll who claimed.....

"... the majority of times the use of a gun in self defense
fails miserably."


Oh wait.

That was you.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message

news:kmko2p$unt$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Bill Shatzer" <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:kmkkgs$ivs$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Baxter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Care to post just the percent of crimes stopped by 'people using guns
>>> for legitimate self defense'?
>>
>> Better yet, provide a -single- example of when a magazine holding more
>> than ten rounds was necessary or even useful for self defense.
>
> It's always useful for self defense....it's only when you run out that you
> have problems.

Then you should be able to provide an URL.

>
> oh, and FYI, it's not the Bill of Needs....so no one has to prove they
> need anything to you.
>
> Rather it's up to you to establish why we should allow our rights to be
> violated.
>

Rights come with a cost - a cost you refuse to pay.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:56:02 -0700, "Baxter"
<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:tp5ro89lcgaufqetm...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 12:20:11 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Good analogy. So how come we don't regisgter our guns like we do our
>>>cars?
>>
>> Bad analogy. registration doesn't make guns safer.
>>
>Actually it would because incompetents like you would soon be prohibited
>from owning guns.

Actually, it wouldn't, because registration doesn't make guns safer.

You really *are* this stupid, aren't you?

[chuckle]

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA1BD4EB1D...@216.196.121.131...

> Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in
> news:kmkkgs$ivs$1...@dont-email.me:
>>

>> Better yet, provide a -single- example of when a magazine holding more
>> than ten rounds was necessary or even useful for self defense.
>
> Need has nothing to do with hi-cap magazines, however, keep in mind it is
> the bad guy who decides the terms of the fight, not you or the good guy.
>

Statistics show that, for home defense, even a baseball bat (20%) is better
than a handgun (10%).

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:31oso8dk6tqbrcqa9...@4ax.com...

Not nearly as stupid as you.

[deep]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:32:23 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>deep wrote in news:gheqo8tooc6i0640t...@4ax.com:

>
>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 12:13:04 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in

>>>news:kmhhd0$5fs$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>>>>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -------------
>>>>
>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:65foo8l9aa0elt9ht...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 08:21:11 -0700, "Baxter"
>>>>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>message

>>>>>>news:c6dno85ufi2ek7071...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:37:33 -0700, "Baxter"
>>>>>>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Like blasting your ex.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep. You don't think women need to protect themselves against
>their
>>>>>>> ex sometimes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>You didn't click on the link[..]
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't admit that people use guns all the time for legitimate
>>>>> self defense, did you?
>>>>>
>>>> How does it work that the majority of the time they try to 'use guns
>>>> for legitimate self defense', they fail miserably?
>>>
>>>Care to post a cite on that or did you just make it up?
>>>
>>> And why all the
>>>> accidental/stupidity injuries and deaths from guns?
>>>
>>>Because with 80 million people having them, you will have accidents
>just
>>>like with cars.
>>
>>

>> Good analogy. So how come we don't regisgter our guns like we do our
>> cars?
>>
>

>We have been through this before. We don't register cars for use on
>private property. Most gun use is on private property. Have a nice day.

Bullshit on both. What percentage of cars aren't registered because
they are used only on private property? MAYBE .01 percdent? If even
that much? And how many gun owners have a shooting range on their
property? Maybe anothe .01 percent? So what's that mean? That means
they are transporting their guns on public property, most likely in
their car and going to a gun range owned by somebody else. Those guns
should be registered. Too hard to figure out?

[deep]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 18:41:57 +0000 (UTC), Bert <be...@iphouse.com>
wrote:

>In news:gheqo8tooc6i0640t...@4ax.com deep wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 12:13:04 -0500, RD Sandman
>><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Because with 80 million people having them, you will have accidents
>>>just like with cars.
>>
>>
>> Good analogy. So how come we don't regisgter our guns like we do our
>> cars?
>

>Are you suggesting that cars are registered as a means to prevent
>accidents?

No. Guess again numbnuts.

>
>Really?
>
>Please provide evidence to support that.
>
>And, how's it working out?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:13:33 -0700, "Baxter"
<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:kmko2p$unt$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "Bill Shatzer" <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in message
>> news:kmkkgs$ivs$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Care to post just the percent of crimes stopped by 'people using guns
>>>> for legitimate self defense'?
>>>
>>> Better yet, provide a -single- example of when a magazine holding more
>>> than ten rounds was necessary or even useful for self defense.
>>
>> It's always useful for self defense....it's only when you run out that you
>> have problems.
>
>Then you should be able to provide an URL.

Um, you need an URL to tell you that too much ammo is better than too
little?

Really?

>Rights come with a cost - a cost you refuse to pay.

That's actually kind of funny.

Here is the cost of gun rights. Having to put up with the Legion Of
Morons.

Why Democrats Should Just Shut The Fuck Up About Guns

"You know that these [assault] weapons can shoot down airplanes, they
can blow up railroads. "
-Gun Expert Rev. Jesse Jackson.

"I've seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were
dismembered. "
-Gun expert Dianne Feinstein

"I'm not a sixth grader..."
-Gun expert Dianne Feinstein

"Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15,
because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the
shotgun through the door."
-Gun expert Joe Biden

Congressman Giffords' life was saved and so many others' when
very valiant folks stood up to defend themselves and protect
themselves,
and they did it with ballpoint pens."
-Self Defense Expert Colorado State Sen. Jessie Ulibar

"Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?
#PrayForNewton"
-Houston Democrat Precinct Chair John Cobarruvias

"I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the
balcony here, walk out and
put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the
house.'"
-Gun expert Joe Biden

"There is no hunter that needs automatic military weapons to enjoy the
culture of going hunting, We're talking about millions of kids dying
-- being shot down by assault weapons."
- Crime Expert Charlie Rangel

"I think a lot of senators did not understand that if Florida gives
someone a concealed-carry permit and they have a criminal record a
mile long, you've got to let them carry in your state." Rand said.
-Kristen Rand
Violence Policy Center
Legislative Director

"I will tell you these are ammunition -- bullets -- so the people who
have those now they are going to shoot them, and so if you ban -- if
you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity
magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the
bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available,"
she said.

A spokeswoman issued a statement to the Denver Post, which had flagged
the comment as inaccurate, explaining that the congresswoman who has
worked on a high-capacity magazine ban for years "simply misspoke" --
"she should have referred to 'clips,' which cannot be reused because
they don't have a feeding mechanism."

-Firearms Expert Rep. Diana DeGette (D)

Q: Do you know what a barrel shroud is?�
A: I actually don't know what a barrel shroud is.... I believe it is a
shoulder thing that goes up.

-Firearms Expert Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)

"For target shooting, that's okay. Get a license and go to the range.
For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments."
-Former Reagan White House Press Sec. James Brady
speaking on the right to bear arms."

Don't condemn the gangbangers, they've got guns that are trafficked --
that are not enforced, that are straw purchased and they come into
places even that have strong gun laws."
- Crime Expert Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)

"2nd Amendment must go. Violence has 2 stop."
-Jay Mohr Twitter reaction to Boston marathon bomb.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:15:13 -0700, "Baxter"
<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:


>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:XnsA1BD4EB1D...@216.196.121.131...
>> Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in
>> news:kmkkgs$ivs$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>> Better yet, provide a -single- example of when a magazine holding more
>>> than ten rounds was necessary or even useful for self defense.
>>
>> Need has nothing to do with hi-cap magazines, however, keep in mind it is
>> the bad guy who decides the terms of the fight, not you or the good guy.
>>
>Statistics show that, for home defense, even a baseball bat (20%) is better
>than a handgun (10%).

ROFLMAO

No, they don't.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

[crickets.wav]
>
>
>

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:18:53 -0600, deep wrote:

>Bullshit on both. What percentage of cars aren't registered because
>they are used only on private property? MAYBE .01 percdent? If even
>that much? And how many gun owners have a shooting range on their
>property? Maybe anothe .01 percent? So what's that mean? That means
>they are transporting their guns on public property, most likely in
>their car and going to a gun range owned by somebody else. Those guns
>should be registered. Too hard to figure out?

Well, no, there's no reason to register guns, actually.

There was some dumbshit here who recently claimed that registration
would serve to prevent accidents.

Was that you?

Usually, when I see something THAT stupid, I think of you.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:16:50 -0700, "Baxter"
<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:31oso8dk6tqbrcqa9...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:56:02 -0700, "Baxter"
>> <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>Actually it would because incompetents like you would soon be prohibited
>>>from owning guns.
>>
>> Actually, it wouldn't, because registration doesn't make guns safer.
>>
>> You really *are* this stupid, aren't you?
>>
>Not nearly as stupid as you.

Yet you are the one who thinks registration makes guns safer.

[chuckle]

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 11, 10:10 am, Leroy Eileen Baxter, a/k/a "Baxter the Usenet
SPAM'er" <bax...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> -
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------
STILL violating your ISP's "No SPAM" User Agreement, Baxter.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------
>
> "JohnJohnsn" <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:7ba7a029-3342-44b6...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On May 10, 4:17 pm, Leroy Eleen Baxter, a/k/a "Baxter the Usenet
>
>>>> Trust me on this, Baxter: what is not reported to the FBI to be
>>>> included in the UCR would boggle your mind.
>
>>> Which means you got nothing.
>
>> I've got something here you don't, Leroy: a 20+ year career in
>> civilian law enforcement.
>

Note that after getting its ass kicked again, Leroy Eileen Baxter
executes an ad hominem goal post move:

>
> Riiight, on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog.
>

Thing of it is, Leroy Eileen; I've been in this newsgroup for most of
those twenty years, and those who have been here more than the few
months you've been SPAMing T.P.G. with your anti-gun bullshit already
know of my long law enforcement career history; both civilian and
military.

What have you been doing for the past twenty, Leory Eileen; other than
running a failure of a software company there in Portlandia?

>
> Trolls like you claim all sorts of things.
>

ROTFLMAO!

A dedicated troll calling anyone/everyone else a "troll." ;D

>
> On another forum you might even be a drag queen.
>

Writes a person who advertises "itself" to the Ether as both Leroy
Baxter _and_ Eileen Baxter!

Or is Leroy Eileen hermaphroditic???

"Inquiring minds want to know." <chuckle> ;)

Klaus; can you imagine what this gun controller quisling troll would
do if faced with a bad guy; other than pissing and crapping its
bloomers, that is?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Well, that would depend on if he was being robbed of his cell phone or
not.

Knowing, as he does, that robbers and thugs enjoy masterful weapon
control, I'd think he'd be too frightened to even move. After all, the
thug is probably using an unregistered gun, and we all know how unsafe
THOSE are.

[deep]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:10:49 -0700, "Baxter"
<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

If Tiny Johnson was actually a cop (which I doubt) then all that does
is prove they don't have intelligence tests to become a cop. But I
guess we all knew that.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:56:26 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:10:49 -0700, "Baxter"
><baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>>"JohnJohnsn" <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:7ba7a029-3342-44b6...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>>On May 10, 4:17 pm, Leroy Eleen Baxter, a/k/a "Baxter the Usenet
>>>>
>>>>> Trust me on this, Baxter: what is not reported to the FBI to be
>>>>> included in the UCR would boggle your mind.
>>>>
>>>> Which means you got nothing.
>>>>
>>>I've got something here you don't, Leroy: a 20+ year career in
>>>civilian law enforcement.
>>
>>Riiight, on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog. Trolls like you claim
>>all sorts of things. On another forum you might even be a drag queen.
>>
>>
>If Tiny Johnson was actually a cop

If you could manage to tell the truth at least a few times a month....


http://klaus.webege.com/dudu/dudu.htm
Deep Dudu's FORTRESS OF LIES
Now With Over 350 Documented
Lies, Falsehoods, Fabrications, Distortions, and Deceptions!

[RD Sandman]

JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:9ddf154e-a996-43f7...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:

Exactomundo. As they used to say in the Air Force, "The only time you
have too much fuel is when you're on fire."

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:kmln9r$g1$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not per the DOJ. You have seen those stats, I suggest you provide a cite
for yours.

[RD Sandman]

"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:kmln6n$vo9$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> ------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:kmko2p$unt$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "Bill Shatzer" <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in message
>> news:kmkkgs$ivs$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Care to post just the percent of crimes stopped by 'people using
>>>> guns for legitimate self defense'?
>>>
>>> Better yet, provide a -single- example of when a magazine holding
>>> more than ten rounds was necessary or even useful for self defense.
>>
>> It's always useful for self defense....it's only when you run out
>> that you have problems.
>
> Then you should be able to provide an URL.

Huh? For a logic statement?

>> oh, and FYI, it's not the Bill of Needs....so no one has to prove
>> they need anything to you.
>>
>> Rather it's up to you to establish why we should allow our rights to
>> be violated.
>>
> Rights come with a cost - a cost you refuse to pay.

We put up with you.....that's a cost.