No Guns Allowed During NRA Convention Speech By Trump, Pence - Sensationalist Headlines

I agree, but I think we should be very careful with who we allow to own small weapons, let alone legally conceal them. Even mentally stable people can, in times of incredible stress, behave irrationally and violently, and on an impulse, bam, homicide. I think that you'll find the average person finds it a lot easier to shoot someone on an impulse than, say, stab them (to death) on an impulse. Also just the overall mental strain that happens when you know people can just immediately and violently erupt into a gunfight is huge, especially if you've been in the presence of or experienced gun violence before.

Security during events is not up to those hosting it. If a politician is hosting an event, their security team isnt going to allow weapons of any kind near them. Yea the NRA sucks but theyre not being hypocritical because they obey the SS and other security prerequisites.

THEY KNOOOOOW BETTER THEY KNOOOOOW BETTER

Actually, far more lives are saved in defensive uses of firearms than homicides. ~11,000 gun deaths that aren't suicides compared to the CDC's number of somewhere between 500,000 to 3 million defensive uses per year.

Sorry, the numbers just don't support this. Boaererers beat me to it, but no. Firearms are used defensively far more frequently than offensively, even in the CDC's lower estimates.

Yeah actually a defensive use of a gun isn't a homicide prevented, it's this the use or presentation of a firearm for self-defense, defense of others or in some cases, protecting property. and to continue aping off of the wikipedia article, The frequency of incidents involving DGU, and their effectiveness in providing safety and reducing crime is a controversial issue in gun politics and criminology.[1]:64 Different authors and studies employ different criteria for what constitutes a defensive gun use which leads to controversy in comparing statistical results. So you can't really call that a homicide prevented. Though guns absolutely have been used defensively and intervened in homicide, that number is really any time someone used or presented a gun in any defensive way, including when they didn't have to. Not that this argues for all hypothetical murder stopped without requiring the death of the person (if the aggressor were just chased off or wounded), but there were just 328 justifiable homicides in 2015.

I'd argue comparing recorded homicides (which ignores negligent discharges, gun related injuries, and brandishing [but not using] firearms during the commission of crimes) to the stats of "defensive uses" of firearms, an vague term that certainly applies to more cases than when a firearm was leathily used defensively. Further, the numbers you cite appear to be from the results of various surveys (vs. reporting by police departments for crime stats), and the very study you seem to be citing questions the accuracy of those numbers. Here's the "Defensive Use of Guns" section from that study (pg. 26-27 of the PDF): Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings. Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry— may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration. My point being, don't think it's as clear cut in favor of civilian carry as you make it out to be. Mind, I think civilian carry is pretty much the only option at this point, as the alternative of eliminating firearms from the country is next to impossible. However, I also don't think the current situation is acceptable; there isn't enough mandatory training or screening (mental health is the big one) of current/potential firearm owners, nor decent laws in place requiring the safe storage of firearms.

I really would not be opposed to transitioning CHLs to a sort of citizens' militia concept with federal oversight. To the carrier this would mean universal reciprocity - but with it would come a responsibility to attend regular refresher courses. The training could then cover crisis handling, field first-aid, etc. to more extensively train CHL holders on how to interact with law enforcement and bystanders during a shoot scenario. You would have far fewer Cletuses running around with dad's 1911 and shooting black kids for looking suspicious, or whatever the nightmare scenario is, and when CHL holders have to get involved, they would have semi-professional training on how to handle the situation further than just stopping the threat. But the problem with something like that is that having a centralized office to handle your CHLs provides a single line to slash in order to cut them off forever. All it takes is that office to decide to stop issuing them like the ATF did with the machine gun registry.

Thats a pretty semantic argument. You can't fully quantify the number based on estimates alone but if the CDC says theres a half million defensive uses of firearms a year, you have to assume a good chunk of them are in the defense of a life rather than property.

You're right, it is a semantic argument, semantics literally define what you're talking about. If you're trying to interpret statistics or extrapolate meaning from something and you fundamentally misunderstand something you're gonna have a bad time. Why would you have to assume the defense of a life bit, exactly? You just took the statement that these numbers of a vague, controversial statistic exist and then asserted your opinion. Even if every single one of the uses was in defense of a life it doesn't mean a single homicide was necessary prevented. We can't know how many were, but the argument that the stats presented (wrongful deaths vs defense usage) hold equivocacy is entirely false.

I'm fairly certain NRA conventions allowed guns in the past. This was an order from the secret service. Does anyone actually have an example of this ever happening? This keeps being brought up but I've never heard of this happening. EVER. I think it would have been all over the news and constantly cited as a source if something like that ever did happen. Also most of these situations take place within seconds when there aren't any cops around. Law enforcement in most situations aren't going to arrive until several minutes after the first shots are fired. There are however examples of multiple people drawing guns in response to a threat who don't end up shooting each other. WARNING: NSFW (no blood or anything really graphic, but someone does get shot) Video That reason is even worse. What kind of reasoning is "It's not there for you to actually be any safer, it's only there so that people don't feel uncomfortable"? Assuming people don't have X-ray vision, you shouldn't be able to tell in the first place who is carrying. At least when a government building or the TSA run a security theater, they usually have armed personal on the premises ready to respond in case something actually happens.

Its easy to assume most people, if they used a gun in a defensive purpose, used it in defense of their life or another life. Most state laws in the US do not allow you to draw on a person let alone fire at them unleds theyre threatening your life or someone elses. The law does not protect people who use deadly force against TV thieves. Youre merely discrediting a statistic because it doesnt fit your view point. I'm merely extrapolating on the data provided. Its downright foolish to say that defending a life is not preventing a homicide.

I mean, you were the one who claimed this: If you could provide a source to this claim then I would be happy to take a look at it and compare it to the CDC's figures.

There's a reason I said "I bet". You cannot quantify theoretical homicides that were prevented because they didn't happen. You can only measure the number of times (and without a whole lot of accuracy) that a firearm was used in a defensive way - I certainly wouldn't expect any gun owner to wait until they or another person is a nanosecond away from death, not that that's even possible or reasonable. DGU can mean literally anything from believing a crime was prevented as your mere ownership of a gun provided defense, to killing someone else before you believe they are about to murder. It is obvious that there have been cases where firearms were used properly for defense. I'm not contesting that. But if you took even a moment to look over why the DGU question is controversial you'd understand why the CDC numbers aren't as simple as they appear. Yeah, it is easy to assume that. It's also easy to assume that they didn't. It's easy to assume anything. Ah yes, the statistically sound method of extrapolation. Extrapolation on what you've stated just moments ago is an assumption. I'm just actually looking at the data instead of seeing it, slamming my hand down and saying I KNEW IT! The question isn't simple and the answers aren't simple. The closest "bad guy with a gun" equivalence you're gonna find to DGU is all gun crime + all cowing instances, and it's not at all hard to see that firearms are used far more frequently for aggressive rather than defensive behavior. As it stands right now though there's really nothing I can say or do to prevent you from defending your natural born right to be more likely to be shot to death https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ Or defend yourself in a way that ultimately has little evidence of being uniquely effective Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm

This is a joke of a study. First of all, the control group is rediculously different than the study group. The confounding variables (like alcohol involvement, drug involvement, type of shooting location, prior arrest rates, etc.) differ anywhere from 20% to 1000%. The two groups are super different by nature, making the whole idea of a control group meaningless. They also fully admit that they gave zero attempt in matching location of shooting for the control group or the context of the shooting. They also admit that small error rates in reporting of guns at the scene of a crime (5%) make all the results non-statistically significant. They almost literally say that the causation could possibly be flipped from what they're arguing in the "Study Limitations" section, but that they didn't even check for it. In their own words: "We also did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault." This was a "study" trying to prove what they wanted to prove, not a real search for truth.

It was also the least point I made and the only thing you responded to.

I don't want to jump in the middle of a conversation between other people. I just wanted to point out how horrible your study was.

Your whole argument comes down to "defensive gun use in defense of a life isn't measurable" when that literally doesnt matter. You can arbitrarily point out that maybe not all of those uses were in defense of a life, but it doesnt change the fact they were defensive. Youre going beyond semantics and just downright discrediting the data that doesn't line up with your mindset. So this more or less comes down to you ignoring these numbers and me believing them. Even if the CDC, who tends to be anti gun in the first place, comes out and says "hey guys we lied, theres actually no defensive gun use EVER", aggressive use is still a statistical anomaly. Theres over 300,000,000-1,000,000,000 guns in the US alone. 11,000ish criminal uses a year made with firearms. The percentage of total guns v criminal uses is pathetically small. I'm not going to address your studies because we're not talking about mass shootings or instigation/escalation

I'm discrediting a misrepresentation of data, lol. If my conclusions did not support my mindset why would I have that mindset. wow you got exactly this far in a comprehensive report on firearm violence reduction On January 16, 2013, President Barack Obama announced Now Is the Time, a plan to address firearm violence1 in order “to better protect our children and our communities from tragic mass shootings and you dismissed the entire thing. No wonder you keep hitting with weak-wristed shit like attacking my position rather than actually addressing my points. so is the percentage of total guns vs defensive uses, lmao. You believe your own interpretation of the data and you're not even considering that it's an inaccurate one. You admitted that you were basing your argument off of an extrapolation from an assumption. You know there are studies on what you extrapolated and assumed, right? Like the one you got half a sentence deep in and stopped reading.

More research should be done then.

IMO, the study was trying to answer a pretty dumb question anyway.

If you fit this description you shouldn't own a gun to be honest, unless you just happened to word this super poorly.

Some people are more likely to try and stop a perpetrator than others, therefore putting themselves in harms way. I would assume that people who have that tendency are also more likely to want to carry a gun.

If you can't defend a "Gun Free Zone" it's not Gun Free. It takes Guns. To defend a "Gun free Zone". That's just how it is. I'm not pro guns, but some of the perspectives being shared seem a little detached from reality and practicality. I don't think guns should be proliferated, I think they should be clawed back over a century or so. The very concept of a "Gun Free Zone" is attractive to Shooters because they know(currently); 1) There are no guns there 2) There are no guns enforcing safety there

Not really, unless you want to argue the "people only listen to the police because the police have guns" line.

What he means is that someone who owns a gun is more likely to be the kind of person who would attempt to stop a crime in progress. I carry; I like to think that if something happens that threatens the people around me, I'll have the nerve to step up and save lives.

Except for the fact that shooters just wandering into a place to shoot some people doesn't happen very often. It's not hard to see why having no guns to make accidents with in an area would make that area safer, especially when such gun free zones are mostly comprised of low-violence areas to begin with- federal buildings, medical buildings, schools, and businesses.

I'm discrediting a misrepresentation of data, lol. If my conclusions did not support my mindset why would I have that mindset. You have that mindset because you're stubborn, have no experience outside your gated, majorly white, subdivision, and you have very little understanding of the subject at hand or the laws and numbers. wow you got exactly this far in a comprehensive report on firearm violence reduction It's not relevant to our discussion which is why we're not discussing it. We're discussing CDC results, not potential ways for us to reduce violence via firearms. so is the percentage of total guns vs defensive uses, lmao. woh newsflash; the purpose of firearms ownership isn't just defensive use. Theres also more defensive uses than aggressive ones. woh! 1% of people using a gun defensively is a bigger number .00003% of people using them illegally! Wow! You believe your own interpretation of the data and you're not even considering that it's an inaccurate one. You admitted that you were basing your argument off of an extrapolation from an assumption. You know there are studies on what you extrapolated and assumed, right? Like the one you got half a sentence deep in and stopped reading. My interpretation of that data is that there is a number of defensive uses of firearms in the US. My assumption is that a decent amount of that number of defensive uses was in the protection of somebody's life. That assumption is based off current gun laws on the books that do not protect people who raise a firearm on someone unless they're threatened. How is my interpretation an inaccurate one when theres numbers to support it? You're the one pointlessly arguing semantics to try and discredit the study. As I've stated previously, it doesn't matter if it was in defense of a life, or if you think that defense of a life isn't homicide prevention (lol), a defensive use of a firearm is a defensive use. Data isn't something you believe or disbelieve bud, thats the data. If you're not going to believe the CDC or prior survey data because people could have lied on the survey, then you have to disregard survey statistics all together (which is dumb).

No that is not at all what I am saying. If a person comes to a "Gun Free Zone" with a gun what's actually stopping them? A Gun Free Zone is not actually a magical zone where guns are prevented from entering. It's an arbitrary boundary humans have placed, and if we don't defend that arbitrary border then it's not actually real. Maybe I'm fucking retarded, and calling an area "Gun free" does actually make it entirely safe from gun violence. But I don't think so.

I'm glad we have caped crusaders like you who are willing to step up and save lives. The way you framed this is gross. Killing someone is a terrible last-resort, grim tragedy.