Woman stabs 4 in Southern Calif. Target store, stopped by gunman

[mvccd1000]

Well, if you consider a man with a gun to be a gunman, anyway. :) He was an off-duty deputy, apparently the only person in the store with a concealed weapon.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i-Xzk2MqUHta_aLE4xjENLf-bfoAD9FFQ8980

Of course, gun control advocates will argue that any OTHER person allowed to CCW could not have done the same thing, but this shows once again that a person armed with a gun stopped a crime before it could escalate further.

[Kringle]

1. assault knives should be banned

nobody needs that kind of
knife power

[spin]

20. Interesting, define an "assault knife "...

is it evil and black like this one?


Benchmade 710


or is it nice and shinny with a wood handle like this one?


Buck 110

I have two knives on me right now. Are either "assault" knives?


Bark River Knives - Bird and Trout Knife


Spyderco Endura

[Glassunion]

21. The Spyderco...

It scares me the most. It should be banned. I have a right to feel safe.

[spin]

26. Yes, that is an evil looking blade ...

but it works well for tough jobs such as cutting wire or seat belts.

Many people buy a partially serrated blade as they hope to get the best of both worlds. Knife enthusiasts feel that the limited amount of serrations limit the usefulness of the blade. If they use a knife with serrations, they often chose a fully serrated blade.

Knifes are useful tools. I use the Bark River Bird and Trout primarily as a kitchen knife. A fixed blade is far easier to clean than a folding blade.

[guardian]

65. Knowing Congress' penchant for inane laws

They'll probably ban the black Spyderco, but have an exception for this

[spin]

66. There was a recent attempt to ban common pocket knives...

U.S. Customs Seeks to Prohibit Assisted Opening Knives
June 08, 2009

Assisted opening knives could be reclassified as illegal switchblades if a measure proposed by United States Customs and Border Protection (Customs) becomes law.

On May 21, Customs proposed a revision of what constitutes a switchblade (click here to read the proposal). This new interpretation would deem assisted opening knives, as well as those featuring one-hand operation, illegal per the U.S. Switchblade Act of 1958.

***snip***

The current federal definition of a switchblade is any knife that opens automatically using gravity, inertia or hand pressure to a button or device on the handle. Assisted openers and one-hand operation knives rely on studs, grooves or other devices attached to the blade to open. These blades must be manipulated by hand to open.

If enacted, the Customs proposal would effect the 35.6 million people who own one-hand operation knives, according to the American Knife & Tool Institute (AKTI). Furthermore, Knife Rights indicates roughly 80 percent of all knives sold in the United States use one-hand operation. The knife industry as a whole employs 24,000 people and contributes an estimated $8 billion annually to the economy, according to Knife Rights.
http://www.blademag.com/article/us-customs-seeks-to-prohibit-assisted-opening-knives

Fortunately, the ban was stopped by concerned knife owners.

We Stopped U.S. Customs Pocket Knife Grab!

U.S. Customs proposed re-interpreting the Federal Switchblade Act in a manner that would not only outlaw assisted opening knives, but would likely have outlawed all one-handed opening knives. Working hand in hand with other organizations, Knife Rights stopped Customs Pocket Knife Grab! The President signed into law the FY2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill on October 28, 2009, protecting our pocket knives. The bill included our amendment to the Federal Switchblade Act that clearly exempts assisted and one-hand opening knives.
http://www.kniferights.org/

[Travis Coates]

37. assault knife

Any knife W/ a bayonette lug and a shoulder thing that goes up

[The Magistrate]

2. And The Other Side Of The Argument, Sir, Would Of Course Be

She could have done a great deal more harm with a pistol or two than she managed with the knives.

[mvccd1000]

3. Very true...

And it still would probably have required someone with a gun to stop her.

Hoopla Phil posted another story of a criminal with a knife who was stopped by a gun owner in Indiana today.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x315221

[The Magistrate]

4. Doubtless, Sir

Though it is certainly easier for a person not possessed of a fire-arm to defeat or disarm a person with a knife, than it is for a person without a fire-arm to defeat or disarm a person who has a fire-arm.

All in all, it seems fortunate a peace officer was on the scene in this instance. That probably went a long way towards minimizing the bloodshed.

[mvccd1000]

8. Agreed on all counts. (nt)

[gorfle]

25. An /armed/ peace officer.

All in all, it seems fortunate a peace officer was on the scene in this instance.

An armed peace officer.

[lbrtbell]

7. She could have done far worse with a bomb

So should we ban fertilizer, or any other ingredients commonly used in homemade bombs?

[The Magistrate]

11. Are You Simply Looking For A Fight, Sir?

[Travis Coates]

38. Clearly, you are NNTO

[The Magistrate]

39. Nintendo, Sir?

The acronym is unfamiliar to me....

[Travis Coates]

42. No Need To Open

As in there is no body to my post.

After reading your posts, I have become convinced that you have no interest in any thing but stirring the pot. Accordingly I won't be responding to your posts any more.

I really hope you have a good life and you never get your tail in the kind of crack that requires a gun to get it out of.

[The Magistrate]

44. Shot Your Way Out Of A Dozen Rumbles, Have You, Sir?

"There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men."

[cowman]

53. As a matter of fact

I did in Vietnam WITH A GUN, and I do have a CHL and do carry when not on duty as a Firefighter/Paramedic and if that bothers you, well, tough fucking shit, that's your problem not mine. Good Day SIR

[The Magistrate]

57. Do Not Bruise Your Chest as You Thump On It, Sir: A Shame If Such a Specimen As You Took Harm

[TreasonousBastard]

5. With all the baseball bats, pitchforks, and other stuff in Target...

it took a gun to take her down?

Buncha wimps with no imagination work and shop at Target. They need guns if they can't bean her with a fastball. Or at least a big ol' can of beans, frying pan...

[PavePusher]

60. You may close to contact range with a knife-weilding maniac if you wish...

I will attempt to intervene from a safer distance, thank you.

Every martial arts training with knives that I have taken, the general consensus is "Be prepared to be cut". It is very nearly a guarantee.

I have no moral or legal obligation to increase my risk of injury when dealing with defense of myself, or the public.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

6. This was omitted from the OP

"Grant was wearing a white T-shirt, camouflage shorts and running shoes so several shoppers mistook him for a gunman, adding to the sense of panic, sheriff's Sgt. Josh Mankini said."

I know he identified himself as a sheriff's deputy but he risked getting shot himself and he could have made the situation worse as well.

[mvccd1000]

9. Could have made the situation worse...

That seems to be a common argument against anyone with a gun ever intervening in a crisis; the police won't know who to shoot.

I would submit that this was about as crazy a situation as you can picture (an armed man in camouflage chasing a woman who did not have a gun), and yet it ended as well as it possibly could have once the armed man became involved.

Kind of puts to rest that argument, doesn't it?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

10. He was fortunate that he wasn't shot during this incident

Key word here- "fortunate"

(In other words, he could have been shot at by a security guard at Target)

[mvccd1000]

12. Why do you say that?

Can you point to a rash of other stories showing that men with guns who have intervened in crisis situation have been shot by police or security guards?

Right off the top of my head, I can't think of ANY, which would mean this off-duty cop was not "fortunate," he was "typical" of such people.

If 99 other people who intervened had been shot, and he got away with it, I'd agree with you; he was the fortunate 1 out of 100. Since NO other people have been shot, and he continued that tradition, I don't see where you come up with the "fortunate" argument.


I suppose I'm looking at it like you had said you were fortunate your house didn't burn down last night. Well, yes, that's certainly a good thing. I don't know that I would consider it fortunate, though, if your house also didn't burn down any other night, and neither did your neighbors' homes. That's simply typical.

Fortunate would be if a forest fire blew through and burned down 1/2 the homes in your neighborhood, but not yours. THEN I would agree that you were certainly fortunate. If your car caught fire in your driveway and burned to the ground but did not touch the house, I'd agree that you were fortunate.

Business as usual does not equal fortunate in my eyes, and this gunman (in the context of other gunman who have intervened in such situations) was business as usual.

I'll happily review and revise my opinions if you can point to any facts that suggest otherwise.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

13. Sounds like the point went way over your head

When he took out his gun, he created a new wave of panic. In this store, there was a crazed woman stabbing people, what would people (and a security guard) think when they saw a guy with a gun?

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. You may as well save it.......

it's wasted here.

[mvccd1000]

19. Wasted here...

... because so many of us rely on facts and statistics instead of emotional "what if xxx had happened" arguments.

Sorry to disappoint.

[TheCowsCameHome]

41. Disappointed? Nah.

"What if" works very well for both sides of this issue.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. But it DIDN'T happen that way.

Despite all of your "could have"s, it didn't happen according to your fears. Could you please search and find a new story where you fear has come true? I googled and didn't find any.

[Glassunion]

16. But... But... But...

It COULD have happened.
An LEO COULD have been killed.
A group of Tea Party members COULD have been at the Starbucks and COULD have turned that Target into a bloodbath.
Someone COULD have fashioned an explosive over in lawn and garden.


It's for the children.

Remember, facts have no place in a purely emotional conversation.

[jazzhound]

54. Interestingly, this is how the debate is handled by the pro-control "pros"

as well.

The grounds for dismissing outright the high numbers of defensive gun uses discovered with the NSDS was 100% speculative. Interestingly, all of the speculation by Kellerman and friends regarding possible flaws in methodology suggested excessively high numbers of defensive gun uses. No surprise there.

After Kleck & Gertz soundly rebutted the wild speculation by the pro-controllers, rather than attempt to counter they decided upon a brand new tactic. Amazingly, they suddenly announced that NO survey methodology investigating defensive gun use could be relied upon! Including the National Crime Victims Survey which they had previously supported.

Your reference to the style of argument of children is interesting. W/regard to the example I just mentioned, one criminologist compared the behaviour of Kellerman and associates to a child having a good time playing marbles with his friends until he starts to lose ---- at which point he scoops up his marbles and stomps off.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. "Could have" outweighs "what actually happened" for some people

It's like staying indoors on a nice day because you fear being hit by a car.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. Hmmmm. You make a good argument for killing the woman.

Possible scenario: Pull gun on crazy woman who has already stabbed four people and hold her at gunpoint. Taking chance on arriving police seeing you with gun and thinking you are the bad guy and shooting you.

Alternate scenario. Pull gun, blow woman away, holster gun, wait for cops with your hands empty and raised away from your body. Cops may be a bit rough as they cuff and search you, but since but they won't shoot you. Since the woman had stabbed four people you will be released after the cops get everything straightened out.

[gorfle]

27. but it NEVER HAPPENS.

In this store, there was a crazed woman stabbing people, what would people (and a security guard) think when they saw a guy with a gun?

As was pointed out to you, the scenario you are worried about almost never happens. Why? Because people lawfully carrying firearms are generally responsible, accurate shooters who pay attention to what they are doing.

Also, please note that most private security guards are unarmed, with a sole duty to "observe and report".

[proteus_lives]

59. Wow.

"When he took out his gun, he created a new wave of panic. In this store, there was a crazed woman stabbing people,"

So he should have done what you would have done? Stand there and let people be injured or killed?

[tburnsten]

69. He created a new wave of panic?

What on Earth are you talking about? Who panicked because of a guy running through shouting "Sherriff's Deputy, look out!"?

[RamboLiberal]

18. I doubt if most security at Target are armed

Most store security isn't unless in an area where armed security is needed.

And from what I've read this deputy was identifying himself as law enforcement. They are taught to shout something like "Deputy Sheriff, drop the knife!". And he would've been shouting his id to arriving officers. Since Target security helped him subdue and handcuff the woman they at leaast had figured out he was a LEO.

Yes arriving cops have shot other cops but would you rather this guy hadn't intervened and let shoppers continue to get stabbed?

[Euromutt]

63. They aren't at the one nearest me

That would be the one in The Commons mall in Federal Way, WA. Their security is mall security, who consist of a bunch of unarmed (and not particularly awe-inspiring) Securitas employees, who have to rely on Federal Way PD to handle more than a kid wearing shoes in the play area.

[tburnsten]

68. There are no armed security guards at any Target

outside the West Bank.

And anyway, it really isn't that difficult to identify someone intervening in a situation and someone causing the situation, I mean after he found and subdued, in this case by shooting her, I am quite positive he did not continue to sprint through the store waving his pistol around.

Try to actually think about the scenario you are concocting. The chances of him being shot by an overzealous responding police officer are insignificant compared to the chances of her stabbing quite a few more people in the minutes it takes those officers to respond.

[PavePusher]

61. And that is sufficient reason to not intervene?

You seem to have little trust in, or concern for, your fellow Citizens.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. The deputy showed great restraint.

The woman was armed with a knife and had already stabbed four people. He could have legally blown her away.

[The Magistrate]

28. Part Of An Officer's Training, Sir, is To Show Such Restraint

And use only the degree of force necessary to control the situation.

It is one of the fears many have regarding widespread 'citizen carry' of fire-arms that some portion of those who would sally forth each day with a pistol on their body would be hoping to encounter a situation in which they could legally blow someone away, or at least thought they could.

[X_Digger]

29. See example one, of how NOT to espouse an opinion yet make a smear..

It is one of the fears many have regarding widespread 'citizen carry' of fire-arms that some portion of those who would sally forth each day with a pistol on their body would be hoping to encounter a situation in which they could legally blow someone away, or at least thought they could.

Are you one of the 'many'?

If so, what leads you to this conclusion? (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you've actually thought about it and it isn't just an irrational fear on your part.) Is there something in the published stats on the behavior of CCW/CHL licensees that tends to support this position?

I love when people use 'weasel words' to avoid actually having to stand behind their opinions. For example:

"Some say you're an obsequious, bombastic, pretentious poster."

"Many feel that your verbosity hides a lack of honesty."

"Others have stated that your orotundity is merely an excuse to avoid honest debate."

[The Magistrate]

30. Not a Man Of Violence Yourself, Sir, Eh?

You will find some points of interest in this file, that bear on the matter in question....

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/ccwprivatecitizens.pdf

[shadowrider]

31. VPC. Nuff said

[The Magistrate]

32. All Items In That File, Sir, Are Sourced To News Accounts

They are not distorted from the original articles, and represent what is known publicly about the incidents in which persons with concealed carry permits have been involved one way or another with homicides, justified or otherwise, or suicides, over the past several years.

Feel free to point out any departures from publicly reported facts in the summary accounts.

[X_Digger]

33. You do realize, don't you..

.. that taken as a whole (~6M permit holders) that report actually speaks better for CHL holders than the general public, yes? (If we take all incidents listed {including suicides}, that comes out to 1.8 per 100,000, less than the national average of 5.4 murders per 100,000 {which does _not_ include suicides.})

Still less crimes committed per holder than even badged, armed law enforcement.

But that speaks nothing to your "opinion" regarding CHL holders' mentality.

Here, let me quote it for clarity- "would be hoping to encounter a situation in which they could legally blow someone away".

Again I ask, are you one of the "many" and what leads you to this conclusion?

If you base your "fear" on the fact that CHL holders commit crimes at a rate far less than the general public, then I have to question the rationality of your "fear".

Additionally, the VPC report includes suicides (see Marc Kidby). What makes you think that absent a CHL license, these people would not have had access to the gun by which they killed themselves?

[The Magistrate]

34. What the Figures Really Indicate, Sir

Is the vanishingly slim chance these individuals have of actually encountering crime that requires a response using deadly force. To put the matter into perspective, the chance a person will be killed in traffic generally runs two or three times the chance a person will be murdered in the course of a crime. The same proportion holds true for lesser outcomes. People who feel themselves under grave threat from criminals, but who do not feel themselves under far greater threat from drivers of automobiles, ma certainly in some cases be fairly said to be laboring under irrational or even delusional fears.

Your question originally, however, was whether there was any basis in fact for stating some people carried weapons in the hope of finding themselves in a situation where they could legally kill, or thought they could legally kill. That has been demonstrated in file cited: there certainly are such people.

[X_Digger]

35. Actually no it hasn't.

All that file shows is that a vanishingly small percentage of CHL holders go on to commit homicide / suicide / have their children shoot themselves with a found gun (notice also that not all of the listed incidents include crimes with firearms.)

It says nothing whatsoever about the mentality of those cited, or of the other 5,999,900 permit holders not cited. Perhaps your copy of adobe acrobat has a special feature that lets you read something else between the lines?

Nor does the report address the defensive uses of handguns by the remaining permit holders. You know, some subset of the 100k-2.5M uses, 95% of which involve no shots being fired, per NCVS / DOJ.

The fact that some CHL licensees committed crimes speaks nothing to your assertion that some are "hoping to encounter a situation in which they could legally blow someone away". We certainly can't count the family annihilators- they knew their actions would be illegal. We can discount the suicides, unless you assert they were hoping to encounter a situation in which they legally blow themselves away (which is just silly.) We can discount the cases where no firearm was used (no 'legally blowing away' involved). So we're left with an even more infinitesimal number of cases where a CHL holder 'blew someone away'. Still doesn't go to show that they were hoping to do so.

Are people who keep fire extinguishers 'hoping to legally blow a fire away'?

Are those who carry a first aid kit 'hoping to legally blow a cut away'?

[The Magistrate]

36. Again, Sir, You Make It Clear You Are Not a Man Of Violence

Those instances where a person leapt to the conclusion he was under deadly threat, when he was actually not, are instances of pre-disposition to the act. You may dislike that statement, or disgree with it, but your discomfort with it is of no significance.

A range of between one hundred thosand and two and one half millions, by the way, is a far too multisyllabic way of saying "wild guess; please ignore". It is clear there is no good idea how many 'defensive uses' of fire-arms there are in a year. It is likely the government study runs low, but likely also the NCVS study runs very high indeed. To give one indication of how high the latter may run, we may take just the five percent in which it is claimed shots were fired. This would be one hundred twenty-five thousand incidents over the course of a year. Repsondents claimed on eight percent of such occasions, they wounded their target. That seems to exceed the total of all reported non-fatal gun-shot wounds in any recent year. While the authors of that study acknowledge the respondents' eight percent claim is likely quite optimistic, they do not properly weight this obvious demonstration of proneness to exaggerate and even fantasize among their respondents.

[X_Digger]

40. You still have yet to demonstrate-

"hoping to encounter a situation in which they could legally blow someone away". They had bad judgment, even criminal in some cases, which ended up with them shooting someone, but that in no way legitimizes your claim that they were hoping to legally do so. You are ascribing intent where none was demonstrated or can be inferred.

Those instances where a person leapt to the conclusion he was under deadly threat, when he was actually not, are instances of pre-disposition to the act. You may dislike that statement, or disgree with it, but your discomfort with it is of no significance.

Are people who carry auto insurance and then have an accident hoping to "legally blow away a car"? Choosing to be prepared in the direst circumstance in no way means that you wish that circumstance to happen, regardless of how you try to cloak it in sophistry.

[The Magistrate]

43. The Act, Sir, Certainly Manifests the Intent

People who find trouble are generally looking for it.

[X_Digger]

45. That has to be the most asinine cart before the horse statement I've ever seen.

Based on you *ahem* logic, if I have an auto accident for which I was insured, I was 'looking for it'?

Are attempted rape victims who defend themselves with a firearm, or mace, or a taser even, 'looking for it' as well?

Nice to see the true colors finally out, though. Blame the victim for being prepared.

[The Magistrate]

47. A Person, Sir, Who 'Thinks' Another is Pulling A Gun And Kills Him, When Only He Has a Gun

Is no victim, but rather a perpetrator.

You think you have found a brilliant rhetorical device in likening an insurance policy to the carrying of a fire-arm, calling both means of 'protection', but it is far from so brilliant as you seem to suppose. An insurance policy pays cash to cover the expenses incurred by some damage or other; it does not, say, destroy a car about to crash into yours as you cross an intersection. Nor do you have any say in its deployment; the insurance company decides what it will cover and what and when it will pay. A moment's sober consideration will show the things are not remotely analagous, and that the attempt to treat them as if they were is rum comedy, not high and effective forensic rhetoric.

[X_Digger]

50. aka... I struck a nerve. Gotcha.

Preparation for an unlikely, yet possibly catastrophic event is not 'hoping' for the event to occur. To assert otherwise is 'rum comedy', indeed.



But your subject line intrigues me. Is it your opinion that one must meet the means of attack in kind? If a person pulls a knife and threatens me, I'd be a 'perpetrator' if I pulled a gun on him? From whence does this dogma arise? Certainly not in law, which specifies that one must have 'apprehension of immediate, grave bodily harm or injury' to justify the use of deadly force. No 'means' is specified.

[The Magistrate]

52. Your Instinct For the Capillary Makes You Irresistible, Sir....

[jazzhound]

55. I've actually encountered people who argue that merely pulling a gun

(not firing it) in self-defense makes the victim guilty of the SAME level of violence as the perpetrator who forced him/her to pull it! (the two wrongs don't make a right principle)

The stupidity overwhelms, sometimes.

[The Magistrate]

58. In Some Situations, Sir, Pulling the Gun Is A Crime, If One Has Mis-Judged the Threat Level

[spin]

67. From the Florida web site on concealed carry ...

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

* Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
* Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

***snip***

Q. What if I point my handgun at someone but don't use it?

A. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.

Example: In a 1987 case, a woman refused to pay an automobile mechanic who she thought did a poor job repairing her car. They argued about it, and the mechanic removed the radiator hose from the car so she couldn't drive it away. She reached into her purse, pulled out an unloaded gun, and threatened to kill the mechanic if he touched her car again. The mechanic grabbed the gun and called the police.

The woman was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to serve a mandatory three-year prison term. The fact that the gun was not loaded was irrelevant. Even though she was the mother of three dependent children and had no prior criminal record, the statute does not allow for parole. Her only recourse was to seek clemency from the Governor.

***snip***

Q. What if I see a crime being committed?

A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

[GreenStormCloud]

48. That brush is a bit too broad.

Certainly there are people, gangbangers and other young toughs or even old toughs, who go out looking for trouble and find it, often by giving trouble to someone else. However, the case of all X are Y does not mean that all Y are X. There are many people who are innocent victims. Trouble came to them.

When my wife used her gun to defend herself, she was merely walking from her car to work. Trouble came to her, but trouble found that she was prepared, so trouble ran away.

[The Magistrate]

51. My Reference, Sir, Was To A Specific Class Of Cases

In the compilation file cited, there were a number of instances in which people, who carried weapons legally, killed people, and claimed things like 'he was going for a gun' or 'he was on my property', after the fact of the shooting, and contrary to what evidence showed had actually transpired. Persons exhibiting such behavior can be fairly said to have found trouble they were looking for.

[Euromutt]

62. Straight out of the David Hemenway manual of one-sided speculation

While the authors of that study acknowledge the respondents' eight percent claim is likely quite optimistic, they do not properly weight this obvious demonstration of proneness to exaggerate and even fantasize among their respondents.

Yes, they do, namely by noting that the number of respondents who claimed to have hit their assailant were a very small subset (0.4%) even of the respondents who claimed to have experienced a DGU. As anyone with a modicum of instruction in statistics knows, the smaller your sample size, the easier it is for a few incorrect answers to skew the results.

Moreover, to even have a response counted as a valid DGU, the respondent had to give internally consistent answers to up to 19 questions, and then repeat the whole story in a follow-up call; it would be no mean feat to fabricate a story off the cuff with no advance warning (the respondents were "cold-called"), and then remember it in sufficient detail to repeat it to the follow-up caller. There was, as Kleck & Gertz pointed out, no such degree of detailed questioning regarding why the respondent believed he had hit the assailant. Similarly, generating a false negative report of a DGU (i.e. by someone who falsely claimed he had not committed one) would have been far easier than generating a false positive.

Kleck & Gertz also point out that gunshot wounds that are not immediately life-threatening (which is over 90% of them) are quite treatable without the aid of licensed medical professionals (who are the source of GSW reports). It is thus perfectly plausible that some, possibly many, of the assailants reportedly shot in DGUs were in fact shot, but opted to treat their wounds with first aid supplies readily available over the counter from the nearest drugstore (even if they may have had to send a friend or family member to get them), possibly supplemented with pain medication acquired from a friendly drug dealer (all that OxyContin diverted into the black market has to end up somewhere), and avoid seeking treatment at an ER, walk-in clinic or the like.

A range of between one hundred thosand and two and one half millions, by the way, is a far too multisyllabic way of saying "wild guess; please ignore". It is clear there is no good idea how many 'defensive uses' of fire-arms there are in a year.

If you assume that the NCVS and the Kleck-Gertz study are the only two sources available, maybe. But in the wake of the Kleck-Gertz study, a similar survey was commissioned by the NIJ and conducted by Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig (two researchers known to be personally opposed to private firearms ownership), which using similar methodology to Kleck & Gertz, produced an estimate 1.5 million persons performing DGUs annually. Another study by David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael (both noted for producing research that almost invariably concludes that Guns Are Bad) around the same time produced an estimate of 900,000 DGUs annually. Since these studies were performed with smaller samples than the Kleck & Gertz study, their upper confidence intervals amply overlap the lower ranges of Kleck & Gertz's. In combination with the fact that NCVS does not explicitly inquire about DGUs, it is therefore entirely plausible that the actual number of annual DGUs falls into the 1.5-2 million range. (Or, at least, did so in the early 1990s; given that crime rates then were almost double what they are now, it's also quite plausible that the number of DGUs has decreased concomitantly since.)

[GreenStormCloud]

46. Certainly there are such people, but as also demonstrated, they are few..

In fact, the odds of being illegally killed by a CCW permit holder are less than the chance of being struck by lightning. It would be interesting to know how many people are illegally killed by police during that same 2.5 year time frame. There are no firm stats on that.

The odds of needing deadly force may be small, but when they do happen, it doesn't matter that the odds were against it happening. A few years ago my wife used her gun (She has a CHL)to prevent her own murder. No shot fired, would-be assailant ran away.

Most defensive gun uses don't actually get to the actually shooting stage. The danger manifests itself, the defender draws their gun,and the bad guy runs away before actually commiting a crime. Often, the defender doesn't even notify the police. (I do not agree with not telling the police, but that is a different discussion.) There are no firm stastics on how often guns are really used defensively.

The odds may indeed be small, but the loss if you happen to lose that lottery can be total. Against the possibility of being killed, or severly injured, carrying a gun is cheap insurance.

[The Magistrate]

49. We Are Probably Not That Far Apart, Sir

We certainly agree the odds of needing to employ deadly force are very, very small.

One thing you might want to consider, Sir, is the quality of the perception of danger by the person carrying a firearm. This would certainly affect any assessment of the frequency with which defensive use of fire-arms is made. Any person who knocked around much will be able to cite circumstances which gave an initial impression of danger that in the event proved un-warranted.

[GreenStormCloud]

64. Our positions a likely quite close.

I suspect that legitimate Defensive Gun Uses are so rare that they would be a less-than-once-in-a-lifetime event. But even that level of rarity, in a nation of this many gun-owners would still yeild a large number of DGUs. Further, as millions of people now have CCWs, whereas they were rare twenty years ago, the number of DGUs should climb.

Perhaps a better measure (I am speculating.) would be Defensive Gun Needed. By that I would mean those occasion in which a person was a victim of violent crime that would have been prevented if they had been armed.

[jazzhound]

56. I'll have to take partial issue with your statement that there are no stats for

defensive gun use. The results of the NSDS were supported by the NSPOF and a few other national surveys, including a portion of a survey by the gun-hostile CDC.

To date, there has been no empirical evidence that substantially rebuts the high number of defensive gun uses reported by the NSDS, but even if you take the position that they survey over-reported by as much as 33% -- and there's really no reason to support that -- you'd still end up with an extremely large number of DGU's.

Perhaps we disagree on the validity of the NSDS, but I've yet to encounter a criticism of that survey based on empirical evidence rather that pure speculation.

[gorfle]

24. Key quote from the article

""If he wasn't there, who knows? Someone would be dead right now," Mankini said. "He had no communication with outside law enforcement. He's just some guy doing his shopping. We're pretty proud of him.""

Could be anyone with a CCW permit.