- Joined
- Oct 28, 2010
- Messages
- 35,494
- Reaction score
- 165,445
Last May, the US Department of Justice issued a report that was compiled as part of a study on firearms violence as it occurred between the years of 1993 and 2011. Here is a link to the study itself:
USDOJ: Firearms Violence, 1993-2011
Before I continue, I'd like to point out to the reader that the information used to collate the statistics presented within the report were produced by an unusual group of sources, and that DOJ did not rely exclusively on the FBI and their annual Uniform Crime Report but also drew source material from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as myriad other sources whose information is generally held as being veracious. Thus, for the sake of this post, I will assume that the information to be found within the report is accurate enough to work with, though not entirely unassailable. But again: I have enough confidence in the data to cite it as part of this presentation, even if I do not believe what I am reading to be 100% accurate at all times.
In this post, I mean to focus mainly on the subject of the lawful use of firearms for self defense by ordinary citizens, though there are at least twenty other issues of such merit as to be worthy of discussion that might be drawn from the same report. I invite those who wish to discuss these alternative topics to do so within this thread, as I am sure I would find your comments interesting, at least.
There were a few surprises for me as I read this one, that's for sure. Some of the data really surprised me and proved me to be wrong in some of my previous personal conclusions, while at other times the data I found vindicated things that I was saying all along.
One of the first things I found myself wrong in was this: I had grossly underestimated the actual number of incidents in which firearms were used in a lawful manner so as to either stymie criminal activity or thwart it altogether. For instance, I previously figured that there were about 90-150 such incidents occurring on a monthly basis, and found that no, it was more like an average of 129 episodes per day.
Here's what the raw numbers looked like: in one five-year period focused upon within the report, it was stated that between 2007 and 2011 there were a whopping 235,700 incidents in which a victimized person used a firearm to wound, kill, or drive off a criminal assailant as the victim of a nonfatal violent crime. This amounts to an average of slightly over 47,000 such episodes per year. And to give the reader an idea of just how much bad shit is taking place out there, I wish to add that the report stated that those who did defend themselves against violent criminals represent only 1% of those listed as being victims of violent crime to begin with.
Here I will pause to mention that the annual firearms death total in all these years was nowhere nearly so high as the number of incidents such as those which I just described. Here I would speculate that this seems to indicate that most of those who did use such weapons in lawful self defense were not at all prone to try and actually kill their assailant. This is contrary to the usual depiction of those who wish to maintain firearms for defensive purposes as being prepossessed of some sort of blood lust or any of the other, usual negative characterizations that certain others always seem to wish to assign to them. From other personal studies, I've noticed that actually, in the majority of instances, those who wield a firearm against a violent offender do not tend to shoot in a gratuitous manner at all, but instead mainly hold their fire while the offender scampers off in fear.
Self defense is in inalienable right... it is the natural tendency of all living creatures to fight, flee, or otherwise come up with countermeasures of some sort while under physical attack. We can choose to fight back if we wish. We can also choose to not fight back, and sometimes this is the wisest course of action. However, under uncertain circumstances, my personal predilection has been-- and always will be-- to fight. This is because I have always seen that those who do fight are generally more survivable than their more placid counterparts. At the very least, by fighting back I am not putting my life into the hands of some malefactor, then hoping that he or she will not hurt me if I acquiesce to their victimization of me.
Admittedly, this is a personal philosophy and not some sort of blanket recommendation. That is, I do not presume to instruct others or to prescribe much of anything to anybody else. Life is a real crap shoot, and every incident that takes place that is of such a nature as to call for defensive measures is unique unto itself. I've already given my pedigree when it comes to such affairs out in the past, and will say that my conclusions do have a bit more authority than those of the average lay person. But once again: I do not prescribe much here, and instead have only said what my attitude towards violent criminals happens to be, and what one might expect from me as a reaction to any sort of violent incursion.
Everyone has to make their own choices. In Special Forces we had an aphorism that said, anything you do can get you killed-- including doing nothing. Each person faced with such decisions as are inherent in a defensive situation has to make his or her own choices-- and that is an inalienable right, too.
Morally, I consider the idea that one should be aware of their surroundings and to avoid situations that can get them hurt. It follows that upon the mere premonition of danger, one should flee. However, there are times when this is not feasible, or otherwise possible-- and that there are yet other circumstances in which the wisest course of action for those who mean to survive is to actually go on the offensive themselves. There is no pat solution to every possible scenario in which one might become entangled, and so all manner of potential recourses should be considered-- really, really quickly.
I will say this, however: it is a myth to suggest that only a person with special types of training and experience are able to defend themselves with firearms-- and to do so in a manner that is both lawful and morally sound. I've seen many on this board who seem to feel that there's some specific course of action that will work in all situations, along with those who have mentioned that they've never had any sort of situations such as that would cause a need for defensive measures occur, even though they lived in relatively hazardous or high-crime areas. My response to this is that their experiences were benign, and probably more due to avoidance and happenstance than anything else. I would end this post by also saying that when others make such prescriptions based on their experience-- or lack of it, actually-- they aren't really doing anybody a favor.
Last bit here: the report lists figures and statistics that deal with crime within subgroups of the population at large, and includes statistics that focus on age, gender identity, race, and ethnicity. Some of these issues might be worthy, or at least interesting, to discuss.
--R
USDOJ: Firearms Violence, 1993-2011
Before I continue, I'd like to point out to the reader that the information used to collate the statistics presented within the report were produced by an unusual group of sources, and that DOJ did not rely exclusively on the FBI and their annual Uniform Crime Report but also drew source material from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as myriad other sources whose information is generally held as being veracious. Thus, for the sake of this post, I will assume that the information to be found within the report is accurate enough to work with, though not entirely unassailable. But again: I have enough confidence in the data to cite it as part of this presentation, even if I do not believe what I am reading to be 100% accurate at all times.
In this post, I mean to focus mainly on the subject of the lawful use of firearms for self defense by ordinary citizens, though there are at least twenty other issues of such merit as to be worthy of discussion that might be drawn from the same report. I invite those who wish to discuss these alternative topics to do so within this thread, as I am sure I would find your comments interesting, at least.
There were a few surprises for me as I read this one, that's for sure. Some of the data really surprised me and proved me to be wrong in some of my previous personal conclusions, while at other times the data I found vindicated things that I was saying all along.
One of the first things I found myself wrong in was this: I had grossly underestimated the actual number of incidents in which firearms were used in a lawful manner so as to either stymie criminal activity or thwart it altogether. For instance, I previously figured that there were about 90-150 such incidents occurring on a monthly basis, and found that no, it was more like an average of 129 episodes per day.
Here's what the raw numbers looked like: in one five-year period focused upon within the report, it was stated that between 2007 and 2011 there were a whopping 235,700 incidents in which a victimized person used a firearm to wound, kill, or drive off a criminal assailant as the victim of a nonfatal violent crime. This amounts to an average of slightly over 47,000 such episodes per year. And to give the reader an idea of just how much bad shit is taking place out there, I wish to add that the report stated that those who did defend themselves against violent criminals represent only 1% of those listed as being victims of violent crime to begin with.
Here I will pause to mention that the annual firearms death total in all these years was nowhere nearly so high as the number of incidents such as those which I just described. Here I would speculate that this seems to indicate that most of those who did use such weapons in lawful self defense were not at all prone to try and actually kill their assailant. This is contrary to the usual depiction of those who wish to maintain firearms for defensive purposes as being prepossessed of some sort of blood lust or any of the other, usual negative characterizations that certain others always seem to wish to assign to them. From other personal studies, I've noticed that actually, in the majority of instances, those who wield a firearm against a violent offender do not tend to shoot in a gratuitous manner at all, but instead mainly hold their fire while the offender scampers off in fear.
Self defense is in inalienable right... it is the natural tendency of all living creatures to fight, flee, or otherwise come up with countermeasures of some sort while under physical attack. We can choose to fight back if we wish. We can also choose to not fight back, and sometimes this is the wisest course of action. However, under uncertain circumstances, my personal predilection has been-- and always will be-- to fight. This is because I have always seen that those who do fight are generally more survivable than their more placid counterparts. At the very least, by fighting back I am not putting my life into the hands of some malefactor, then hoping that he or she will not hurt me if I acquiesce to their victimization of me.
Admittedly, this is a personal philosophy and not some sort of blanket recommendation. That is, I do not presume to instruct others or to prescribe much of anything to anybody else. Life is a real crap shoot, and every incident that takes place that is of such a nature as to call for defensive measures is unique unto itself. I've already given my pedigree when it comes to such affairs out in the past, and will say that my conclusions do have a bit more authority than those of the average lay person. But once again: I do not prescribe much here, and instead have only said what my attitude towards violent criminals happens to be, and what one might expect from me as a reaction to any sort of violent incursion.
Everyone has to make their own choices. In Special Forces we had an aphorism that said, anything you do can get you killed-- including doing nothing. Each person faced with such decisions as are inherent in a defensive situation has to make his or her own choices-- and that is an inalienable right, too.
Morally, I consider the idea that one should be aware of their surroundings and to avoid situations that can get them hurt. It follows that upon the mere premonition of danger, one should flee. However, there are times when this is not feasible, or otherwise possible-- and that there are yet other circumstances in which the wisest course of action for those who mean to survive is to actually go on the offensive themselves. There is no pat solution to every possible scenario in which one might become entangled, and so all manner of potential recourses should be considered-- really, really quickly.
I will say this, however: it is a myth to suggest that only a person with special types of training and experience are able to defend themselves with firearms-- and to do so in a manner that is both lawful and morally sound. I've seen many on this board who seem to feel that there's some specific course of action that will work in all situations, along with those who have mentioned that they've never had any sort of situations such as that would cause a need for defensive measures occur, even though they lived in relatively hazardous or high-crime areas. My response to this is that their experiences were benign, and probably more due to avoidance and happenstance than anything else. I would end this post by also saying that when others make such prescriptions based on their experience-- or lack of it, actually-- they aren't really doing anybody a favor.
Last bit here: the report lists figures and statistics that deal with crime within subgroups of the population at large, and includes statistics that focus on age, gender identity, race, and ethnicity. Some of these issues might be worthy, or at least interesting, to discuss.
--R
