I am anti-gun but stats like this make so much more sense than name calling. It's hard to agrue with facts. Thanks for posting VT.

I just went on the Smith and Wesson site - who knew that guns were just as expensive as bikes?

Guns can get crazy expensive, and so can custom ammunition. When I used to race winter biathlon (ski/shoot), my rifle cost over $3000. Getting custom load ammo for a specific event (short notice, based on weather conditions for race day) was as much as $3/ea, and those were just teeny little .22 longs.

My father still has his 1968 Perazzi side by side competition breech loader. I can only imagine what that's worth now.

Be careful of "facts" found on the internet. Especially if they contradict each other:

FACT: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.
* Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
This means that, each year, firearms are used 65 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

FACT: Of the 250,000,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
* U.S. Dept. of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,
**** Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979


Is it 2,500,000 or 250,000,000?

The second number is 100 times higher than the first and you'll find this same exact quote in all kinds of places.

Or maybe the number of self-defense cases using guns dropped by a factor of 100 between 1995 and 1979.

if 250,000,000 is the real number and you also believe the stat that there are about 250,000,000 firearms in the U.S. then on average each firearm will be called upon once each year to defend its owner.

Right.

You sir found my error. It is 2.5 million, as in the first fact you posted. I will edit my post. Thanks

Yes, pretty much. The response when someone asks "should I carry a weapon", the only response, should be---"Do you have a concealed carry permit? Do you feel confident in doing so? Then let your conscience be your guide." Nobody will ever tell someone who doesn't want to carry one to do so---ever. But liberal pansies always feel obligated to tell people what NOT to do. They can be given instance after instance where carrying a firearm is a good idea and still they cling to their ill-informed mythology.

You might want to let the unbiased research staff at gunblast.com know too since they list the same "facts" with the same numbers.

And that, sir, is your problem. You "know there are legitmate sporting uses...". That's the same nonsense people who think firearm ownership is about hunting always parrot. Then you use the false stats about handguns. Another poster in this thread posted the Kleck statistics. The NRA magazines have a column titled "The Armed Citizen" which is full EVERY MONTH of stories where armed citizens WITH HANDGUNS defend themselves. But still you cling to your elitist beliefs. And then you go on your "I know better", paternalistic rant about testosterone pills and such. You did everything short of calling them phallic symbols. Very nice.

I seriously doubt that father of four IT specialist was buying drugs. He either gave them his money and then got beaten to death, or he got beaten then they took his money. However, the fact that the wallet was found at the scene leads me to believe the former is more likely. What criminal is going to pick through the guy's wallet, LEAVING FINGERPRINTS? A criminal would have taken the entire wallet and ditched it somewhere far away from the crime scene. No, I suspect the victim meekly handed over his money and then was killed. So, yes, having a firearm in that instance would have been beneficial. Having pepper spray would have been. Or a Taser.

Should he have been there at that time of night? Hey, I ride my bike at that time of night sometimes, but I live in a small town that's deserted then. If I lived in Murderapolis and wanted to ride to a buddy's house at 1AM I think I would put my pistol in my fanny pack.

Except that they're not "stats" and they're not "facts". They're soundbite conclusions drawn from sources that aren't fully referenced. Not stats...not facts.

But they are facts and stats. How would you like me to reference them? Gary Kleck, a criminologist who was studying to prove that guns were dangerous found this stat and fact that 2.5 million people defended themselves with a gun. He found that number by his own research and citing the National Crime Victim Survey. His book was cited in a Supreme Court case. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck) Would you like me to read you the book? Here is a website https://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html or https://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

What about the Bureau of Justice?: https://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

or the FBI?: https://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/index.html

more surveys: https://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
https://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Government findings: https://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/lott.pdf
https://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/165476.pdf

Oh, man, please tell me you're kidding.

Wow. And Specialty Food Magazine has a column EVERY MONTH in which food is featured!

I agree that having a weapon would have helped the victim. But honestly, fathers of four don't buy drugs? IT specialists don't buy drugs? Not to mention it's unlikely that any criminal would pick through a non-existent wallet that the bicyclist left at home.

Nobody deserves to die like this, but the family is in some denial, IMO. Going to a friend's house to "show him a tire" doesn't pass the smell test.

Local and national drug laws may be to blame, BTW. People should be able to buy a half-ounce of weed without having to come into contact with the criminal element. Michael Phelps rips the occasional bong hit and has won only 14 Olympic medals (to date). What a crippling scourge!

You forgot about BikesDirect.

You don't think the pro-guncontrol folks have their own facts and statistics? I'm sure that if you find a pro gun control website you'll find a bunch of stats that are just as cherry picked to prove their point as the stats above are.

Some might be mostly true, others will be distorted or misleading and some will probably be out and out wrong.

Like the liberal pansies telling people NOT to get abortions? It cuts both ways.

This thread has gone, as expected, in a meandering downward spiral.

For those who are reading it to seek real options to the OP's question and their similar situations, I'd like to suggest NOT using a Taser. Primarily because range is limited, skill level is higher than you think, and you only get one round. Pepper spray is much better if you get confronted by a group and are not a trained professional.

Not as good, of course, as all the other grand options presented by those who feel entitled to their own facts, opinions, and presumptions. And I don't actually recommend pepper spray, I just recommend Tasers even less. Even before considering that there are micro-ids in Taser discharge that allow rounds to be traced, since no one here would really be interested in a stealth untraceable discharge.

Don't trust stats on either side.

I hated...HATED statistics class in college. It was miserable, and I still couldn't tell you what the hell a Z-test or an ANOVA is.
BUT, the one thing I do remember from that class was that on the first day, the prof told us to never trust statistics because they can be manipulated to say whatever you want. As a demonstration, he offered that statistically, the average person in the world has one testicle and one ovary.
Made things crystal clear.

He was arrested for drug possession in 2003. He was a father then too. Don't know if he was an IT consultant or not. I used to live across the street from a house where drugs were sold right in the open. You'd be surprised at who was buying them.

He didn't have his wallet. It was left at home. He had $40 in cash in one of his pockets (according to the suspect).

You're assuming a lot. There have been other muggings of cyclists in the area. A pattern has been to have one guy knock the cyclist off their bike and have a second guy ready to attack them on the ground. Maybe a firearm would be helpful in that situation but getting to it would be problematic, especially if you're disoriented.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Loesch was hit with the bat before he realized he was in any real danger.

Or just stay away from one of the most notorious intersections in South Eastern Minneapolis

I used to work for a research firm. Drawing conclusions from stats and surveys is a very tricky business.

Asking the same question in a slightly different way can result in completely different answers.

Some people will answer a question differently depending on who is asking it or even who else is in the room with them.

Stats aggregated to a national level could completely misrepresent what is going on at discrete locations.

Bottom line: you only increase your chances of firearm violance when you introduce a gun into a situation that may not have otherwise had one. Another fact: it's hard to be a victim of gun violance in the absence of guns. I'm reminded of a friend who went out and bought a gun after the birth of their second child. It was for "protection". I thought, "congratulations, you've just introduced a lethal weapon into a house that had previously had none, you did this knowing that your own children may gain access to it and no one has any training." Not smart. His money would have been better spent on: an alarm system, a dog, exterior lighting (regarded as the most effective crime deterrent in history-not guns, thank you very much), improved locks, window bars, self-defense classes, getting in better shape, etc. This is the fallacy of logic that many fall prey to when considering the purchase of a handgun. They don't realize that personnel gun ownership places them at exponentially increased risk of a multitude of consequences such as: their own injury/death, injury/death of a loved one or friend, suicide, accidental discharges of all kinds, gun theft later used in commission of another crime-to the tune of 13 to as much as 53 times (based on a wide range of studies) that on non-gun owners. Owning a gun for self-defense is an incredibly, incredibly risky choice. Although other factors don't seem quite as macho, they are, undeniably, the safer alternative. Don't fool yourself into thinking you'll be the one to safely avoid the pitfalls and legitimately use your gun in your own defense. You won't, you'll end up dead or in legal hot water.

VoodoTiger and Schwinnrider's over-macho fantasies and name calling is just the type of false bravado often inspired by gun ownership, they wouldn't call me a "liberal pansey" if confronted face to face without a gun. They're the ones who's attitude and contribution to gun violance statistics is a big factor in my decision to never carry one.

You have the right in this wonderful country to own and use a gun (granted, our rights are being whittled away). Exercise that right to the utmost extent, if you don't, you will wake up one day and talk about the days where we use to have the right to own a gun. When you get one, get your license and carry it. Even if it is a small single shot .22 revolver. It is better than nothing.

Remember, good men and women have died for your rights in this country. To not exercise those rights would be a shame.

Reminder: you're posting on the Internet, which isn't confined to any country, wonderful or otherwise.