Quote of the Day: Looking for Trouble Edition

(A)ccording to the FBI, of the approximately 11,000 gun homicides every year, on average less than 300 are justifiable self-defense killings. The research tells us that what is happening in the real world bears no resemblance to the NRA’s imaginary world. In the real world, far too many gun toters are prone to be aggressive, are “looking for trouble,” and claim to have used their guns in self-defense, when in fact they have irresponsibly used their guns in public places.” – Dennis Henigan

129 Responses to Quote of the Day: Looking for Trouble Edition

  1. avatarcaffeinated says:

    He also forgets that a lot of departments do not report UCR stats to the FBI. In addition to that, most people shot these days survive. In a self defense shooting you are shooting to stop and not to kill. It just happens that killing is the most effective way of stopping.

  2. avatarGS650G says:

    I see the Zimmerman/Martin effect is well underway.

  3. avatarMoonshine7102 says:

    “The research tells us that what is happening in the real world bears no resemblance to the Brady Campaign’s imaginary world.”
    —–
    Fvcking fixed. If only 300 are justified, then the other 10,700 are murders, committed by criminals. What the actual fvck is Dennis trying to say?

    • avatarAnonymouse says:

      He’s trying to say that legitimate defensive gun use where the assailant is killed is remarkably rare. Which is true. [1]

      He’s excluding all those cases where the assailant wasn’t killed.

      He’s also implying the above as a justification for tighter gun control, which is to my mind BS.

      [1] Actually, that is less rare than I would have expected. That 3% of homicides with a gun are justifiable even by the presumably very tight standards that the FBI employs is surprisingly high.

  4. avatarMakattak says:

    Once again, the only time the gun-grabbers will count a gun as being used in self-defense is when the victim uses it to kill the assailant.

  5. avatarmmccal says:

    “Once again, the only time the gun-grabbers will count a gun as being used in self-defense is when the victim uses it to kill the assailant.”

    Exactly!
    Last week a 29yo male was walking near LSU Baton Rouge’s campus when he was attacked by 3 other men wanting to mug him. He was a CHL holder and managed to get a shot off and hit one in the leg. The confrontation ended and one bad guy was arrested.
    This incident wouldn’t have made it into that statistic. Justifiable gun use and no homicide involved.

    • avatarKevin says:

      Wow I’ve been living around LSU for 5 years and I never heard anything about the shooting 2 weeks ago. It took me forever but I found a link. I guess it wasn’t that news worthy.

      http://theadvocate.com/home/2630808-125/police-and-fire-briefs

      • avatarmikeb says:

        That’s funny you have no trouble finding all those legit dgu stories.

        • avatarDan says:

          We have no trouble finding legit DGUs, you have a hard time finding
          illegitimate ones. What’s up with that, mike? Trying to think what
          that could indicate…

        • It indicates that the only witnesses are either dead or fled. The shooter is the only one telling us how legit it was. What’s up with that? How gullible do you want to be?

        • avatarDan says:

          I think you underestimate the investigative ability of a modern Homicide detective. In any shooting, there is a lot of evidence available to show the validity of someone claiming self defense.

          Anyway, you seem unable to tell me if there is any possible evidence that I could present to you that would change your mind about gun control. What’s up with that?

          You also seem unable to present any statistical evidence to support any of your positions. What’s up with that?

        • What’s up with that? Haven’t you been telling us over and over again what’s up with that? Most of you comments are personal attacks in which you repeatedly explain what’s up with that. No, what, you’re seriously asking me?

          I don’t know if there’s anything you can say or show that will convince me. how would I know such a thing until or unless I hear or see it.

          Of, course only you could level such a loaded question at me, because you’re completely open minded and not biased at all. You’re not a bit defensive about guns and gun rights, so all’s I’d have to do is present a simple argument that makes sense, right?

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “so all’s I’d have to do is present a simple argument that makes sense, right?”
          —–
          Yup. Ready? Go!

        • avatarDan says:

          “Of, course only you could level such a loaded question at me, because you’re completely open minded and not biased at all. You’re not a bit defensive about guns and gun rights, so all’s I’d have to do is present a simple argument that makes sense, right?”

          Mike, I told you exactly what I need to change my mind.
          I need to see a statistically significant negative correlation between restrictive gun laws and crime, unattributed to other sources.

          Also, Mike, I’ve generally been avoiding personal attacks on you. I can’t control what other people on here say, but I’ve been trying to discuss your arguments and trying to get you to fix your lack of evidence for said arguments. If you’re taking asking for evidence as a personal attack, I don’t know what to do for you; arguments require supporting evidence.

          Anyway, if you haven’t considered your position on gun control to the extent that you can determine the primary goal for your support of gun control, you may want to think about your position further. Once you determine your primary motivator, then the evidence you need to change your mind should be clear.

          For instance, say your motivator is Crime Reduction. The evidence you’d look for to change your mind would be evidence that shows that Gun Control fails to reduce crime.

          If your motivator was in-home Safety, you’d look for evidence that shows that households with guns are safer than ones without.

          I’m not necessarily saying that I can provide that sort of evidence, but the primary reason for your position should let you easily figure out what evidence you would need to be presented with to change your mind.

        • Dan, Is that true, that you’ve avoided personal attacks. I’m not going back to look, it’s possible Ive mixed you up with Hal and some of the other more enthusiastic guys. I’ll take your word for it and thank you.

          I don’t like playing the statistics game and the proof game. I prefer to use common sense and honesty. I have made a few attempts at compliance though, the intentional homicide rates US vs UK, being one recent example. That one didn’t seem to phase you. Could it be that you’re as close-minded and intractable as you accuse me of being?

        • avatarDan says:

          Mike, statistics and proof aren’t a game.

          People have differing baseline experiences and knowledge, and so long as two people who argue are doing so from different information, nothing can be gained. So we require people to provide evidence for their point to ensure that everyone is on the same page.

          People have differing thought processes and priorities, and cannot easily divine the thought processes and priorities of other people. So we require people to detail the logical steps that lead from their evidence to their conclusions to ensure that everyone is on the same page and can follow each other’s arguments.

          Finally, claiming that you argue from “honesty” is implying that those of us who argue against you are not honest, which is poisoning the well of discourse.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
          Poisoning the well is a variant of an ad hominem attack, and effectively ends the possibility of reasoned debate.

          Richard Feynman puts it best in his 1 minute description of the way science works. I say science because that’s what we have to strive for when we try to argue issues that impact public safety. We have to find the laws and rules that present the greatest benefit to public safety, and measuring relative benefits is one thing science can be very good at.
          “In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”
          http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/05/11/richard-feynman-key-to-science/

          As for your evidence that Great Britain has fewer murders, that’s true, but you haven’t connected it to firearms laws, unless you believe that the ONLY difference between Great Britain and the US is gun laws. Again, the way to measure any connection between gun laws and crime is to find similar jurisdictions which made different changes to their gun laws and compare the resulting change in crime.

  6. avatartdiinva says:

    I was watching a John Lott interview on MSNBC where the host claimed that there were 1300 or so “self defense” fatal self defense shootings in the the latest year for which we have data. Sounds to me like the FBI uses a different criteria for “legitimate” self defense criteria than what is used by local prosecutor. Seems to me that the either Henigan is pulling numbers out of his hindquarters or the FBI is in its the FBI knows best mode.

  7. avatarLT says:

    “In the real world, far too many gun toters are prone to be aggressive, are ‘looking for trouble,’ and claim to have used their guns in self-defense, when in fact they have irresponsibly used their guns in public places.”

    For shiggles, let’s humor him a moment – say there are some over-aggressive folks out there packing heat. So what? That’s what you’ve got zealous police officers and prosecutors for. By all means, if you can prove somebody broke the law then lock that fellow up. Otherwise, I will politely ask you to STFU and GTFO – we’ve already got enough restrictions (statutes, federal rules, etc.) to keep the “bad gun users” in their places; just enforce the laws we’ve got and we’ll all be fine.

    Next?

  8. avatartravis m. says:

    Are suicides counted in that statistic of gun homicides?

  9. avatarKYgunner says:

    So is his stance that he would rather those 300+ justified homicide cases have been just murder of innocent people? His logic makes me want to beat my head against a brick wall. How can people be so against guns that they want everyone to be a victim?

  10. avatarRalph says:

    Dennis Henigan knows better than any of you because, well, he’s Dennis Henigan and you’re not. And, by the way, he’s a close warm personal friend of Michael Bloomberg, who he has seen naked. So there.

  11. avatarAharon says:

    It was fitting that he was speaking at the Clinton School of Public Service. It is the same government, (un)Justice Department, and FBI that puts out all sorts of ‘other’ statistical and political claims and Ms.-Information.

  12. I think that’s a wonderful quote. You should post more like this. The failure to address his position in the comments is very telling.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Eek! There’s an ant at our picnic!

    • avatarMakattak says:

      Address what? His premise is completely flawed, so one cannot address a comment that is based on a falsehood other than pointing out the fact that his premise is false.

    • avatarGabriel says:

      You realize of course that the many of us feel no need to prove via statistics that we have a right to armed self defense. I used to like statistics too until I took a statistics class and realized that it was much easier to lie with numbers than words. That right to self defense is granted by God and protected by the Constitution. X number of people killed by Y kind of people in Z situation is completely irrelevant to me.

      • avatarNot Jimbo says:

        This cuts to the crux of the biscuit, yep.

      • avatarJames says:

        Statistics are, generally speaking, bullshit.

        Studies show, and research suggests* that if you were to stand in a bucket of ice water and light your head on fire, on average you should feel fine.

        *”Studies show,” and, “research suggests” are two favorite phrases to use when you want to skew the interpretation of statistics and not provide any link to raw data.

      • You’re right, I agree with you completely. That’s why I always say it’s you gun-rights folks who operate on emotion. Owning guns and carrying them and writing about them makes you FEEEEL GOOOOD.

        • avatarNot Jimbo says:

          As opposed to making gun ownership more difficult for the law-abiding public – does that make you feel goooood?

        • avatarMark N. says:

          Better than feeling bad. Or being dead.

        • avatarHal says:

          Once again Mikey attacks someone for using their own “common sense.” Yet in other threads he has argued that we (and RF) are crazy for not being able to grasp his own brand of common sense. Sky-high hypocrisy from our pet troll and as usual he is unable to comprehend his own insipidness.

          His claim that we have failed to address this quote is laughable. First, because I believe commentators have indicated that there are a number of variables that are either not reported to the FBI or are intentionally not included in this data set based on the FBI’s internal definitions and criteria. As such, the data is VERY limited in scope and only a person with no scruples whatsoever would use such an incomplete statistic to advance an agenda. Furthermore statistics are only a part of this discussion; they are not the entirety of it.

          Second, and more importantly, it is laughable because NO ONE could EVER “address” an anti-gun argument in his eyes. After all, when we address an argument with facts, statistics, contrary value sets and supposition he will accuse us of being “nutty,” morally bankrupt and simply skewing the argument. When HE does the exact same thing, the narcissist demands that we take his arguments at face value. Which typically we can’t even if we wanted to because he is not very good at it. As such when he is backed into a corner in an argument he can’t win, his SOP is to question your character (ironic right?) and move on… utterly failing to break or “address” your argument. He will never be swayed. He is an ideologue who is so shortsighted and enslaved that he will never be able to understand that civil rights are a unified whole. When one is taken, the others will follow. Accordingly, conversations with him go nowhere.

          Third and last, he has forfeited any legitimacy within the context of civil rights in past threads. An alleged felon protesting arms is like a rapist protesting abortion. You’ll excuse me if I consider his opinion to be worth less than nothing.

        • avatarGabriel says:

          Defending what is right often makes me feel good.

          What you are uncomfortable with is that anyone could have a concept of rights that do not come from a government. A government cannot create rights, it can only protect or deny them. I do not expect you to understand this. This kind of thinking is above people who lie with statistics and argue with emotion.

        • avatarDan says:

          Here’s the evidence that will cause me to accept tighter restrictions on firearms ownership.

          Show 1 instance where relaxing gun laws have resulted in an increase in violent crime unattributed to other causes (you’ll need two similar jurisdictions, one which relaxed its gun laws and one which didn’t).

          OR

          Show 1 instance where tightened gun laws have resulted in a decrease in violent crime unattributed to other causes (you’ll need two similar jurisdictions, one which tightened its gun laws and one which didn’t).

          Is there any imaginable evidence that we can present that will change your mind? If so, what is it?
          If not, you are not conducting this discussion in good faith.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      Let’s take a quick look at the 11,000 number. Since criminals murdering other criminals during illegal activity account for about 90% (give or take) of those 11,000 annual murders, that means there are only about 1,100 or so murders annually where a citizen with no previous criminal record “snapped” and murdered someone. And of those 1,100 or so murders where a citizen “snaps”, I’ll bet you a good chunk of those are part of domestic violence.

      And remember that our good friends at the violence policy center are always on the look out for “concealed carry killers”. Their research indicates that, since 2007, something on the order of 300 citizens with concealed carry licenses and no prior criminal record have “snapped” and murdered someone. Doing the math that works out to about 60 concealed carry “killers” per year. Note that those 60 concealed carry killers per year should already be included in that 1100 or so murders per year.

      Once you separate the activity of hardened criminals from the rest of society, it really changes the picture … and things sure start to make a lot more sense.

  13. avatarMike Myers says:

    I only wish Mr. Henigan is mugged by a club-wielding assailant one day. And I hope the assailant looks like Obama’s son.

  14. avatarSilver says:

    Yawn, another day, another scumbag projecting his own insecurities onto others.

    Funny, does he reveal how many of those homicides are criminal-on-criminal, gang-related, drug-related, or done with illegally acquired guns? Didn’t think so.

    Also funny how many people confuse “aggressiveness” with “confidence.” Though, I guess that’s to be expected in the cities and circles these people occupy where cowardice and fealty is the norm.

  15. avatarNot Jimbo says:

    In the real world, far too many gun toters are prone to be aggressive, are “looking for trouble,” and claim to have used their guns in self-defense, when in fact they have irresponsibly used their guns in public places.”

    With concealed-carry licensees in the millions and legal gun owners in the tens (if not hundreds) of millions, his statistic of 11,000 homicides is an infinitesimally small (though tragic) number, and probably doesn’t overlap very much (legal gun owners vs. murderers). I’d say the vast majority of both (gun owners and CCL holders) are law-abiding and not in any way looking for trouble.

    • avatarcaffeinated says:

      It’s also worthwhile to point out that suicides are counted in the illegal homicide rates.

      • avatarAK says:

        If someone is a dick does their suicide then count as a justifiable homicide? :S

      • avatarMark N. says:

        The 11,000 figure does not include suicides. There are more suicides by gun per year than homicides, per FBI stats. Combined we’re looking at about 30,000 deaths.

        • That’s right but the first rule of the gun-rights argument is to massage the numbers in any way possible. Removing suicides and pretending that every one of those folks would have used other means is one of their favorite tricks.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Except when Bruce Kraft wanted to include suicides in his comparison of Japanese and American death rates you objected and argued that suicide is part of Japanese honor culture so it should treated differently.

        • avatarPhrederick says:

          It’s funny, he won’t comment on all the higher suicide rates in Russia or any of the other 40 countries who rank higher by suicide rate, almost all of which have much more stringent gun control laws (and also laws and precautions against people stepping in front of trains, which is one of the most preferred methods outside the US).

          Frankly suicide is about desperation and despair. It’s not cowardice, we all fear death. It’s not because a gun made it easy, as an EMT I’ve talked people down from committing suicide and the persons with the guns hesitate, cry, and have multiple false starts where they just can’t get any closer to the end of the trigger pull just like the ones on the edge of a building can’t quite jump.

          The ones that commit suicide are the ones who couldn’t see any other way out of their depression and state of affairs. It doesn’t matter to them how they go, be it gun, train, rope, or pills; the only thing that is going to stop them is to be reminded who cares and who will be hurt by their passing.

        • avatarHal says:

          Of course he won’t. If you observe his posts, he does not like to become decisively engaged in one on one conversation within a thread because he understands he’ll lose. He swoops in, attacks and then flies away. He’s kind of like a statist guerilla who always bungles the operation. He’s alot like Che Guevara in that regard… And he has the same smug sense of superiority and baseless overconfidence too… hmmmm…

    • But the point was the number of justified defensive killings is EXTREMELY low.

      • avatartdiinva says:

        That’s a so what. I think we all agree, except maybe for you, there are very few DGUs that reach the trigger pull stage. Crime is a business and getting shot reduces one’s income. The sight of gun is usually suficient reason for most BGs to stop an attack and move on to a softer target.

      • avatarAnonymouse says:

        Actually, I find it shockingly high: nearly 3% of homicide by gun is a private citizen blowing the scumbag away!

        http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls

        This is actually a pretty strong argument AGAINST gun control: the other 97% are either going to be

        a) Thugs who’ll have guns anyway, probably even in the presence of a mass confiscation. Certainly in the absence of mass confiscation, these people will still be armed.

        b) Domestics and related which will probably shift to baseball bats, knives, blunt instruments, etc….

        That nearly 3 in 100 homicides by gun are private citizens and fully justifiable self defense, given for all the talk about the US being a ‘tooled up’ society being exaggerated, suggests the opposite on the gun control front: we have enough gun control.

      • avatarHal says:

        Just clinging to that number eh? No accounting for the multitude of variables that would make that isolated, incomplete statistical picture useless for the argument against gun control? You’re just going to cling to that number for dear life aren’t you bud? You do that… you’re…you’re special Mikey… don’t let these kids tease you… shhhhh… it’s okay to cry.

      • avatarDan says:

        And misleading, unless you discount the possibility that gun owners can prevent crime without killing the criminal (something that you laud as restraint when they show up in DGUotD).
        http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html
        According to this study published in the The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Criminal_Law_%26_Criminology) a peer reviewed academic journal, there are an estimated 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses in a year.

        If you have another peer reviewed study on the prevalence of DGUs or have specific methodological issues with this study, please bring them up.

        Barring that, can we agree that 2.5 million DGUs per year resulting in ~300 justified homicides (.012% or 1/8333 mortality rate for DGUs) shows that people who experience DGUs show remarkable restraint?

        In the meantime, is there any data that I or anyone else can possibly present that will change your position on guns?

        • Use you head, Dan. Do those numbers make sense to you? 300 justified fatalities, let’s say a couple thousand woundings, and what? 2,498,000 brandishings?

          Is that what you’re saying?

          Wouldn’t it be easier all around to admit that the 2.5 million number is bullshit?

        • avatarDan says:

          If you have another peer reviewed study on the prevalence of DGUs or have specific methodological issues with this study, please bring them up.

          A GSW has around a 15%* mortality rate, so we get around 2000 non-fatal GSWs for a total of 2300. Let’s say that Civillians hit their target about the same percentage of the time that Police do (34%**). Now we have 6700 DGUs where the defender fired a round. That’s .2% or 1 in 500. Those 499 of 500 DGUs could easily be accounted for in the range from lifting your shirt to show you’re armed -> putting a hand on the weapon -> drawing, etc.

          But let’s (for argument’s sake) say we toss the 2.5 million number and use the number from the NCVS (a survey conducted by the DOJ), where we get an ultra-conservative 108,000*** DGUs per year. Giving us a 6% chance that a DGU will include shots fired.

          Anyway, none of this matters since you haven’t presented a peer-reviewed study disputing the fact that focusing solely on the number of justifiable homicides is misleading in the face of a very high likelihood that a DGU will not result in injury.

          By the Way, the links below are called “sources” they’re really good for presenting what we like to call “evidence” to back up your “arguments” so that someone can take you seriously.
          *http://www.belsurg.org/uploaded_pdfs/104/104_429_434.pdf
          **http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all
          ***http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JQC-CookLudwig-DefensiveGunUses-1998.pdf

        • avatarDan says:

          Before you pounce on the 100,000 number, I’ve got two things to mention.

          1) The methodology of the NCVS excludes DGUs that prevent crimes from occurring, only covering DGUs that occur during a crime’s commission.*

          2) According to the NSDS, 15.7%** of respondents involved with a DGU said that they “almost certainly” would have died had they not used their gun. That gives 15,700 lives saved. Compare that to 11,000 Gun Homicides out of 14,000 overall Homicides.

          Again, if you have issues with these numbers, please provide evidence or at least illustrate the specific methodological errors you’ve found.

          *http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=105
          **http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

        • I’m with ya, Dan, no problem. There are approx. 2,498,000 brandishing DGUs every year.

        • None of it matters except by challenging you to use some common sense I got you to go from 2,5 million to a 100,000. That only took a couple hours.

          That’s what I call progress, at this rate you’ll be on my side before long.

        • avatarHal says:

          Once again with the “common sense.” It’s funny that “common sense” only seems to be valid to you when it’s coming FROM you. You really are a predictable, sad little man.

        • avatarDan says:

          Nope. If you’d like to read down one post, I went into detail on why the “ultra-conservative 108,000″ number is a bald underestimation. I went to that number to point out that according to a prevalence of DGUs so low as to be demonstrably false, DGUs save 15,000 lives per year compared to 11,000 firearms related homicides. If you actually read the sentence, I prefaced my tossing the 2.5m number with a key phrase “for argument’s sake.” This phrase indicates that I feel that my case is strong enough that I can use evidence that is more easily provable (but doesn’t make my point as strongly) and still make my point strongly enough. But hey, what are a couple of key phrases when you need to stuff someone’s argument with straw, huh, mike?

        • No matter how you spin the numbers, and you are good at that, the question remains, how many of the reportedly legit DGUs are really criminal acts in themselves. No one can answer that, but all who are honest will admit the number does cut into the total.

        • avatarDan says:

          Oh, and Mike, is there any possible evidence that I or anyone else can present that will change your position on gun laws? Any real debate is premised on the idea that the debaters are willing to change their mind. Are you a debater or fanatic?

        • avatarDan says:

          Mike, where is your evidence that a statistically significant number of people choose to report a false DGU to a survey instead of reporting no DGU at all? You’ve (by insisting that someone else post it) admitted that evidence is necessary to make a point, so why haven’t you posted any to support your points? Besides, I’m not spinning the numbers; I showed exactly why the methodology behind the NCVS will result in a large underestimation of the true number of DGUs. Yet, using that flawed underestimation, I made my point that DGUs save more people’s lives than are killed by firearms each year. The true number of DGUs is tangential to my point.

        • This claim is made using common sense based on human nature. You
          don’t like the conclusion, but nevertheless, there it is. What’s
          your contention, that it never happens, or it’s 1 in a million?

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          It’s “common sense” for the elitists that know better than the rest
          of us mere mortals. Reality and elitist “common sense” live in two
          separate planes of existence. One of those planes can be resolved
          with medication.

        • avatarHal says:

          Don’t worry Dan. Mikey has been completely crushed in this
          argument, to that he has resorted to the ultimate in last ditch
          arguments: “No one can answer that, but all who are honest will
          admit the number does cut into the total.” Let me paraphrase what
          Mikey’s desperate argument really sounds like: “I am totally unable
          to break these arguments, and as such I am going to begin throwing
          accusatory conjecture around like an angry baby throwing it’s own
          feces. My argument is bullsh*t, but playing on the fears of others
          and spreading misinformation about a statistically insignificant
          occurrence is a means to my end. After all, the more irrational
          fear I stir up the better! I want every person who’s ever invited
          to a neighbor’s home for pie to shudder and imagine a hidden murder
          plot. It doesn’t ACTUALLY matter if the rate of occurrence for this
          is so infinitesimally small as to make my argument the laughing
          stock of this site. Also, I’ll just call anyone who doesn’t
          acknowledge the possibility dishonest, hence falling into my same
          pathetic routine of attacking my opponent’s character before
          tucking tail.” And after all of Mikey’s long-standing blather that
          it is WE who are irrational, that WE argue solely based on emotion,
          that WE are paranoid and that WE play off people’s fears, he
          insists that there is an invisible fantom crime happening out there
          that can’t be quantified at all but somehow justifies greater gun
          control? HAHAHAHAHA! Mikey the next time you’re defeated and you
          feel desperation creeping in just put down the keyboard, have a
          cannoli and go to sleep bud. I mean, let’s accept the potentially
          incomplete number of fatal DGUs as approx 300 (annually) like this
          dolt says. Just how much do you think this fantom threat to society
          “cuts” into that figure? One? Ha! More like MAYBE one every few
          years. What world do you think you live in? A mystery novel?
          HAHAHAHAHA!

        • avatarDan says:

          Mike, my contention is that if you disagree with some evidence I present, then it is your turn to present evidence that conflicts with mine. We’ve been over what saying “common sense” means in the context of a debate before. You need evidence or your arguments are worthless. Is there any possible evidence I can present that will change your position on gun control?

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      I just did the math using the 2010 population (since people above were using numbers from 2010 for FBI crime stats) and with a population of 308,745,538 in 2010, that means that a whopping 0.0035% of the population was murdered using a gun that year (10,700 homicides after you subtract his 300 justifiable homicides).

      You see, that’s the problem with gun grabbers and other small minded people – they fail to fully grasp just how large the US and the US population are. They see a number like 10,000 dead and freak out because they think it’s large – they fail to realize that on a per-capita basis, it’s a ridiculously tiny number. To invert the number and stop trying to use scare tactics, Henigan is telling us that 99.9965% of the population was NOT murdered using a gun. That’s an incredibly poor excuse to use to justify disarming law abiding citizens.

      Using 2008 numbers (most recent available from the US census department), there were 247,300 deaths in 2008 from all causes. Since Henigan claims that the 10,700 is “on average”, that means that out of all deaths in 2008, only 0.43% of them were from being shot. Again, that means 99.57% of all people killed in 2008 in the US were NOT shot.

      Mikey and his fellow wannabe tyrants do not have a single shred of evidence to support their argument when almost 100% of the population are NOT shot.

      • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

        Maybe not. But he’s more than happy to publicly pray for Brad Kozak to get shot:

        http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/04/accidental-shooting-of-shreveport-man.html

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Yet another example of why I’ve repeatedly pointed out that MikeB is a sociopath who gets off on seeing innocent people get hurt. I won’t be surprised if one day he finds that seeing / hearing about innocent people being harmed isn’t enough to excite him anymore and he starts actually harming innocent people himself to feed his twisted “need”.

        • avatarHal says:

          I’ll refer to my comment regarding his massive, never ending hypocrisy, posted above. He is the most despicable of creatures.

        • You wrote a comment like that and I’M twisted. Hahahahaha

        • avatarHal says:

          I refuse to accept that our pet troll is capable of hypocrisy! He’s a brave crusader against the scourge of civil rights! I mean… Just look at the picture he chose for himself! Riding in on a pale horse to save all of the less enlightened folks.
          I think in his mind he fancies himself to be something far different than he actually is.

        • avatarmikeb says:

          The great mind reader and psychologist.

        • avatarHal says:

          FLAME DELETED Also that that is the biggest gun you can
          bring to this fight (no pun intended… Oh and you can’t own one
          right?) is FUNNNNNNNNY!

        • avatarHal says:

          Wait that was a flame? Okay, I apologize and let me rephrase: The
          avatar that Mikey chose may lead some people, in conjunction with
          his stated beliefs, disposition on the site and value sets, to
          believe that he is a pompous and condescending portion of human
          anatomy that will remain unsaid. Now before you delete that Dan, I
          have not used foul language this time and I am not saying that he
          IS that, nor did my deleted flame. Only that some here might come
          to the same conclusion based on the avatar I assume he selected for
          himself. It is he, not I, who chose that image to represent him on
          this fine website. As such, my point was that maybe he should
          respond to some of the very substantive arguments against him in
          this thread rather than posting snarky remarks against what is
          (admittedly) an equally snarky remark posted by yours truly.

      • Right here is where you show what a liar you are, this goes beyond spinning the thing, it’s an out and out lie.

        “That’s an incredibly poor excuse to use to justify disarming law abiding citizens. ”

        Nobody is suggesting law-abiding citizens be disarmed. We want to raise the bar a little bit in order to dis-arm the unfit and dangerous ones among you. We want the rest of you to be responsible for your property and not allow it to flow into criminal hands.

        • avatarDan says:

          You’re suggesting disarming people who currently are legally allowed to posses firearms. Sounds a lot like wanting to disarm law abiding people to me.

          In addition, you seem* to want to ban certain magazine sizes and certain firearms that look mean, two bans that I don’t understand if you’re only interested in limiting access to firearms. If you’ve decided we’re worthy, what does it matter what kind of gun is available?

          *per your post on gun laws

        • You could put it that way. “You’re suggesting disarming people who currently are legally allowed to posses firearms.” I would like to see the requirements for qualifying for gun ownership raised enough to eliminate some of the borderline cases.

        • avatarDan says:

          We have a criminality test. We have a mental health test. So criminals and crazy people can’t own guns. Who else do we need to disarm, and how does magazine capacity affect the worthiness of people with guns? Furthermore, what is a borderline case? We have a binary felon/not-felon and a binary Dr.-says-he’s-nuts/not-nuts. What other tests are you proposing?

      • avatarHal says:

        MORE ERUDITE FLAME DELETED, AS WELL

  16. avatarCarlosT says:

    Let’s say we can wave a magic wand and poof! All guns and knowledge of how to make guns disappear. How many of those 11,000 gun homicides become knife homicides, pipe homicides, baseball bat homicides, pointy stick homicides, rock homicides? About 99.9%, I’d say. At least.

    Lifeforms have been killing each other from the very beginning, and despite what people believe about the decay of modern societies, they’ve actually slowed down, not sped up. Sophistication of weaponry is irrelevant. The worst genocide since the Holocaust was accomplished mainly with machetes, with only occasional use of rifles here and there. If people are determined to do violence, they’ll do it, even if they have to use bare hands and teeth. If people are peaceful in their nature, they won’t attack innocents, even if they’re armed to the teeth.

  17. avatarQajaqon says:

    Wow! The way I see/take what Dennis said was like taking an order for two eggs over easy and returning with three eggs scrambled and over cooked.

    “11,000 gun homicides every year” and
    “on average 300 are justifiable self-defence killings” are facts/statistics.(maybe, have to confirm)

    The rest of what he said is over cooked opinion , with missing information(facts, etc.), on his part. Scrambled for your gun/arms control…..

  18. avatarST says:

    Dennis Henigan, I have but one question:how exactly can it be known when someone DID use a gun responsibly?

    Its easy enough to research criminal incidents involving a police response, given the documentation involved. Try searching for hard documented proof of a crook walking up to a ‘mark’ who instead is greeted with the mark’s 1911. The crook very quickly remembers the popcorn he left on the stove and hoofs it, citizen re-holsters, and everyone goes their separate ways. No police report, no crime, no dead body, so there’s nothing for the FBI or anyone else to count.

    In liberal states & cities the problem gets even worse because the citizen has an active interest in NOT calling the police.Citizen draws gun on scumbag in Chicago, scumbag hits the road, and citizen re-holsters and keeps on truckin’. Call 911 to report a DGU in that town, and the citizen will be locked up longer than the perps will .

  19. avatarSanchanim says:

    Well they really only need to look out their window to see gun control doesn’t work.
    The District of Columbia, and California both have very high crime rates involving firearms. Both states have very strict gun laws. Nuff said…

  20. avatartraye says:

    How many of the remaining 10700 are innocent victims that COULD have not become a victim or instead bumped the 300 up a bit by defending against their attacker WITH A GUN?

    Sorry Mike, when you want a nation of unarmed victims, you lose

    • I don’t want a nation of unarmed victims. I want gun owners to be better qualified and to be held responsible for what they do with their guns.

      • avatarDan says:

        Got any evidence that says that gun owners aren’t held responsible when they cause injury or damage with their gun?

        • avatarmikeb says:

          Yes it’s in the news every day.

        • avatarDan says:

          Got a citation? Where a firearms owner negligently or recklessly fired their weapon, caused injury or damage to another (it’s not yet illegal to shoot yourself in most places), and was not held responsible. Cite your freaking sources. I’ve done so, other people around have done so, everybody but you seems willing to cite their sources. Why are you having such a hard time with it?

        • Dan, ask Google and stop pretending that I’m making shit up that makes no sense. What’s your point anyway, that no gun owner ever acted badly?

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          The only sources I have ever seen him cite are straight to his own blog. His blog usually has some vaguely referenced source with no page or paragraph numbers. We are all guilty of feeding the troll.

        • That’s bullshit, caffeinated. One thing for sure is, I can’t keep up with you on the number of comments that have nothing to do with the topic and are entirely focused on the other guy, what he’s thinking, his motivations, what he does and why. You do more criticizing of me than you do contributing to the discussion.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          If you say it’s BS then prove it. Every citation you link to (I’ve
          only seen 2 in my short time here) goes back to your site. Your
          site briefly states it’s from one publication or another, but
          leaves it at that.

        • avatarDan says:

          Mike, at this point in the argument, I don’t need a concrete point, since you have provided no evidence to back up your claim: “I want gun owners to be better qualified and to be held responsible for what they do with their guns.” This implies that gun owners are unqualified and are not held responsible when they are reckless/negligent with their guns. The burden of proof is on you to show evidence for your claim before we can rebut it (since without evidence, there’s no case to rebut). In addition, the idea that it is my job to find evidence to support your arguments is ludicrous. That’s simply not how debate is conducted. I’m not claiming that you’re making shit up, I just want to see the specific sources you are drawing your conclusions from. Why is it so hard to link something that’s ” in the news every day.”

        • “This implies that gun owners are unqualified and are not held
          responsible when they are reckless/negligent with their guns. ” No
          it doesn’t. It implies that SOME gun owners are unqualified and are
          not held responsible when they are reckless/negligent with their
          guns. And the ones like yourself who are qualified and responsible
          won’t be hurt in any way.

        • avatarHal says:

          Boom.

        • avatarDan says:

          Ok, so do you have any evidence to show that “some” gun owners aren’t held responsible for their actions when they act negligently/recklessly and cause injury/damage?

        • Are you saying that never happens?

        • avatarDan says:

          In the absence of evidence, nothing ever happens. This is called the null hypothesis.* The burden of proof is on the person trying to disprove the null hypothesis which, in this case, is you. This is the type of thing where I can say that you can’t prove a negative. When you used it, you were wrong because you were making a comparative argument, which almost always allows for analysis of any hypothesis. *it’s more complicated than this, but for our purposes here, this’ll work

  21. avatarDavid W. says:

    I am guessing these stats are based off of conviction rates for those who claim self defense? The threshold for self-defense is high in a criminal court. If you admit to the act but not the crime you wave the “presumption of innocence”. Castle & stand-your-ground laws try to change that a bit but I would be willing to bet that in the majority of those cases sited here, the self-defense plea had some merit but was not enough to win an aquittal. These people were not “looking for trouble” but they were not entirely innocent either. But hey, for political purposes one must engage in a little pigeon-holing. I wonder how many of those unjustified shooting were committed by a dept. issued side-arm.

    • avatarmikeb says:

      “not entirely innocent” that’ a good one.
      You guys have plenty of hidden criminals among you trying to pass off criminal acts as dgus.

      • avatarHal says:

        The only “good one” here is the irony of an alleged criminal accusing a community that is more than 99% law abiding of having “pleanty” or criminals.

      • avatarHal says:

        Additionally, where is the citation to support such an allegation? I believe if you look at the number of firearm owners in the US and compare it to the total number of crimes that involve firearms, that your claim is demonstrated to be patently false. Your statement is nothing more than the baseless ravings of an ego maniac who is lashing out at a demographic he can’t convince or control. I am SO glad you are no longer in residence here in the United States. Europe deserves you.

  22. avatarTom says:

    gun toters are prone to be aggressive, are “looking for trouble,” and claim to have used their guns in self-defense, when in fact they have irresponsibly used their guns in public places.” – average less than 300 are justifiable self-defense killings
    ….or maybe the legal gun owners are much less blood thirsty than what they are portrayed. DGU and trying to intentionally kill someone are two very different events. DGU may not even involve any shots fired or slight wounding. Intentionally killing someone usually involves emptying the magazine.

  23. avatarGw says:

    Over the many years of reading various opinions, I came to realize a clear distinction can be made between what the words ‘reality’ and ‘actuality’ imply. Made simpler once it’s pointed out.
    Reality, may be regarded as most closely associated with perception on the part of an individual.
    In contrast, actuality may be regarded as what has actually occurred, without regard to perception on the part of an individual, or for that matter without regard to whether or not whatever has occurred is perceived at all, by any individual, at all.
    Logical disconnect is of course, an outcome of believing what one believes to be true, despite verifiable evidence to the contrary, that is, existence and recognition of the existence of, actuality.
    Logical disconnect seems to be a common symptom of many persons without the necessary actual experience to recognize actuality for what it actually is, their disconnect, or the common sense that would have prevented it from occurring in the first place.
    Of the many questions which inquiring minds might have want to know about a person adamant with regard to the necessity for enactment of more ’gun control laws’ ( most especially any adult-age male ) two in particular are as follows:
    ( caution is advised here for the disnected, the first one’s a multi-parter )
    Q 1 = “Do you own a Fire-Arm and know how to safely handle, shoot, clean and store it?”
    Q 2 = “If not, why not?”

  24. avatarGw says:

    “Since we’re all victims in one way or another, there’s no genius involved in getting a group together to externalize blame for their victimization. The real art is in obscuring the obvious fact that nothing they’re doing will change their status as victims, motivating them to continually fund your lifestyle and keeping them from ever realizing they’ve now been victimized at least twice.”
    Gw

  25. avatarParthenon says:

    step 1: Use overly restrictive laws to effectively ban self defense
    step 2: Point out how few people are able to defend themselves without running afoul of said laws.
    step 3: profit.

  26. avatarDerek says:

    Maybe I’m slow but, what’s his point?

    That self-defense laws aren’t causing “blood in the streets” or “wild west shootouts”? That SYG and Castle laws aren’t as strong as he likes to claim and so bogus claims of self defense are frequently found to be… bogus? That the vast majority of the “gun toters” who commit unjustified homicides aren’t legal gun owners?

    I’m failing to see what he thinks he’s accomplishing.

  27. avatarmikeb says:

    Hahaha. You’re a riot.

  28. You read minds too much. I chose that avatar for the simple reason
    that I saw the original painting many (maybe 20) times when I lived
    in NY and NJ. It’s called the Polish Rider by Rembrandt. It’s in
    the Frick Gallery and it’s one of my all time favorite paintings.
    You should get out more, there’s a big world out there.

    • avatarHal says:

      You see? Now THAT is a response Michael. I stand corrected. Not that they have similar painting styles, but I’m a Tintoretto fan. I enjoy the dramatic use of shadow. It’s gritty. I like that. Thank you for the clarification. I get out quite a bit, both personally and professionally.

      • Hal, is that your way of apologizing for having read my mind so badly, or is that your way of just admitting you were wrong? I’m glad you approve of the way I responded and all, but what about the way you were carrying on?

        • avatarHal says:

          As implied, I apologize for misinterpreting the meaning of your avatar. You did not choose it as a representation of yourself, rather as an image that has meaning to you. I was wrong, and I own it when I am. I will absolutely not apologize for anything else I have said to or about you on this site. I still believe that your views on at least one subject in particular are a sign of humanity’s decline and I will never condone them or be quiet about them. I also believe that your arguments are circular enough that they fail to sustain your momentum in this fight. As a result you have a general pattern of swooping in, dropping an argument, attacking the character of those you are debating with and then flying away. It’s a fundamentally dishonest way of doing business and as such you earn few supporters on this site. Many of us here have friends with differing opinions on a variety of issues. It doesn’t interfere with our friendships with them. Your methods of debate and tactics, the very same ones that you criticize others on this site for using back at you, are the reason why people like me “carry on” and fight you tooth and nail. I also believe that many of the allegations I have read about you here are likely true and if that is the case then you have zero legitimacy in the context of civil rights. Not trying to beat up on you but it is what it is man. If you played your cards differently with us we might at least be able to respect your desired outcome of less violence. We all know that is a noble goal even if we absolutely differ on the means. But your methods and smug vapidity only lead folks on this site to hear the “ding ding” of a boxing bell when you show up.

        • “I also believe that many of the allegations I have read about you here are likely true”

          Now, why would that be? Aren’t you the same guy who demands facts and proof?

          I’ll tell you what your problem is, why you go to such great lengths to describe your disapproval of me, the way I write, the way I argue, what I say. It’s because you have some fundamental inability to accept someone with a differing opinion.

          I believe the gun “rights” argument is bullshit from start to finish. Do you really have friends who think like that whom you respect because they back it up? Please name one.

          The truth is you suffer from a kind of insecurity about your gun rights position which can only be comfortable in an echo chamber of like-minded fellows. That’s why you get so nasty and aggressive with me.

        • avatarDan says:

          “I’ll tell you what your problem is, why you go to such great lengths to describe your disapproval of me, the way I write, the way I argue, what I say. It’s because you have some fundamental inability to accept someone with a differing opinion.”

          I can’t speak for Hal, though I expect that Hal would agree, but I disapprove of the way you “argue” because it runs contrary to the commonly accepted practice of reasoned debate.
          As for accepting people with differing opinions, I have friends who are dyed in the wool republicans, radically left wing, libertarians, religious, atheist, and I enjoy spending time with them because they are all intelligent, articulate, and able to respect legitimate differences of opinion (also a hell of a lot of fun to get smashed with). When I argue with them, I am able to clarify my thoughts on the topic at hand, and on occasion change my mind. Arguing with them makes me smarter and better able to articulate why I think something, and that is something that they give me that makes me a better person.

          So Mike, I know that reasonable people can disagree, which is why I have focused on challenging you to show that you are, in fact, a reasonable person. In that vein, is there any possible evidence that I can present to you that will change your position on gun control? (Note: I described my evidentiary trigger earlier)

        • avatarHal says:

          I think that the strengths of a system in which people may have differences of opinion far outweigh the drawbacks. It means that sometimes we hear things we need to hear, but don’t necessarily want to. On the whole, I respect most peoples’ opinions even if they differ from mine. For example, I am all about homosexuals being able to live or marry any way they want. Its a States’ rights issue, but love is love and happiness is happiness. I wouldn’t want someone telling me I can’t marry my girlfriend, so I don’t presume to tell others they can’t. Equally as important I don’t tell my devoutly religious friends that they are “wrong” about Gay rights. Faith is SO important, and I am not in the business of pushing my religious friends to keep silent on such an issue. Their opposition to the Gay marriage is as important to them and their values as supporting it is to my gay friends. No matter my opinion, I try to err on the side of more freedom and decentralization, not less.
          One of the few “opinions” I can’t accept, and which I find repugnant, is ANY “opinion” which advocates the reduction or limitation of human rights. Of any kind. Period. Hence, in a way, you are correct. I become very uncomfortable when someone begins spinning ideology that leads down the road to tyranny. I don’t respect that and accordingly it follows that I don’t respect you.

          To address a few points in particular:

          1) “I believe the gun “rights” argument is bullshit from start to finish.”
          So the next time you sugarcoat your bullshit arguments, be prepared to be called on it. You DON’T believe this is a human right, and you are NOT just a crusader for “responsibility,” “accountability” and “safety.” Stop being a snake and own your stance.

          2) I agree with Dan that, beyond your reprehensible views, the way you argue is contrary to productive discussion between rational human beings.

          3) I BELIEVE that the allegations I have read about you here are TRUE because I have ASKED you, MANY TIMES, to refute them. I have begged you to disprove those allegations and to my knowledge you have NEVER done so. Although I appreciate your duplicitous attempt to somehow make that about MY character, as is your custom. Hypocrite.

          4) On the occasions when I have demanded facts and proof from you you have NEVER, not once, provided them. Which makes sense because when I am the guy asking you for evidence, it is in response to some sort of outrageous, baseless nonsense meant only to illicit fear. Understandably you can’t back those statements up.

          I invite anyone reading the dialogue between michael and myself to go back a few months to read his comments in their entirety and form their own opinion.

        • Your grandiose paranoia is laughable: I’m “spinning ideology that leads down the road to tyranny.” Hahahaha

          You’ve asked me many many times to refute allegations. What the fuck is that? Who are you to ask that? Who are they to make allegations in the first place. And my refusal to play along and honor that bullshit is reason for you to believe it.

          You’re tripping all over yourself, man. Sometimes you demand proof and evidence, other times the lack thereof is enough, as long as it’s convenient for your argument.

          You’re still saying I have NEVER ONCE provided proof, not once? That’s just not true.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          You haven’t provided any facts outside of linking to your own blog. PERIOD.

    • avatarHal says:

      Additionally Michael aside from (obviously) the restrictive gun laws and taxes, I’m a big NJ fan. Being from neighboring East PA, some of my best friends are from NJ. Ever been to Hoagie Haven near Princeton?

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.