Here's another more recent study done by Georgetown University. It estimates defensive uses at 1.6 million annually
"Low end" in what respect? Size? yes. Ability to kill? No.
Yes, because that's what they were told. They were sold the theory that it will wound and not kill, thereby taking 3+ guys out of the fight (the wounded guy, and the two guys dragging him back to cover), and that the wounds would instill fear and terror in the enemy. Turns out in practice that this didn't happen. Instead, survivability from the wounds went down because, as I stated, it does far more internal damage than the previous .30 cal rounds did. Sometimes horrendous, painful wounds, which was also demoralizing from the screaming, but still killed people them all the same. Which is why you don't see those complaints anymore.
Did you miss the "outside 100 meters" part? Also not sure what your point is. Are you saying if it goes through some body armour then it's unfair to say body armour "may pose a problem"? I would argue if any armour could be an issue, then that wording is fine. Sounds like you're just trying to nitpick to justify your crappy argument to me. Regardless, IIIA isn't that thick. Some cops I know wear IV on daily patrol, and the rest are at least III.
You shat the bed when you spoke misinformation calling out misinformation, and I'm correcting your misinformation to prove your entire line of debate is nonsense. But at no point have a addressed support for a ban, and I'm not going to defend or bring up a point I never made.
So you quoted this paragraph, but did you read it? It literally says what I told you it did. It (edit: by which I mean the portion you quoted, not necessarily this paragraph) also says Kleck claimed there was a ton of DGU/year, it doesn't say if those results are valid. In fact, it flat out says it can't validate them. "further research is needed, both to explore these contingencies
It was a survey, which presents the same problems the surveys from the 90s do. You're asking the average gun owner to make a judgement call on whether their weapon was used defensively or not with no critical eye to weather it was necessary. Of even more note is that the survey stated it did not matter if the gun was fired or not.Here's another more recent study done by Georgetown University. It estimates defensive uses at 1.6 million annually
2021 National Firearms Survey: Updated Analysis Including Types of Firearms Owned
This report summarizes the findings of a national survey of firearms ownership and use conducted between February 17th and March 23rd, 2021 by the professionalpapers.ssrn.com
No matter what I would show you you're just looking for any excuse to discount the findings , which are multiple, independent and scientifically valid. There are over 450 million legal guns in the hands of Americans today. 45% of US households have a gun on the premises.82.5M Americans personally own a gun and 66%-88% of them say they do so for self-defense. If even just 1% used their gun in self defense that would be over 600,000 incidents annually.
Considering I have never said I favoured a ban, this is you attempting to extrapolate from invalid data, the same that happens in this unscientific surveys. You can say there are multiple (true, there were 3 in the 90s and 1 in 2020, all of which were voluntary surveys, which is not scientific), that they are independent (questionable), and that they are scientifically valid (they are not, by virtue of the fact that they are voluntary surveys), but that doesn't mean valid conclusions can be drawn.
It doesn't come down to whether guns were used defensively, it comes down to if they needed to be used defensively. The only gun use that most Canadians would accept as valid would be the case where the use of a gun saves a life that would otherwise be lost. But American surveys include all uses, even where there was no potentially dangerous situation, or to preserve property and not life. And by definition, to me, "self defense" is about preserving life, not stopping theives.
And I have never had a reason to.
The Flemish Peace Institute published a report after analysing multiple studies (that weren't voluntary surveys) and found substitution of method in suicides doesn't happen.
It makes a lot of sense. Just seems to easy and tempting to shoot onself to get rid of the pain.
My point, since you missed it, is that since you brought up armour, basically all centrefire rifle cartridges will do that depending on distance and armour rating. If III-A, which is what is normally what front line LEO'S are issued, will be pierced by 5.56/.223; it will be pierced by .30-06 soft points or any other "socially acceptable" hunting cartridges.
.223 is what will be commercially, widely available to the public and would be functionally similar enough for the sake of the discussion; but ultimately moot as we've seen successful shootings with pistol calibres. The alleged preference for ARs in mass shootings is irrelevant to the discussion; it's preference is more tied to its popularity than its lethality.[/QUOTE]
Do I look like I just fell off the turnip truck? Its clear to me you are highly in favor of banning guns (or severely limiting them). You can argue all you want about unscientific surveys done by partisans, having guns in the hands of legal owners is a tremendous deterrent to crime. Other than surveys I don't think that there is another method of gathering data on this since police agencies don't keep data on these incidents.
I personally am a decent shot and I am not at all terrified of guns. Here is what's terrifying though.
Oh, if I only had realized distance mattered and clarified in my comment that I was talking about more than 100 meters. Oh wait, I did. In fact, I suspect I've managed to debunk all your other claims which is why you're clinging to at least sound like you know what you're talking about here. I'm not buying it. It is not a "weak" round. It is a military-grade cartridge designed for warfare, and no matter how much you try to lump it in with "any other socially acceptable hunting cartridge", it's not.
It is not functionally similar enough. C77 and .223 Remington are very different. I'll say it again, they are the same in dimensions only, and share no other similarities.
Strange. It's not clear to me. It's a complex issue with no simple answer and I'm not convinced a ban would be effective. But hey, I guess you know my thoughts better than I do.
The problem is that studies take funding. For social issues, that usually means lobbies, be they pro or con. So we have NRA on one hand and groups like Everytown on the other. And lo and behold, contradicting information.
I'll give you rape, but that's it. If more guns means more people dead, then putting more guns out there to stop cars getting stolen is not something that should be done.
if all guns were banned, where would these illegal guns come from? In Canada they come from the US. But if the US got over their gun fetish and banned them, where would they come from? Mexico? Maybe. In large numbers? Unlikely. And every time a gun was used and the person caught, the number of guns in circulation would go down. In theory, eventually there would be so few they would be prohibitive expensive to be used in regular crimes. And if you're robbing stores at knifepoint rather than gunpoint, body counts are likely to go down.
I'd argue no circumstances warrant it. My biggest complaint however, if I was an American, would be the unregulated nature of private sales, which is how so many legal guns become illegal to begin with.
I'm not lumping it in with "socially acceptable hunting cartridges" I'm saying it's less powerful than those cartridges; which will also certainly penetrate armour and kill children. Despite that, it's being singled out and demonized as a "military assault round" to sway the ignorant masses.
Sure, there are differences and because civilian cartridges aren't subject to the Hauge Declaration, are offered commercially with expanding projectiles. But what's more likely that shooters do their mass shootings with M855 or commercially available .223 Remington loads?
No, it's ballistics characteristics are vastly different. But hey, you know better than me and all those other vets that talk about how absolutely devastating it is I guess.
Not relevant. I literally replied to you because you were being a dick and telling someone he was spreading misinformation when your comments were full of bullshit. What's "more likely" has no bearing. Besides, you're the one who brought up 5.56.
Then why bring up 5.56 at all? It was you, afterall, who first mentioned it and called it "5.56/.223", which, again, is nonsense because they are not even close to being the same. There's like comparing a C7 and an AR15; they are completely different beasts and you'd probably bitch about misinformation and tell people they don't know what they're talking about if they did it. I'm also not sure how you think the military connections of 5.56 is "loose". It was designed specifically and exclusively for military use. Hardly a "loose" connection.
I do. Don't you? Though I'd argue the AR15 is closer to an M4 than .223 Remington is to 5.56x45 NATO.
Hunters do apply for licenses to hunt and buy firearms. It's the illegal handguns that are smuggled in from the States that are the problem.
