patrick.net

Here are the two sourcings I referenced.

NY Post (site accessed 1/12/2012)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/self_defense_killings_in_us_nearly_aQicVMrF1TAP3Sv3BgqfCO
“Self-defense killings in US ...”

Wikipedia (site accessed 1/12/2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots
“List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots”

NRA SEE THIS

The probability of an attempt on the life of the average person is extremely low. Most of us could walk outside at any time of the day and not be at any risk.

Some people are at a much higher risk. That's why they have body guards, or have them provided for them.

If your risk of being attacked is similar to that of a high ranking public official, then by all means have a body guard. In many cases the government even does this for you (see: witness protection).

Most people who feel the need to "defend" themselves never have been, and never will be in a situation where they will need to.

Kevin,
I looked for some numbers, and found apparently definitive ones. Risks, and therefore justification for the armed average citizen, are much higher than I might have supposed.

"Criminal victimization, 2011" here:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4494
Highlights:
- The rate of violent victimization increased 17%, from 19.3 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 2010 to 22.5 in 2011.
- Increases in the rates of violent victimizations for whites, Hispanics, younger persons, and males accounted for the majority of the increase in violent crime.
- The rate of property crime increased 11%, from 125.4 per 1,000 households in 2010 to 138.7 in 2011.
The rates are per year.

VIOLENCE The average person has just a 50% chance of NOT being a victim of criminal violence in 31 years.

PROPERTY The average household has just a 47% chance of NOT being a victim of property crime in 5 years.

EXTRA I strongly suppose that a ‘good guy’ armed citizen realizes a sizable ‘comfort’ benefit from having at hand a gun, in the absence of using it.

ttsmyf says

VIOLENCE The average person has just a 50% chance of NOT being a victim of
violence in 31 years.
PROPERTY The average household has just a 47% chance of
NOT being a victim of property crime in 5 years.

EXTRA I strongly suppose that a ‘good guy’ armed citizen realizes a sizable
‘comfort’ benefit from having at hand a gun, in the absence of using
it.

I bet those crime rates go down in areas where gun ownership and concealed carry is common.

Call it Crazy & chemechie,
Yes, I agree, thanks.
BTW, it looks like my source for the numbers is the leading one:
"The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) -
the United States' primary source for criminal justice statistics"

Kevin says

Most people who feel the need to "defend" themselves never have been, and never will be in a situation where they will need to.

you so know why we have the 2nd amendment... what if our American revolution had turned into a French Style "blood bath" revolution..

IF YOU CAN KEEP IT ! some one has to fight the good fight...

"Some 225 years ago, as an aged Benjamin Franklin departed from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a woman in the street called out: "Well Doctor Franklin, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

Franklin replied back: "a republic if you can keep it".

Call it Crazy says

Kevin says

Most people who feel the need to "defend" themselves never have been, and never will be in a situation where they will need to.

And how do you know this??

Statistics.

thomaswong.1986 says

you so know why we have the 2nd amendment... what if our American revolution had turned into a French Style "blood bath" revolution..

The american revolution *was* a blood bath. It was different from the french revolution in that the 'old' government was ON A DIFFERENT FUCKING CONTINENT.

(and, well, there were multiple french revolutions over a very short period. you'll have to be a little more specific)

thomaswong.1986 says

Franklin replied back: "a republic if you can keep it"

Cool story bro.

In Comment #4 above, in support of the average citizen being armed, I wrote the following, with documentation.

VIOLENCE The average person has just a 50% chance of NOT being a victim of criminal violence in 31 years.
PROPERTY The average household has just a 47% chance of NOT being a victim of property crime in 5 years.

Among the 'good guys' in our quite heterogeneous population, there is surely much variation in the risk of being a crime victim. As a matter of principle in our free society, freedom of choice to be armed or not rests with an individual's judgement. So, for numerical generalizing and defending about choosing to be armed, the above two 'chances of NOT being a crime victim' are LOWER, likely a lot lower.

robertoaribas, I wrote in the thread and sourced in Comment#1, the following:
In USA in 2010, 326 justifiable homicides were reported, more than 80 percent using firearms (NY Post).
The same source recounts 16,000 total killings per year. So, on a death outcome basis, 2% were justifiable -- it's easy to argue for more guns for the good guys.

Kevin says

The american revolution *was* a blood bath. It was different from the french revolution in that the 'old' government was ON A DIFFERENT FUCKING CONTINENT.

our founding fathers did not turn on each other and assassinate their former co-revolutionary or send them to the guillotine for counter revolutionary cimes set up secret police to monitor the population.. we did not have a blood bath as did the french.. nor did we have a dictatorship afterwards..

Franklin replied back: "a republic if you can keep it".

I love it when people don't bother to actually read the sources that they cite:

". Between 2010
and 2011, the overall victimization rate for violent
crime increased 17%, from 19.3 to 22.5 victimizations
per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. The increase in
aggravated and simple assault accounted for all of the
increase in total violence. Since 1993, the rate of violent
crime has declined by 72% from 79.8 to 22.5 per 1,000
persons age 12 or older (figure 1). Although the 17%
change in the violent victimization rate from 2010 to
2011 is relatively large, the actual change in the rate
between 2010 and 2011 (3.3 per 1,000) is below the
average annual change in rates for the past two decades
(4.3 per 1,000)"

I don't suppose you actually bothered to look at the break down for "violent crime" did you? Did you notice that the things that most people actually think of when they think 'violent crime' (rape, murder, armed robbery, etc.) are all down YoY, and down tremendously over the decade?

You certainly have a relatively high chance of getting punched in the face, molested by a relative, or hit by a car, or THREATENED WITH A TOY GUN (seriously, look it up) over 30 years, but you don't have a high chance of being murdered, raped, or robbed at gunpoint.

Oh, and you also ignored the section that talks about how they changed the sampling methodology in 2010 to improve accuracy (in other words, there was probably not any actual change YoY)

I mean...really.

Women, and poor black men living in poor neighborhoods have legitimate concern about bodily harm. Middle class white men living in the suburbs don't.

Kevin says

"violent crime"

want to stop violent crimes..

go after drug narcotics smugglers, growers, distributors in this country and overseas...
you have violent crimes because of organized crime and gang bangers are fighting each other over turf and money.

you people who smoke some weed and do some coke are the reasons children are being
killed everyday .. Your the guilty ones... Think about it as you smoke that next joint...

Kevin, In my Comment #4 above, I cited the source, I quoted the entirety of the authors' Highlights, and I used only the contents of those Highlights for what I wrote. So, I wrote the current 'big picture'. You don't like the 'big picture', so you wrote about something's else. (BTW, homicide data are NOT included in the cited source.)

Separately (see my avatar), just as a candidate indicator, do you approve of keeping these histories unseen?
http://www.showrealhist.com/yTRIAL.html

thomaswong.1986 says

Kevin says

"violent crime"

want to stop violent crimes..

go after drug narcotics smugglers, growers, distributors in this country and overseas...

you have violent crimes because of organized crime and gang bangers are fighting each other over turf and money.

you people who smoke some weed and do some coke are the reasons children are being

killed everyday .. Your the guilty ones... Think about it as you smoke that next joint...

To stop narco crime, end prohibition. We had no narco murders before prohibition.

ttsmyf says

BTW, homicide data are NOT included in the cited source

Yes, homicide data is included. Did you only read the first page or something?

Call it Crazy says

So why do you think that is??? Could it be possible the attacker isn't sure if the victim might have a significant way to fight back (ie: self protection)??

Gun ownership went up slightly last year. It was substantially higher in every year prior to 1993, when violent crime rates were more than 2.5x what they are today.

There is a slight correlation between rates of gun ownership and rates of violent crime. Not significant enough to argue that guns cause crime, but definitely not supportive of arguments that they prevent it.

The things most strongly correlated with violence are poverty and geography.

Kevin, Find "... does not collect data on homicide." in third paragraph from bottom, here:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/cv11pr.cfm