Fontana Homeowner Fatally Shoots Attempted Burglar

[Dial H For Hero]

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/fontana-homeowner-fatally-shoots-attempted-burglar/2841959/

Police are investigating a Saturday night fatal shooting in Fontana, after a home owner says he had to defend himself during an attempted burglary.

The homeowner, whose name has not been released by authorities, called the Fontana Police Department at 10:47 p.m. Saturday.

He told police multiple people were attempting to break into his house at the corner of Cypress Avenue and Baseline, that he believed at least one of them was inside, and that he believed they were armed. The home owner then armed himself with a handgun before the call with Fontana PD disconnected.

When police arrived at the scene, the home owner came out of the house and surrendered himself, saying he had shot someone inside the home.

(Excerpt)

Intruders: One dead, the others fled.

[AndyS]

1. Congratulations!! The number of defensive uses (203) has almost but not quite

caught up with the number of unintentional shootings (258). Can you tell me how many of the 3488 homicides/murders/unintentional/DGU shootings were defensive uses that didn't work out in the "good guy's" favor? Statistically it's about 5x the DGUs that actually worked out.

When you guys actually shoot as many people on purpose while protecting yourself as you do by accident get back to me and we can celebrate together.

[Throck]

4. Do defensive shootings have to be fatal to be effective?

What happens if the victim merely announces the presence of a firearm and the criminal departs without firing a shot? Isn't that more of a win-win?

[AndyS]

5. Ah yes, the Lott argument.

Lott thought defensive gun use was in the millions every year. Only thing is there wasn't and still isn't any supporting data. So why not claim 2 million? Or 5?

However the defensive shootings I was referring to are the ones in which the 'good guy with a gun' is killed. FBI stats conclude that happens more often than successful DGU.

[krispos42]

6. Nonetheless, the question remains

Obviously, not all defensive gun uses end with a discharge.

Police officers draw their sidearms many times, yet most officers will never fire a shot in the line of duty.

So there is a ratio between "firearms presented" to "firearms discharged".

What do you think it is?

[AndyS]

8. I don't deal in thoughts OR prayers.

Last edited Sun Mar 13, 2022, 09:10 AM - Edit history (1)

Show me some numbers and where you got them. That's the question gunners always ask me, so answer it or I'll treat your proposition with all the dignity I've been afforded over the last 40 years.

I gave you hard numbers from the GunViolenceArchive.org. Give me some hard numbers.

[krispos42]

12. *snicker* might why to edit your subject line

I'm just pointing out that DGUs are higher than justifiable homicides. Since there are no good numbers, and I'm sure you're ready to shit on any numbers I provide, I'll leave it at that.

jimmytheone points out some numbers in a reply to me and the extrapolation from them, which have already been covered in fecal matter, so what's the real number?

Is Kleck off by an order of magnitude? That still makes the ratio of DGUs 1,000:1 instead of 10,000:1.

I don't know, and more importantly you don't either, but we both know there is a ratio.

[AndyS]

13. There, I fixed the subject line.

"I don't know, and more importantly you don't either, but we both know there is a ratio."

So go away and come back when you have some real numbers to talk about. Live up to your own level of facts and statistics. If you don't know why not claim 25,000,000 DGUs? Makes as much sense as me saying there are NONE(which I didn't).

Lets deal in verifiable numbers and not fantasy shall we?

[krispos42]

14. Um... you're the one entering this discussion without any real numbers of DGUs.

You have DGUs that result in an attacker being killed, and you have accidental gunshot deaths.

So... you need me to hold up a mirror or something?

At least the CDC links to a report saying the MINIMUM number of DGUs is 60,000 per year.,

Although definitions of defensive gun use vary, it is generally defined as the use of a firearm to protect and defend one’s self, family, others, and/or property against crime or victimization.

Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html

60,000 divided by 203 is 296. So the minimum ratio of DGUs to justifiable homicides is 296:1.

2,500,000 divided by 203 is 12,315. Maximum ration of DGUs to justifiable homicides is 12,315:1


And I don't think you get my point about your subject line. "I don't deal in thoughts or prayers" means you don't think or pray.

I think you mean "I don't deal in 'thoughts and prayers'". "Thoughts and prayers" being a common expression of solidarity and helplessness when a tragedy occurs.

[AndyS]

15. Oh dear God this gets tedious . . .

DGUs are not reported by the GunViolenceArchive.org as deaths and/or injuries or even discharges. The reports are gleaned from newspaper reports of gun use in a defensive manner that can be VERIFIED. GVA does this because there aren't any other reliable sources for this information.

You are still quoting the the Kleck study (as is the CDC) that has been laughed out of existence in academic circles. This isn't research it has been admitted to be wishful thinking. Both min and max numbers come from the same discredited report because there aren't any other sources BECAUSE SUCH NUMBERS CAN'T BE VERIFIED by reputable research organizations.

You asked me what I thought the DGU to justifiable homicide ratio is (don't know why you bring another variable into the discussion except to cloud the issue, DGU and Justifiable homicide are two different things) and I said that I don't deal in 'thoughts OR prayers' not being a clairvoyant or superstitious. Your 'arguments' seem to be based on both.

After 40 years of 'discussing' this with gunners I've learned that if I don't give hard cold definable and verifiable FACTS I'm ridiculed for using emotion and not logic. Now it seems for you it's all turned on it's head.

eta: you now have the floor to yourself. I'm off to offer care and support to a cancer patient for about a week.

[krispos42]

16. I quoted and linked to the CDC

Sorry if that upsets you.

And of course the reason I bring "another variable" into the equation is because if we're going to balance "good" versus "bad" gun ownership, we have to determine the "good" that gun ownership does... which necessarily entails attacks and other crimes that gun ownership stops, not just attackers killed.

Regardless, go take care of business. That's more important than internet posting.

[jimmy the one]

11. kleck's 2.5 million dgu study

krispos: not all defensive gun uses end with a discharge.

It's infrequent (2 of 9, kleck) that a defensive gun use (dgu) includes a fired gun, even accd'g to gun guru gary kleck. In fact, one need not even own a gun to be credited with a dgu. Kleck contends that verbal dgus comprise the majority of dgus (altho they can escalate). So someone not owning a gun telling a potential threat he will pull out his gun (non existent) and threat runs off = bona fide dgu. No gun cannot harm the owner! erm....

Here is kleck's 1995 interview defending his (laughable) claim of ~2.5 million dgus. The actual interview link is defunct, but I have linked to my DU post from feb 2013 here, my comments are in brackets [ ]:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=111114

Intro: a 1995 study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz that reported an astounding 2.5 million defense gun uses (DGU) each year in the United States.

SCHULMAN: How many respondents did you have total? [nationally in klecks study]
KLECK: We had a total of 4,978 completed interviews, that is, where we had a response on the key question of whether or not there had been a defensive gun use.

SCHULMAN: So roughly 50 people out of 5000 responded that in the last year they had had to use their firearms in an actual confrontation against a human being attempting a crime?
KLECK: Handguns, yes.

SCHULMAN: Had used a handgun. And slightly more than that had used any gun.
KLECK: Right.

SCHULMAN: So that would be maybe 55, 56 people?
KLECK: Something like that, yeah.

SCHULMAN: Okay. I can just hear critics saying that 50 or 55 people responding that they used their gun and you're projecting it out to figures of around 2 million, 2-1/2 million gun defenses. Why is that statistically valid?
KLECK [starting to tapdance]: Well, that's one reason why we also had a five-year recollection period. We get a much larger raw number of people saying, "Yes, I had a defensive use." It doesn't work out to be as many....

SCHULMAN: Let's talk about how the guns were actually used in order to accomplish the defense. How many people, for example, had to merely show the gun, as opposed to how many had to fire a warning shot, as to how many actually had to attempt to shoot or shoot their attacker?
KLECK: We got all of the details about everything that people could have done with a gun from as mild an action as merely verbally referring to the gun on up to actually shooting somebody.

SCHULMAN: Could you give me the percentages?
KLECK: You have to keep in mind that it's quite possible for people to have done more than one of these things since they could obviously both verbally refer to the gun and point it at somebody or even shoot it.

KLECK: 54% of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun. 47% involved the gun being pointed at the criminal. 22% involved the gun being fired. 14% involved the gun being fired at somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning shot; the defender was trying to shoot the criminal [as if all the dgu gun owners were innocent little lambs]. Whether they succeeded or not is another matter but they were trying to shoot a criminal [uh, non sequitur]. And then in 8% they actually did wound or kill the offender.
SCHULMAN: In 8% wounded or killed. You don't have it broken down beyond that?

KLECK: Wound versus kill? No. Again that was thought to be too sensitive a question. Although we did have, I think, two people who freely offered the information that they had, indeed, killed someone. Keep in mind that the 8% figure is based on so few cases that you have to interpret it with great caution. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.interview.html

me, jimmy the one, 2013: Hahaha! 'so few cases' - that's for sure gary! cause 8% wounded or killed was about 4 or 5 total people (2 killed) shooting or wounding in the whole junky study! and extrapolating that out meant ~200,000 gunshot injuries for that year of the study, b b b but only 100,000 reported gunshot wounds that year!
Phantom Gunshot Victims - HEAL THYSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

back to march 2022: I got a little carried away in my younger days. But was true, kleck's study percentage of 8% wounded or killed would've had ~200,000 gunshot wounds, whereas actual hospital or medical clinic admissions for gunshot wounds for the study's year was ~100,000 (99,000 and change IIRC).
Note that 8% of 55 or 56 dgu respondents (per kleck above) would be the whopping total of 4 or 5 kleck's dgus actually killing or wounding the victims, of which two were confessedly 'killed'. 5 - 2 = 3. What a farce.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. re: "...win-win?"

Chances are good that the encounter doesn't get recorded in any crime statistics and may not be reported at all. IMO it's a bias of the pro-restriction side. (Since "guns are designed to kill", if you didn't at least try to kill, you didn't "use" your gun.) Then again, if you took a shot and didn't at least wound, some would argue that you're not a good enough shot to be allowed to carry.

If you control the dictionary, you control the truth for some folks.

[USALiberal]

2. I assumed it was you posting this

[kelly1mm]

3. Looks like a good shoot. What is the problem? NT

[AndyS]

7. My problem is the myth that guns make you safer. They do not.

Gun sellers have been selling the load of fetid dingo's kidneys for 50 years and the gun culture has been thoroughly indoctrinated in that and the other lies. Lies like a gun will make you just like Seal Team 6! Guns will get the girl for you! Guns are the great equalizer!

In truth all a gun in the house does is give a thief something else to steal while you're away.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. The reality is fear sells.

What? You don't like marketing?