CDC: Guns Save Lives

[EGR one]

Narrative Fail.

Study from a few years ago, funny how the left ignores science and goes with emotions.

Majority of gun related deaths are from suicide. And as I posted in another thread, psychologists are saying the dramatic increase in suicides is due to people not having God in their lives and feeling their lives have no purpose.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

Guns take live, funny how some ignore reality.

Plastic forks, bathrooms, and buckets take lives too.

Why then do mass murderers not choose to use plastic forks, bathrooms and buckets in lieu of guns?

Some prefer trucks, automobiles, airplanes, or bombs. However, it is guns that scare the hell out of left wing loons.

 

[BluesLegend]

Narrative Fail.

Study from a few years ago, funny how the left ignores science and goes with emotions.

Majority of gun related deaths are from suicide. And as I posted in another thread, psychologists are saying the dramatic increase in suicides is due to people not having God in their lives and feeling their lives have no purpose.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

Guns take live, funny how some ignore reality.

Plastic forks, bathrooms, and buckets take lives too.

Why then do mass murderers not choose to use plastic forks, bathrooms and buckets in lieu of guns?

They prefer bombs and large trucks

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

So, 'good guys with guns' patrolling as a militia could save lives. Where are they?

Not in NYC, Baltimore, Ferguson or UC Berkley for sure. Isnt NYC a gun free zone? How can there be gang gun violence?

 

[EGR one]

WH2020 is not stupid, he is however very dishonest.

There are some, a very few, who want to repeal the 2nd A., about as many as those who believe they have the right to own and possess surface to air missiles and even nuclear arms.

Most believe, and i'm one of them, that the right to own a defensive weapon is legal and should remain so, unless a trier of facts determines that are not fit to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How that is established should, IMO, be the right of the state, and of the people in each state and other territories wherein COTUS is the law.

Rational people, and that includes the late Justice Scalia, believe that the 2nd A. Right can be suspended for certain people who should not own or possess a gun.

In my opinion, no one convicted of a high crime (felony) or a misdemeanor against a person; a drug addict or alcoholic; someone detained civilly as a danger to them self or others; a member of a criminal gang, as adjudicated in any court; and anyone with a Dishonorable Discharge from the Military Service, should not be allowed to buy, borrow, rent or in any manner obtain a firearm.

Those who do have a firearm in their custody after such a finding, and the person or persons who allowed said person to possess in any manner a firearm, will be considered a full accessory, and each upon conviction should serve 10 years in the State Prison without the possibility of earning good time credit.

The only citizens who should be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms are those who have been adjudicated to be a danger to others. A felony conviction for a non violent crime, or a dishonorable discharge for a non violent crime should not be used to deny people the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Wry Catcher]

WH2020 is not stupid, he is however very dishonest.

There are some, a very few, who want to repeal the 2nd A., about as many as those who believe they have the right to own and possess surface to air missiles and even nuclear arms.

Most believe, and i'm one of them, that the right to own a defensive weapon is legal and should remain so, unless a trier of facts determines that are not fit to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How that is established should, IMO, be the right of the state, and of the people in each state and other territories wherein COTUS is the law.

Rational people, and that includes the late Justice Scalia, believe that the 2nd A. Right can be suspended for certain people who should not own or possess a gun.

In my opinion, no one convicted of a high crime (felony) or a misdemeanor against a person; a drug addict or alcoholic; someone detained civilly as a danger to them self or others; a member of a criminal gang, as adjudicated in any court; and anyone with a Dishonorable Discharge from the Military Service, should not be allowed to buy, borrow, rent or in any manner obtain a firearm.

Those who do have a firearm in their custody after such a finding, and the person or persons who allowed said person to possess in any manner a firearm, will be considered a full accessory, and each upon conviction should serve 10 years in the State Prison without the possibility of earning good time credit.

The only citizens who should be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms are those who have been adjudicated to be a danger to others. A felony conviction for a non violent crime, or a dishonorable discharge for a non violent crime should not be used to deny people the right to keep and bear arms.

Bullshit. Both speak to a person's character. Of course Due Process will be used in every case, IMO, by a trier of facts as a means of appeal for those who choose to make such an appeal.

 

[EGR one]

WH2020 is not stupid, he is however very dishonest.

There are some, a very few, who want to repeal the 2nd A., about as many as those who believe they have the right to own and possess surface to air missiles and even nuclear arms.

Most believe, and i'm one of them, that the right to own a defensive weapon is legal and should remain so, unless a trier of facts determines that are not fit to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How that is established should, IMO, be the right of the state, and of the people in each state and other territories wherein COTUS is the law.

Rational people, and that includes the late Justice Scalia, believe that the 2nd A. Right can be suspended for certain people who should not own or possess a gun.

In my opinion, no one convicted of a high crime (felony) or a misdemeanor against a person; a drug addict or alcoholic; someone detained civilly as a danger to them self or others; a member of a criminal gang, as adjudicated in any court; and anyone with a Dishonorable Discharge from the Military Service, should not be allowed to buy, borrow, rent or in any manner obtain a firearm.

Those who do have a firearm in their custody after such a finding, and the person or persons who allowed said person to possess in any manner a firearm, will be considered a full accessory, and each upon conviction should serve 10 years in the State Prison without the possibility of earning good time credit.

The only citizens who should be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms are those who have been adjudicated to be a danger to others. A felony conviction for a non violent crime, or a dishonorable discharge for a non violent crime should not be used to deny people the right to keep and bear arms.

Bullshit. Both speak to a person's character. Of course Due Process will be used in every case, IMO, by a trier of facts as a means of appeal for those who choose to make such an appeal.

If you want to deprive people of a constitutional right, you better have a very good reason to do so. Character is not a very good reason to remove a person's right to keep and bear arms. If a person is not a danger to others, his/her character is none of your business. A lazy, untrustworthy, asshole is just as entitled to his constitutional rights as you or I are.

 

[there4eyeM]

Narrative Fail.

Study from a few years ago, funny how the left ignores science and goes with emotions.

Majority of gun related deaths are from suicide. And as I posted in another thread, psychologists are saying the dramatic increase in suicides is due to people not having God in their lives and feeling their lives have no purpose.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

Guns take live, funny how some ignore reality.

I never saw a gun get up and start shooting on its own.

Of course not. That is why in every case of 'accidental discharge' of a firearm there should be an obligatory charge of criminal endangerment.

 

[there4eyeM]

I want to legally buy, keep and own firearms. That is exactly why I oppose the current crop of irrational, knee-jerk firearms extremists who absolutely will not acknowledge that there are a significant percentage of their brothers and sisters who have a visceral problem with the very subject of 'guns'.

 

[Weatherman2020]

So, 'good guys with guns' patrolling as a militia could save lives. Where are they?

Not in NYC, Baltimore, Ferguson or UC Berkley for sure. Isnt NYC a gun free zone? How can there be gang gun violence?

 

[harmonica]

it says they don't know if right to carry laws increase or decrease violent crime
your own link says it

The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

--I've linked this before, there are dozens of murders for every SD use
so the US has ten times the gun ownership than Venezuela but only 2 times less crime
shouldn't the US have 10 times less crime?
the US has one of the highest gun ownership rates but not anywhere near the lowest crime rate
35 out of 115
Crime Index by Country 2018

 

[2aguy]

Guns take live, funny how some ignore reality.

Plastic forks, bathrooms, and buckets take lives too.

Why then do mass murderers not choose to use plastic forks, bathrooms and buckets in lieu of guns?

Because they use trucks, and gallons of gasoline to do their crimes. Both methods I list here have greater death numbers than any gun crime BTW.

True, T. McVeigh comes to mind, but for every McVeigh and Randolph (Olympic bomber), many more mass shooting occur. McVeigh killed many more than each of the mass killings by guns, but the quantity and number of events and victims is far and away greater than these two outliars.

And you would be wrong. 70 people were murdered by a gallon of gasoline in a New York nightclub, the truck killing in Nice killed 86. Had paddock used a truck against the country music crowd he would have killed hundreds, thankfully he chose the least efficient method of killing that he could based on his chosen methodology. Your definition of mass shooting is based on country towns numbers and they are fiction. It says a lot about a group that rely's on false data as much as they do.

From what I remember he also had a commercial pilots license, so he could have flown a private plane with gasoline cans all over the plane right into the 22,000 tightly packed people...that would likely have killed more than 58 people......

 

[2aguy]

it says they don't know if right to carry laws increase or decrease violent crime
your own link says it

The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

--I've linked this before, there are dozens of murders for every SD use
so the US has ten times the gun ownership than Venezuela but only 2 times less crime
shouldn't the US have 10 times less crime?
the US has one of the highest gun ownership rates but not anywhere near the lowest crime rate
35 out of 115
Crime Index by Country 2018

And what the Pew research shows that gun ownership, and gun carrying do not increase the gun crime rate.....

And at the same time...here are actual studies on concealed carry that show they reduce the crime rate...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf


The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....

Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf

This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed

========

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf


Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.

=======

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*




Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok

We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
===========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43

===============

This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

=============

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

=======

States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).





Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..


Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review

 

[2aguy]

it says they don't know if right to carry laws increase or decrease violent crime
your own link says it

The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

--I've linked this before, there are dozens of murders for every SD use
so the US has ten times the gun ownership than Venezuela but only 2 times less crime
shouldn't the US have 10 times less crime?
the US has one of the highest gun ownership rates but not anywhere near the lowest crime rate
35 out of 115
Crime Index by Country 2018

No....there are not dozens of murders for every self defense use...considering the average number of times as researched by bill clinton's Department of Justice study on gun self defense puts the number of self defense gun uses at 1,500,000 times a year....backed up by all the other research that shows just as high or higher numbers of gun self defense....over a 41 year period.....with obama's CDC research into all available research in 2013 being only the latest of many....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[2aguy]

it says they don't know if right to carry laws increase or decrease violent crime
your own link says it

The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

--I've linked this before, there are dozens of murders for every SD use
so the US has ten times the gun ownership than Venezuela but only 2 times less crime
shouldn't the US have 10 times less crime?
the US has one of the highest gun ownership rates but not anywhere near the lowest crime rate
35 out of 115
Crime Index by Country 2018

And 21 years of actual experience with more Americans buying, owning and carrying guns shows us that the entire anti gun argument....that more guns would mean more gun crime...is wrong, it is false, and it is not based in reality or actual experience.....

we know that law abiding people owning and carrying guns does not drive up the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and it doesn't even increase the violent crime rate...

You can try to deny it all you want....but the facts, the statistics and the experience all show you are wrong.....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[harmonica]

it says they don't know if right to carry laws increase or decrease violent crime
your own link says it

The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

--I've linked this before, there are dozens of murders for every SD use
so the US has ten times the gun ownership than Venezuela but only 2 times less crime
shouldn't the US have 10 times less crime?
the US has one of the highest gun ownership rates but not anywhere near the lowest crime rate
35 out of 115
Crime Index by Country 2018

No....there are not dozens of murders for every self defense use...considering the average number of times as researched by bill clinton's Department of Justice study on gun self defense puts the number of self defense gun uses at 1,500,000 times a year....backed up by all the other research that shows just as high or higher numbers of gun self defense....over a 41 year period.....with obama's CDC research into all available research in 2013 being only the latest of many....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

I've linked it other threads 2A
you keep putting up SD cases--for every case you put up, I can put up murders/shootings from my city alone--alone! everyday

 

[2aguy]

Narrative Fail.

Study from a few years ago, funny how the left ignores science and goes with emotions.

Majority of gun related deaths are from suicide. And as I posted in another thread, psychologists are saying the dramatic increase in suicides is due to people not having God in their lives and feeling their lives have no purpose.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

A study from 2013???

Here's some more recent news AND NO ONE is taking home based firearms for self-protection away from you morons....

Republicans Say No to CDC Gun Violence Research ? ProPublica


Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence ...

There is no ban on gun research.....that is a lie put out by anti gun activists...

No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.


Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.

Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.

And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.

In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.

It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.

Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.

The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.

Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.

-------

There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

 

[2aguy]

it says they don't know if right to carry laws increase or decrease violent crime
your own link says it

The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

--I've linked this before, there are dozens of murders for every SD use
so the US has ten times the gun ownership than Venezuela but only 2 times less crime
shouldn't the US have 10 times less crime?
the US has one of the highest gun ownership rates but not anywhere near the lowest crime rate
35 out of 115
Crime Index by Country 2018

No....there are not dozens of murders for every self defense use...considering the average number of times as researched by bill clinton's Department of Justice study on gun self defense puts the number of self defense gun uses at 1,500,000 times a year....backed up by all the other research that shows just as high or higher numbers of gun self defense....over a 41 year period.....with obama's CDC research into all available research in 2013 being only the latest of many....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

I've linked it other threads 2A
you keep putting up SD cases--for every case you put up, I can put up murders/shootings from my city alone--alone! everyday

I put up the actual research by trained researchers......you put up a few cases....41 years of actual research and the lowest number is 764,036....with only 11,004 gun murders in 2016......after 2 years of the Ferguson effect......and of those gun murders, 70-80% are criminals murdered by other criminals, and of the rest, more than a few are relatives and friends of criminals caught up in their lifestyles.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

Narrative Fail.

Study from a few years ago, funny how the left ignores science and goes with emotions.

Majority of gun related deaths are from suicide. And as I posted in another thread, psychologists are saying the dramatic increase in suicides is due to people not having God in their lives and feeling their lives have no purpose.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

Guns take live, funny how some ignore reality.

Funny how some people think guns can do anything by themselves

 

[LoneLaugher]

Narrative Fail.

Study from a few years ago, funny how the left ignores science and goes with emotions.

Majority of gun related deaths are from suicide. And as I posted in another thread, psychologists are saying the dramatic increase in suicides is due to people not having God in their lives and feeling their lives have no purpose.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

Guns take live, funny how some ignore reality.

Plastic forks, bathrooms, and buckets take lives too.

Why then do mass murderers not choose to use plastic forks, bathrooms and buckets in lieu of guns?

Because they use trucks, and gallons of gasoline to do their crimes. Both methods I list here have greater death numbers than any gun crime BTW.

Wow. If only trucks and gasoline didn't have any other uses besides killing people, we might have a great discussion.

So sad.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Narrative Fail.

Study from a few years ago, funny how the left ignores science and goes with emotions.

Majority of gun related deaths are from suicide. And as I posted in another thread, psychologists are saying the dramatic increase in suicides is due to people not having God in their lives and feeling their lives have no purpose.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

Guns take live, funny how some ignore reality.

Plastic forks, bathrooms, and buckets take lives too.

Why then do mass murderers not choose to use plastic forks, bathrooms and buckets in lieu of guns?

Why is that the murder of one person at a time isn't as important to you?

1% of all murders occur in mass shootings.

Where 70% of all murders occur in just 5% of all the counties in the entire country.

Our murder problem is concentrated into distinct areas but no one wants to do anything about it because for the most art it's urban youths killing other urban youths.