CDC Shows 2 Million Crimes Stopped Annually

[JimBowie1958]

So the NRA and 2A 'gun nuts' have been right all along.

I am sure the Gun Grabbing Nazis will apologize any day now, roflmao.

Unpublished CDC Study Confirms over 2 Million Annual Defensive Gun Uses

Now, a CDC study conducted on data from 1996, 1997, and 1998 has been uncovered. The study, which was never released to the public, shows approximately 2.46 million DGUs per year.


Kleck summarized the CDC findings:

In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale national surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU). They never released the findings, or even acknowledged they had studied the topic. I obtained the unpublished raw data and computed the prevalence of DGU. CDC’s findings indicated that an average of 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense in each of the years from 1996 through 1998 – almost exactly confirming the estimate for 1992 of Kleck and Gertz (1995). Possible reasons for CDC’s suppression of these findings are discussed.

On April 20, 2018, Reason magazine quoted Kleck’s reaction to the unpublished CDC findings; he explained that a figure of 2.46 million DGUs a year “[implies] that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.”​

 

[bgrouse]

I'm pretty sure the average leftist retard's argument sums up to nothing more than:

"UK has X gun murders, US has Y gun murders."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hehe heh....what a bunch of horseshit

 

[Weatherman2020]

Hehe heh....what a bunch of horseshit

Yes, leftist rants about guns is mindless horseshit with no purpose except fascist gun grabbing.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm pretty sure the average leftist retard's argument sums up to nothing more than:

"UK has X gun murders, US has Y gun murders."

To me it sounds more like 'The UK banned guns and now they feel safe, and I wanna feel safe so.....reasons, there!'

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hehe heh....what a bunch of horseshit

Yes, leftist rants about guns is mindless horseshit with no purpose except fascist gun grabbing.

That just about sums it up fairly concisely.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hehe heh....what a bunch of horseshit

Yes, leftist rants about guns is mindless horseshit with no purpose except fascist gun grabbing.

Oh, look who's here. Let the contest for stupidest post of the thread begin....I bet on you for win,place, AND show...

The Meta study here is horseshit. Debunked horseshit

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hehe heh....what a bunch of horseshit

Yes, leftist rants about guns is mindless horseshit with no purpose except fascist gun grabbing.

That just about sums it up fairly concisely.

Look dude, you have not a clue about anything you linked to. You know nothing about the data, the methods, or tthe lisrsbehind them . This horseshit was debunked years ago. Look up the Harvard paper that did so. I won't hold my breath.

If you had compelling arguments, you wouldn't have to peddle lies.

 

[Pop23]

Hehe heh....what a bunch of horseshit

But you don’t dispute it.

It is your inability that is horseshit. But you already knew that, right?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Hehe heh....what a bunch of horseshit

Yes, leftist rants about guns is mindless horseshit with no purpose except fascist gun grabbing.

Oh, look who's here. Let the contest for stupidest post of the thread begin....I bet on you for win,place, AND show...

The Meta study here is horseshit. Debunked horseshit

Hilarious you have no clue why you rant about guns, stooge.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But you don’t dispute it.

I absolutely did, and appropriately so. The op made a claim with zero evidence or explanation of methods, so the appropriate dispute is, "nuh uh dummy". See?

Now, if you want to see a thorough debunk of this horseshit, read this:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

You gullible gun freaks always fall for this same tactic. Every couple of years the NRA spoonfeeds it's paid liars to force-feed you sheeple debunked horshit from years ago. And you guys lap it up like it's your last meal.

Fucking embarrassing.

 

[toobfreak]

CDC Shows 2 Million Crimes Stopped Annually

NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE FACTS, Jim, in the war against crime. They just want a target to pin the blame on so that Washington big wigs can get back to their big parties and prostitute whores and shut the damn phones up and get those mailers out telling the idiot constituents they are off in the thick hard at work doing the public good.

Then when the 2 million lives saved are traded for the few dozen lost by the Hogg-Imbecile-Cattle and the crime rate and shootings rise, they can all scratch their heads and begin the process all over of what to pin the blame on. Maybe next time it will be the Christian Family Alliance or some such place to blame.

 

[Pop23]

But you don’t dispute it.

I absolutely did, and appropriately so. The op made a claim with zero evidence or explanation of methods, so the appropriate dispute is, "nuh uh dummy". See?

Now, if you want to see a thorough debunk of this horseshit, read this:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

You gullible gun freaks always fall for this same tactic. Every couple of years the NRA spoonfeeds it's paid liars to force-feed you sheeple debunked horshit from years ago. And you guys lap it up like it's your last meal.

Fucking embarrassing.

Saying you dispute something, and providing evidence that the statement is false are two different things.

You are an idiot if you think anyone would simply take your word for it, or anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To the OP: those number are almost all LEO not citizens.

 

[bgrouse]

But you don’t dispute it.

I absolutely did, and appropriately so. The op made a claim with zero evidence or explanation of methods, so the appropriate dispute is, "nuh uh dummy". See?

Now, if you want to see a thorough debunk of this horseshit, read this:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

You gullible gun freaks always fall for this same tactic. Every couple of years the NRA spoonfeeds it's paid liars to force-feed you sheeple debunked horshit from years ago. And you guys lap it up like it's your last meal.

Fucking embarrassing.

We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

OK, well, the study says "2 million," not "many millions," so I'm not entirely sure how this contradicts the study.

Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal

OK, and? I'm not surprised many self-defense gun uses are from escalating arguments. Arguments can escalate into fights.

Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense

Not surprising at all. Some of the most populous states in the country are ones where only cops can carry, and cops use their guns far more often to intimidate (whether by open carry or preemptively pointing their guns at suspects) and in legitimate self-defense. Banning guns for regular civilians won't do anything to stop that.

Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime

Can't stop someone from feeling intimidated by the presence of a gun in the home. Probably some liberal housewives.

Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense

No shit. Most adolescents can't even carry guns legally.

Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Negroes taking turn victimizing each other. So what?

Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

You can't even carry guns in many states, and many defensive uses of guns are merely threats to get the criminal to leave.

Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

It's rare because most attacks happen in negrohoods where guns are illegal, which means only the criminal has the gun. People often use guns as a last resort, so some have already been injured by the time they use it. The big difference is with a gun there's a better chance the piece of shit violent criminal ends up dead and won't harm anyone else.

 

[bgrouse]

To the OP: those number are almost all LEO not citizens.

And violent crime is rare in many parts of the USA. If car crashes are rare in your part of the world, you still wear a seatbelt, right?

 

[2aguy]

Hehe heh....what a bunch of horseshit

Yes, leftist rants about guns is mindless horseshit with no purpose except fascist gun grabbing.

That just about sums it up fairly concisely.

Look dude, you have not a clue about anything you linked to. You know nothing about the data, the methods, or tthe lisrsbehind them . This horseshit was debunked years ago. Look up the Harvard paper that did so. I won't hold my breath.

If you had compelling arguments, you wouldn't have to peddle lies.

Dumb shit.....it isn't just the CDC it was the Department of Justice and about a dozen other studies......

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, no military)

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

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

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

CDC...1996-1998... 2.46 million ( no cops, no military)

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

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


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

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

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

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

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no 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, no 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]

But you don’t dispute it.

I absolutely did, and appropriately so. The op made a claim with zero evidence or explanation of methods, so the appropriate dispute is, "nuh uh dummy". See?

Now, if you want to see a thorough debunk of this horseshit, read this:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

You gullible gun freaks always fall for this same tactic. Every couple of years the NRA spoonfeeds it's paid liars to force-feed you sheeple debunked horshit from years ago. And you guys lap it up like it's your last meal.

Fucking embarrassing.

Here you go dumb ass.....the actual paper that shows how the CDC conducted their research......

What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses? by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

The timing of CDC’s addition of a DGU question to the BRFSS is of some interest. Prior to 1996, the BRFSS had never included a question about DGU. Kleck and Gertz (1995) conducted their survey in February through April 1993, presented their estimate that there were over 2 million DGUs in 1992 at the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology in November 1994, and published it in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in the Fall of 1995.

CDC added a DGU question to the BRFSS the very first year they could do so after that 1995 publication, in the 1996 edition. CDC was not the only federal agency during the Clinton administration to field a survey addressing the prevalence of DGU at that particular time.

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) financed a national survey devoting even more detailed attention to estimating DGU prevalence, which was fielded in November and December 1994, just months after preliminary results of the 1993 Kleck/Gertz survey became known. Neither CDC nor NIJ had ever financed research into DGU before 1996.

Perhaps there was just “something in the air” that motivated the two agencies to suddenly decide in 1994 to address the topic. Another interpretation, however, is that fielding of the surveys was triggered by the Kleck/Gertz findings that DGU was common, and that these agencies hoped to obtain lower DGU prevalence estimates than those obtained by Kleck/Gertz. Low estimates would have implied fewer beneficial uses of firearms, results that would have been far more congenial to the strongly pro-control positions of the Clinton administration.

And a quick breakdown of the study...

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence that Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns



Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Those polls, Kleck writes,

are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics.


Those that addressed DGU asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since. For example, the 1996 survey asked the DGU question of 5,484 people. The next-largest number questioned about DGU was 4,977 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), and sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001).

Kleck was impressed with how well the survey worded its question:

"During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?"


Respondents were told to leave out incidents from occupations, like policing, where using firearms is part of the job. Kleck is impressed with how the question excludes animals but includes DGUs outside the home as well as within it.

Kleck is less impressed with the fact that the question was only asked of people who admitted to owning guns in their home earlier in the survey, and that they asked no follow-up questions regarding the specific nature of the DGU incident.

From Kleck's own surveys, he found that only 79 percent of those who reported a DGU "had also reported a gun in their household at the time of the interview," so he thinks whatever numbers the CDC found need to be revised upward to account for that. (Kleck speculates that CDC showed a sudden interest in the question of DGUs starting in 1996 because Kleck's own famous/notorious survey had been published in 1995.)

At any rate, Kleck downloaded the datasets for those three years and found that the "weighted percent who reported a DGU...was 1.3% in 1996, 0.9% in 1997, 1.0% in 1998, and 1.07% in all three surveys combined."





Kleck figures if you do the adjustment upward he thinks necessary for those who had DGU incidents without personally owning a gun in the home at the time of the survey, and then the adjustment downward he thinks necessary because CDC didn't do detailed follow-ups to confirm the nature of the incident, you get 1.24 percent, a close match to his own 1.326 percent figure.

He concludes that the small difference between his estimate and the CDC's "can be attributed to declining rates of violent crime, which accounts for most DGUs. With fewer occasions for self-defense in the form of violent victimizations, one would expect fewer DGUs."

Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense.



This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

 

[2aguy]

But you don’t dispute it.

I absolutely did, and appropriately so. The op made a claim with zero evidence or explanation of methods, so the appropriate dispute is, "nuh uh dummy". See?

Now, if you want to see a thorough debunk of this horseshit, read this:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

You gullible gun freaks always fall for this same tactic. Every couple of years the NRA spoonfeeds it's paid liars to force-feed you sheeple debunked horshit from years ago. And you guys lap it up like it's your last meal.

Fucking embarrassing.

Hemenway? He is a hack....there are about a dozen studies that show he doesn't know what he is talking about, he is a gun grabber and doesn't care what he has to publish to push his agenda....

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, no military)

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

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

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

CDC...1996-1998... 2.46 million ( no cops, no military)

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

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


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

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

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

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

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no 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, no 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]

But you don’t dispute it.

I absolutely did, and appropriately so. The op made a claim with zero evidence or explanation of methods, so the appropriate dispute is, "nuh uh dummy". See?

Now, if you want to see a thorough debunk of this horseshit, read this:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

You gullible gun freaks always fall for this same tactic. Every couple of years the NRA spoonfeeds it's paid liars to force-feed you sheeple debunked horshit from years ago. And you guys lap it up like it's your last meal.

Fucking embarrassing.

We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

OK, well, the study says "2 million," not "many millions," so I'm not entirely sure how this contradicts the study.

Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal

OK, and? I'm not surprised many self-defense gun uses are from escalating arguments. Arguments can escalate into fights.

Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense

Not surprising at all. Some of the most populous states in the country are ones where only cops can carry, and cops use their guns far more often to intimidate (whether by open carry or preemptively pointing their guns at suspects) and in legitimate self-defense. Banning guns for regular civilians won't do anything to stop that.

Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime

Can't stop someone from feeling intimidated by the presence of a gun in the home. Probably some liberal housewives.

Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense

No shit. Most adolescents can't even carry guns legally.

Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Negroes taking turn victimizing each other. So what?

Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

You can't even carry guns in many states, and many defensive uses of guns are merely threats to get the criminal to leave.

Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

It's rare because most attacks happen in negrohoods where guns are illegal, which means only the criminal has the gun. People often use guns as a last resort, so some have already been injured by the time they use it. The big difference is with a gun there's a better chance the piece of shit violent criminal ends up dead and won't harm anyone else.

Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions


And here we have specific research into rape prevention.......



Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.