Even with so many gun free zones, American gun owners are saving lives during violent mass shootings

[2aguy]

Here is research into how many armed citizens stop mass shooters.....keep in mind, mass shooters choose democrat supported gun free zones because they want victims, they don't want a gun fight. Yet, while all these public areas are gun free zones, where normal people can't carry their legal guns, armed citizens are still stopping mass shooters.......

New FBI report claims that 8% of active shooter attacks during 2014-17 were stopped or mitigated by concealed handgun permit holders, but misses at least half the cases. - Crime Prevention Research Center



For four years, the CPRC has been collecting cases of concealed handgun permit holders stopping mass public shootings. As we will show below, permit holders saved lives in between 13 and 16 cases from 2014-17. This includes the seven cases that the FBI lists, seven cases that should have been included (one of the seven is debatable), and two cases that the FBI had on its list but doesn’t include as instances of permit holders saving lives. Thus, concealed handgun permit holders saved lives in 13.5% to 16.5% of 97 cases.

The first report claimed that permit holders had stopped one out of 160 active shooter cases from 2000-2013. We don’t believe that we have found all of the cases in which permit holders saved lives during that period, so we aren’t going to focus on those errors here. But we did find 14 other cases. Adding together all the cases from 2000 to 2017, we know of a total of at least 31 out of 270 cases, or 11.5%, being stopped by permit holders.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

At least as many lives are lost due to having so many guns on the streets as are saved. No credible report has ever been presented saying what you claim. Stop making shit up.

 

[2aguy]

At least as many lives are lost due to having so many guns on the streets as are saved. No credible report has ever been presented saying what you claim. Stop making shit up.

Sorry, that isn't even close to being true...why do you keep pulling nonsense out of your ass and acting like it is a profound point....

The CDC found that Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....the anti gun CDC......you don't know what you are talking about.

And since 1993 there was a 49% drop in gun murder....that is more lives saved than taken with guns.....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

At least as many lives are lost due to having so many guns on the streets as are saved. No credible report has ever been presented saying what you claim. Stop making shit up.

Sorry, that isn't even close to being true...why do you keep pulling nonsense out of your ass and acting like it is a profound point....

The CDC found that Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....the anti gun CDC......you don't know what you are talking about.

And since 1993 there was a 49% drop in gun murder....that is more lives saved than taken with guns.....

There you go again. Now, how about a direct cite to that elusive CDC report you keep touting. Not some site that claims to have seen it, but the real deal on the CDC site itself. So far, the closest thing you done ended up with a "File cannot be Found" page. Stop making shit up.

 

[2aguy]

At least as many lives are lost due to having so many guns on the streets as are saved. No credible report has ever been presented saying what you claim. Stop making shit up.

Sorry, that isn't even close to being true...why do you keep pulling nonsense out of your ass and acting like it is a profound point....

The CDC found that Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....the anti gun CDC......you don't know what you are talking about.

And since 1993 there was a 49% drop in gun murder....that is more lives saved than taken with guns.....

There you go again. Now, how about a direct cite to that elusive CDC report you keep touting. Not some site that claims to have seen it, but the real deal on the CDC site itself. So far, the closest thing you done ended up with a "File cannot be Found" page. Stop making shit up.

Moron, I gave you the link where Kleck does the work on their numbers....you pretend you haven't seen it because you are a dishonest asshat.

Here it is again, you moron......

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

Date Written: July 11, 2018

Abstract
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to seven states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Data pertaining to the same sets of states from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995) allow these results to be extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole. CDC’s survey data confirm previous high estimates of DGU prevalence, disconfirm estimates derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and indicate that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

At least as many lives are lost due to having so many guns on the streets as are saved. No credible report has ever been presented saying what you claim. Stop making shit up.

Sorry, that isn't even close to being true...why do you keep pulling nonsense out of your ass and acting like it is a profound point....

The CDC found that Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....the anti gun CDC......you don't know what you are talking about.

And since 1993 there was a 49% drop in gun murder....that is more lives saved than taken with guns.....

There you go again. Now, how about a direct cite to that elusive CDC report you keep touting. Not some site that claims to have seen it, but the real deal on the CDC site itself. So far, the closest thing you done ended up with a "File cannot be Found" page. Stop making shit up.

Moron, I gave you the link where Kleck does the work on their numbers....you pretend you haven't seen it because you are a dishonest asshat.

Here it is again, you moron......

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

Date Written: July 11, 2018

Abstract
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to seven states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Data pertaining to the same sets of states from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995) allow these results to be extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole. CDC’s survey data confirm previous high estimates of DGU prevalence, disconfirm estimates derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and indicate that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

Here we go again. Do you honestly think enough time has passed that we have forgotten Kleck? And you still haven't given the actual CDC site cite except for once with a "File Not Found" page. But let's take a good look at Kleck. We already covered this. Kleck is a fraud.

Contradictions of Kleck
In a 1992 survey, Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, found that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by “law-abiding” citizens in the United States. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated 65,000 DGUs annually. The NCVS survey differed from Kleck’s study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crimes: rape, robbery, assault, burglary, non-business larceny, and motor vehicle theft. That accounts for the discrepancy in the two results. A National Research Council report said that Kleck's estimates appeared to be exaggerated and that it was almost certain that "some of what respondents designate[d] as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others" (Understanding and Preventing Violence, 266, Albert J. Reiss, Jr. & Jeffrey A. Roth, eds., 1992).

The 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to Kleck’s survey, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape.

Kleck’s survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military of police uses. Kleck’s Interviewers do not appear to have questioned a random individual at a given telephone number, but rather asked to speak to the male head of the household. Males from the South and West were oversampled. The results imply that many hundreds of thousands of murders should have been occurring when a private gun was not available for protection. Yet guns are rarely carried, less than a third of adult Americans personally own guns, and only 27,000 homicides occurred in 1992.

(I removed the part where someone is using a poll to prove flying saucers exist using the same leading and loaded type questions)

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

“Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

“Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STUDIES CONCERNING DEFENSIVE GUN USES

DOJ study reported 83,000 annual defensive gun uses from 1987-1992. During same period, there were more than 135,000 total gun deaths and injuries in the U.S. annually.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

As for the notion that those using firearms to fend off attackers were more effective in avoiding injury than those using other weapons or no weapons, the DOJ study makes the following exclaimer: "Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to victims' injury outcomes."

What is also interesting is that the study notes that "In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms." Specifically, only 35% of those who used a firearm in self-defense actually faced an offender who had a gun. DOJ makes no judgments in this study on whether the level of force employed by these individuals was appropriate or consonant with the threat they faced. It may very well be that the presence of firearms in many of these incidents escalated what otherwise might have been non-violent (or non-fatal) encounters.

According to the DOJ study, gun owners also provided criminals with ample opportunities to arm themselves through firearm theft: "From 1987-1992 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents." It should also be noted that there is no federal law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and almost no state laws in this regard. There are undoubtedly thousands of stolen firearms that go entirely unreported every year.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

At least as many lives are lost due to having so many guns on the streets as are saved. No credible report has ever been presented saying what you claim. Stop making shit up.

Sorry, that isn't even close to being true...why do you keep pulling nonsense out of your ass and acting like it is a profound point....

The CDC found that Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....the anti gun CDC......you don't know what you are talking about.

And since 1993 there was a 49% drop in gun murder....that is more lives saved than taken with guns.....

You keep pulling that CDC report out your ass. Well, none of the rest of us have seen it. Well, outside of the one link you did provide that led to a "File Not Found" on the CDC site. The Federal Government, including Congress and the sitting President in 1992 ordered CDC out of that business. They were found extremely partisan and mostly basing their "Facts" on Lott who has proven to use some mighty funny math in his equations. In otherwords, they were pretty much NRA controlled at the time and the Government put a stop to it. Any facts and figures they produced were removed from their records as being tainted.

Now, how about stop making shit up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

These are sad pieces of work. After they get their butts handed to them,they'll wait a week, 2 weeks or a month and try and sneak it back in hoping no one will notice that it's almost all made up crap or voodoo mathematics. Let's see how long this time.

 

[2aguy]

At least as many lives are lost due to having so many guns on the streets as are saved. No credible report has ever been presented saying what you claim. Stop making shit up.

Sorry, that isn't even close to being true...why do you keep pulling nonsense out of your ass and acting like it is a profound point....

The CDC found that Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....the anti gun CDC......you don't know what you are talking about.

And since 1993 there was a 49% drop in gun murder....that is more lives saved than taken with guns.....

There you go again. Now, how about a direct cite to that elusive CDC report you keep touting. Not some site that claims to have seen it, but the real deal on the CDC site itself. So far, the closest thing you done ended up with a "File cannot be Found" page. Stop making shit up.

Moron, I gave you the link where Kleck does the work on their numbers....you pretend you haven't seen it because you are a dishonest asshat.

Here it is again, you moron......

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

Date Written: July 11, 2018

Abstract
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to seven states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Data pertaining to the same sets of states from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995) allow these results to be extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole. CDC’s survey data confirm previous high estimates of DGU prevalence, disconfirm estimates derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and indicate that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

Here we go again. Do you honestly think enough time has passed that we have forgotten Kleck? And you still haven't given the actual CDC site cite except for once with a "File Not Found" page. But let's take a good look at Kleck. We already covered this. Kleck is a fraud.

Contradictions of Kleck
In a 1992 survey, Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, found that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by “law-abiding” citizens in the United States. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated 65,000 DGUs annually. The NCVS survey differed from Kleck’s study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crimes: rape, robbery, assault, burglary, non-business larceny, and motor vehicle theft. That accounts for the discrepancy in the two results. A National Research Council report said that Kleck's estimates appeared to be exaggerated and that it was almost certain that "some of what respondents designate[d] as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others" (Understanding and Preventing Violence, 266, Albert J. Reiss, Jr. & Jeffrey A. Roth, eds., 1992).

The 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to Kleck’s survey, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape.

Kleck’s survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military of police uses. Kleck’s Interviewers do not appear to have questioned a random individual at a given telephone number, but rather asked to speak to the male head of the household. Males from the South and West were oversampled. The results imply that many hundreds of thousands of murders should have been occurring when a private gun was not available for protection. Yet guns are rarely carried, less than a third of adult Americans personally own guns, and only 27,000 homicides occurred in 1992.

(I removed the part where someone is using a poll to prove flying saucers exist using the same leading and loaded type questions)

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

“Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

“Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STUDIES CONCERNING DEFENSIVE GUN USES

DOJ study reported 83,000 annual defensive gun uses from 1987-1992. During same period, there were more than 135,000 total gun deaths and injuries in the U.S. annually.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

As for the notion that those using firearms to fend off attackers were more effective in avoiding injury than those using other weapons or no weapons, the DOJ study makes the following exclaimer: "Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to victims' injury outcomes."

What is also interesting is that the study notes that "In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms." Specifically, only 35% of those who used a firearm in self-defense actually faced an offender who had a gun. DOJ makes no judgments in this study on whether the level of force employed by these individuals was appropriate or consonant with the threat they faced. It may very well be that the presence of firearms in many of these incidents escalated what otherwise might have been non-violent (or non-fatal) encounters.

According to the DOJ study, gun owners also provided criminals with ample opportunities to arm themselves through firearm theft: "From 1987-1992 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents." It should also be noted that there is no federal law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and almost no state laws in this regard. There are undoubtedly thousands of stolen firearms that go entirely unreported every year.

Are you really this stupid....I gave you the link to Kleck's analysis of the actual CDC data that they hid since the 1990s......are you really this stupid?

Your link from about the National Crime Victimization Survey...fails to point out the most important thing..... The National Crime Victimization Survey is not a gun self defense study....


they never ask anyone about using a gun for self defense..

...the word gun is not mentioned in the NCVS at all, which is why it is the only survey where the defensive gun use is so low......it would be like asking people about which car they drive, having them tell you that they drove that car to the store to pick up orange juice and claiming that the survey was the ultimate study on Orange Juice consumption in the country....

You are an idiot..

The NCVS survey differed from Kleck’s study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crime

The NCVS did not ask a direct question about wether the victim used a gun to stop a violent crime.....not once.....Actual studies on Gun self defense actually ask...did you use a gun for self defense in the last year and then in the last 5 years.

 

[2aguy]

At least as many lives are lost due to having so many guns on the streets as are saved. No credible report has ever been presented saying what you claim. Stop making shit up.

Sorry, that isn't even close to being true...why do you keep pulling nonsense out of your ass and acting like it is a profound point....

The CDC found that Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....the anti gun CDC......you don't know what you are talking about.

And since 1993 there was a 49% drop in gun murder....that is more lives saved than taken with guns.....

There you go again. Now, how about a direct cite to that elusive CDC report you keep touting. Not some site that claims to have seen it, but the real deal on the CDC site itself. So far, the closest thing you done ended up with a "File cannot be Found" page. Stop making shit up.

Moron, I gave you the link where Kleck does the work on their numbers....you pretend you haven't seen it because you are a dishonest asshat.

Here it is again, you moron......

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

Date Written: July 11, 2018

Abstract
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to seven states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Data pertaining to the same sets of states from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995) allow these results to be extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole. CDC’s survey data confirm previous high estimates of DGU prevalence, disconfirm estimates derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and indicate that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

Here we go again. Do you honestly think enough time has passed that we have forgotten Kleck? And you still haven't given the actual CDC site cite except for once with a "File Not Found" page. But let's take a good look at Kleck. We already covered this. Kleck is a fraud.

Contradictions of Kleck
In a 1992 survey, Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, found that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by “law-abiding” citizens in the United States. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated 65,000 DGUs annually. The NCVS survey differed from Kleck’s study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crimes: rape, robbery, assault, burglary, non-business larceny, and motor vehicle theft. That accounts for the discrepancy in the two results. A National Research Council report said that Kleck's estimates appeared to be exaggerated and that it was almost certain that "some of what respondents designate[d] as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others" (Understanding and Preventing Violence, 266, Albert J. Reiss, Jr. & Jeffrey A. Roth, eds., 1992).

The 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to Kleck’s survey, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape.

Kleck’s survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military of police uses. Kleck’s Interviewers do not appear to have questioned a random individual at a given telephone number, but rather asked to speak to the male head of the household. Males from the South and West were oversampled. The results imply that many hundreds of thousands of murders should have been occurring when a private gun was not available for protection. Yet guns are rarely carried, less than a third of adult Americans personally own guns, and only 27,000 homicides occurred in 1992.

(I removed the part where someone is using a poll to prove flying saucers exist using the same leading and loaded type questions)

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

“Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

“Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STUDIES CONCERNING DEFENSIVE GUN USES

DOJ study reported 83,000 annual defensive gun uses from 1987-1992. During same period, there were more than 135,000 total gun deaths and injuries in the U.S. annually.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

As for the notion that those using firearms to fend off attackers were more effective in avoiding injury than those using other weapons or no weapons, the DOJ study makes the following exclaimer: "Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to victims' injury outcomes."

What is also interesting is that the study notes that "In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms." Specifically, only 35% of those who used a firearm in self-defense actually faced an offender who had a gun. DOJ makes no judgments in this study on whether the level of force employed by these individuals was appropriate or consonant with the threat they faced. It may very well be that the presence of firearms in many of these incidents escalated what otherwise might have been non-violent (or non-fatal) encounters.

According to the DOJ study, gun owners also provided criminals with ample opportunities to arm themselves through firearm theft: "From 1987-1992 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents." It should also be noted that there is no federal law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and almost no state laws in this regard. There are undoubtedly thousands of stolen firearms that go entirely unreported every year.

You are finally trying to look at gun research, which is why you are using Kellerman...someone whose research has actually been debunked....but who has been propped up by anti gun journalists because he has fake research....

Here...on Kellerman....you need to catch up....you are citing debunked research....

First one....

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4

Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use,

32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight,

and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home.

One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6

 

[2aguy]

At least as many lives are lost due to having so many guns on the streets as are saved. No credible report has ever been presented saying what you claim. Stop making shit up.

Sorry, that isn't even close to being true...why do you keep pulling nonsense out of your ass and acting like it is a profound point....

The CDC found that Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....the anti gun CDC......you don't know what you are talking about.

And since 1993 there was a 49% drop in gun murder....that is more lives saved than taken with guns.....

There you go again. Now, how about a direct cite to that elusive CDC report you keep touting. Not some site that claims to have seen it, but the real deal on the CDC site itself. So far, the closest thing you done ended up with a "File cannot be Found" page. Stop making shit up.

Moron, I gave you the link where Kleck does the work on their numbers....you pretend you haven't seen it because you are a dishonest asshat.

Here it is again, you moron......

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

Date Written: July 11, 2018

Abstract
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to seven states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Data pertaining to the same sets of states from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995) allow these results to be extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole. CDC’s survey data confirm previous high estimates of DGU prevalence, disconfirm estimates derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and indicate that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

Here we go again. Do you honestly think enough time has passed that we have forgotten Kleck? And you still haven't given the actual CDC site cite except for once with a "File Not Found" page. But let's take a good look at Kleck. We already covered this. Kleck is a fraud.

Contradictions of Kleck
In a 1992 survey, Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, found that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by “law-abiding” citizens in the United States. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated 65,000 DGUs annually. The NCVS survey differed from Kleck’s study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crimes: rape, robbery, assault, burglary, non-business larceny, and motor vehicle theft. That accounts for the discrepancy in the two results. A National Research Council report said that Kleck's estimates appeared to be exaggerated and that it was almost certain that "some of what respondents designate[d] as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others" (Understanding and Preventing Violence, 266, Albert J. Reiss, Jr. & Jeffrey A. Roth, eds., 1992).

The 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to Kleck’s survey, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape.

Kleck’s survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military of police uses. Kleck’s Interviewers do not appear to have questioned a random individual at a given telephone number, but rather asked to speak to the male head of the household. Males from the South and West were oversampled. The results imply that many hundreds of thousands of murders should have been occurring when a private gun was not available for protection. Yet guns are rarely carried, less than a third of adult Americans personally own guns, and only 27,000 homicides occurred in 1992.

(I removed the part where someone is using a poll to prove flying saucers exist using the same leading and loaded type questions)

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

“Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

“Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STUDIES CONCERNING DEFENSIVE GUN USES

DOJ study reported 83,000 annual defensive gun uses from 1987-1992. During same period, there were more than 135,000 total gun deaths and injuries in the U.S. annually.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

As for the notion that those using firearms to fend off attackers were more effective in avoiding injury than those using other weapons or no weapons, the DOJ study makes the following exclaimer: "Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to victims' injury outcomes."

What is also interesting is that the study notes that "In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms." Specifically, only 35% of those who used a firearm in self-defense actually faced an offender who had a gun. DOJ makes no judgments in this study on whether the level of force employed by these individuals was appropriate or consonant with the threat they faced. It may very well be that the presence of firearms in many of these incidents escalated what otherwise might have been non-violent (or non-fatal) encounters.

According to the DOJ study, gun owners also provided criminals with ample opportunities to arm themselves through firearm theft: "From 1987-1992 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents." It should also be noted that there is no federal law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and almost no state laws in this regard. There are undoubtedly thousands of stolen firearms that go entirely unreported every year.

Do you understand that kellerman had to change his number from 43 times more likely to be killed by your own gun to 2.7 times.....because his research was crap? I have the link to the paper where he changed the number.....and how he still used the flawed technique of using the worst population cases to make his case...

Here is the research he did to correct his previous research....and below that is a discussion of why he had to redo his flawed research......

NEJM - Error

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

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


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.

 

[2aguy]

At least as many lives are lost due to having so many guns on the streets as are saved. No credible report has ever been presented saying what you claim. Stop making shit up.

Sorry, that isn't even close to being true...why do you keep pulling nonsense out of your ass and acting like it is a profound point....

The CDC found that Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....the anti gun CDC......you don't know what you are talking about.

And since 1993 there was a 49% drop in gun murder....that is more lives saved than taken with guns.....

You keep pulling that CDC report out your ass. Well, none of the rest of us have seen it. Well, outside of the one link you did provide that led to a "File Not Found" on the CDC site. The Federal Government, including Congress and the sitting President in 1992 ordered CDC out of that business. They were found extremely partisan and mostly basing their "Facts" on Lott who has proven to use some mighty funny math in his equations. In otherwords, they were pretty much NRA controlled at the time and the Government put a stop to it. Any facts and figures they produced were removed from their records as being tainted.

Now, how about stop making shit up.

Moron...the CDC was not stopped from doing gun research, I have put the links to gun studies the CDC did after the 90s.....that is a lie spread by anti gunners.... You truly are an idiot....

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]

At least as many lives are lost due to having so many guns on the streets as are saved. No credible report has ever been presented saying what you claim. Stop making shit up.

Sorry, that isn't even close to being true...why do you keep pulling nonsense out of your ass and acting like it is a profound point....

The CDC found that Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....the anti gun CDC......you don't know what you are talking about.

And since 1993 there was a 49% drop in gun murder....that is more lives saved than taken with guns.....

You keep pulling that CDC report out your ass. Well, none of the rest of us have seen it. Well, outside of the one link you did provide that led to a "File Not Found" on the CDC site. The Federal Government, including Congress and the sitting President in 1992 ordered CDC out of that business. They were found extremely partisan and mostly basing their "Facts" on Lott who has proven to use some mighty funny math in his equations. In otherwords, they were pretty much NRA controlled at the time and the Government put a stop to it. Any facts and figures they produced were removed from their records as being tainted.

Now, how about stop making shit up.

Hey, genius......here is gun research conducted by the CDC after 1992.......you moron...

Obama CDC Study: Silencers Best Option for Noise Reduction at Gun Ranges - The Truth About Guns

The CDC looked at a number of different solutions to reduce the exposure to the hazardous noise levels in shooting ranges and arrived at the same solution as every other logical gun owner: silencers.
The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel. However, some states do not permit civilians to use suppressors on firearms.
Some gun control activists claim that noise on shooting ranges isn’t a health issue. The CDC says otherwise, and the report is right here in black and white. Are these luddites going to argue with science?


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

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C.

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.



They were here to examine gun violence.

This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------



The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.

“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”

Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.

 

[2aguy]

At least as many lives are lost due to having so many guns on the streets as are saved. No credible report has ever been presented saying what you claim. Stop making shit up.

Sorry, that isn't even close to being true...why do you keep pulling nonsense out of your ass and acting like it is a profound point....

The CDC found that Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....the anti gun CDC......you don't know what you are talking about.

And since 1993 there was a 49% drop in gun murder....that is more lives saved than taken with guns.....

There you go again. Now, how about a direct cite to that elusive CDC report you keep touting. Not some site that claims to have seen it, but the real deal on the CDC site itself. So far, the closest thing you done ended up with a "File cannot be Found" page. Stop making shit up.

Moron, I gave you the link where Kleck does the work on their numbers....you pretend you haven't seen it because you are a dishonest asshat.

Here it is again, you moron......

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

Date Written: July 11, 2018

Abstract
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to seven states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Data pertaining to the same sets of states from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995) allow these results to be extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole. CDC’s survey data confirm previous high estimates of DGU prevalence, disconfirm estimates derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and indicate that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

Here we go again. Do you honestly think enough time has passed that we have forgotten Kleck? And you still haven't given the actual CDC site cite except for once with a "File Not Found" page. But let's take a good look at Kleck. We already covered this. Kleck is a fraud.

Contradictions of Kleck
In a 1992 survey, Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, found that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by “law-abiding” citizens in the United States. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated 65,000 DGUs annually. The NCVS survey differed from Kleck’s study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crimes: rape, robbery, assault, burglary, non-business larceny, and motor vehicle theft. That accounts for the discrepancy in the two results. A National Research Council report said that Kleck's estimates appeared to be exaggerated and that it was almost certain that "some of what respondents designate[d] as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others" (Understanding and Preventing Violence, 266, Albert J. Reiss, Jr. & Jeffrey A. Roth, eds., 1992).

The 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to Kleck’s survey, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape.

Kleck’s survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military of police uses. Kleck’s Interviewers do not appear to have questioned a random individual at a given telephone number, but rather asked to speak to the male head of the household. Males from the South and West were oversampled. The results imply that many hundreds of thousands of murders should have been occurring when a private gun was not available for protection. Yet guns are rarely carried, less than a third of adult Americans personally own guns, and only 27,000 homicides occurred in 1992.

(I removed the part where someone is using a poll to prove flying saucers exist using the same leading and loaded type questions)

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

“Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

“Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STUDIES CONCERNING DEFENSIVE GUN USES

DOJ study reported 83,000 annual defensive gun uses from 1987-1992. During same period, there were more than 135,000 total gun deaths and injuries in the U.S. annually.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

As for the notion that those using firearms to fend off attackers were more effective in avoiding injury than those using other weapons or no weapons, the DOJ study makes the following exclaimer: "Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to victims' injury outcomes."

What is also interesting is that the study notes that "In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms." Specifically, only 35% of those who used a firearm in self-defense actually faced an offender who had a gun. DOJ makes no judgments in this study on whether the level of force employed by these individuals was appropriate or consonant with the threat they faced. It may very well be that the presence of firearms in many of these incidents escalated what otherwise might have been non-violent (or non-fatal) encounters.

According to the DOJ study, gun owners also provided criminals with ample opportunities to arm themselves through firearm theft: "From 1987-1992 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents." It should also be noted that there is no federal law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and almost no state laws in this regard. There are undoubtedly thousands of stolen firearms that go entirely unreported every year.

Notice....these are all actual gun self defense studies.....one by Kleck the rest by other researchers and groups.......the only study that puts the number of defensive gun uses at 83,000 is the National Crime Victimization Survey.....

because they never ask even one question about using a gun for self defense, Because the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a defensive gun use survey..............


they don't even have the word gun in their survey......which is why anti gunners like you keep citing it, because it is the only survey you have...

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... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( 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..

 

[tycho1572]

These cops were glad they got help from a responsible gun owner....
Cicero's top cop praises concealed gun holder who fired at suspect after officer shot

 

[2aguy]

These cops were glad they got help from a responsible gun owner....
Cicero's top cop praises concealed gun holder who fired at suspect after officer shot

I started a thread on this very story.....great story...

 

[tycho1572]

These cops were glad they got help from a responsible gun owner....
Cicero's top cop praises concealed gun holder who fired at suspect after officer shot

I started a thread on this very story.....great story...

After seeing numerous examples of people saving themselves and others from certain harm, I’ll never understand why many democrats still talk about abolishing the 2nd amendment.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

At least as many lives are lost due to having so many guns on the streets as are saved. No credible report has ever been presented saying what you claim. Stop making shit up.

Sorry, that isn't even close to being true...why do you keep pulling nonsense out of your ass and acting like it is a profound point....

The CDC found that Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....the anti gun CDC......you don't know what you are talking about.

And since 1993 there was a 49% drop in gun murder....that is more lives saved than taken with guns.....

There you go again. Now, how about a direct cite to that elusive CDC report you keep touting. Not some site that claims to have seen it, but the real deal on the CDC site itself. So far, the closest thing you done ended up with a "File cannot be Found" page. Stop making shit up.

Moron, I gave you the link where Kleck does the work on their numbers....you pretend you haven't seen it because you are a dishonest asshat.

Here it is again, you moron......

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

Date Written: July 11, 2018

Abstract
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to seven states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Data pertaining to the same sets of states from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995) allow these results to be extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole. CDC’s survey data confirm previous high estimates of DGU prevalence, disconfirm estimates derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and indicate that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

Here we go again. Do you honestly think enough time has passed that we have forgotten Kleck? And you still haven't given the actual CDC site cite except for once with a "File Not Found" page. But let's take a good look at Kleck. We already covered this. Kleck is a fraud.

Contradictions of Kleck
In a 1992 survey, Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, found that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by “law-abiding” citizens in the United States. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated 65,000 DGUs annually. The NCVS survey differed from Kleck’s study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crimes: rape, robbery, assault, burglary, non-business larceny, and motor vehicle theft. That accounts for the discrepancy in the two results. A National Research Council report said that Kleck's estimates appeared to be exaggerated and that it was almost certain that "some of what respondents designate[d] as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others" (Understanding and Preventing Violence, 266, Albert J. Reiss, Jr. & Jeffrey A. Roth, eds., 1992).

The 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to Kleck’s survey, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape.

Kleck’s survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military of police uses. Kleck’s Interviewers do not appear to have questioned a random individual at a given telephone number, but rather asked to speak to the male head of the household. Males from the South and West were oversampled. The results imply that many hundreds of thousands of murders should have been occurring when a private gun was not available for protection. Yet guns are rarely carried, less than a third of adult Americans personally own guns, and only 27,000 homicides occurred in 1992.

(I removed the part where someone is using a poll to prove flying saucers exist using the same leading and loaded type questions)

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

“Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

“Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STUDIES CONCERNING DEFENSIVE GUN USES

DOJ study reported 83,000 annual defensive gun uses from 1987-1992. During same period, there were more than 135,000 total gun deaths and injuries in the U.S. annually.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

As for the notion that those using firearms to fend off attackers were more effective in avoiding injury than those using other weapons or no weapons, the DOJ study makes the following exclaimer: "Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to victims' injury outcomes."

What is also interesting is that the study notes that "In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms." Specifically, only 35% of those who used a firearm in self-defense actually faced an offender who had a gun. DOJ makes no judgments in this study on whether the level of force employed by these individuals was appropriate or consonant with the threat they faced. It may very well be that the presence of firearms in many of these incidents escalated what otherwise might have been non-violent (or non-fatal) encounters.

According to the DOJ study, gun owners also provided criminals with ample opportunities to arm themselves through firearm theft: "From 1987-1992 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents." It should also be noted that there is no federal law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and almost no state laws in this regard. There are undoubtedly thousands of stolen firearms that go entirely unreported every year.

Are you really this stupid....I gave you the link to Kleck's analysis of the actual CDC data that they hid since the 1990s......are you really this stupid?

Your link from about the National Crime Victimization Survey...fails to point out the most important thing..... The National Crime Victimization Survey is not a gun self defense study....


they never ask anyone about using a gun for self defense..

...the word gun is not mentioned in the NCVS at all, which is why it is the only survey where the defensive gun use is so low......it would be like asking people about which car they drive, having them tell you that they drove that car to the store to pick up orange juice and claiming that the survey was the ultimate study on Orange Juice consumption in the country....

You are an idiot..

The NCVS survey differed from Kleck’s study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crime

The NCVS did not ask a direct question about wether the victim used a gun to stop a violent crime.....not once.....Actual studies on Gun self defense actually ask...did you use a gun for self defense in the last year and then in the last 5 years.

The self defense issue went down but the accidental shootings went up in the homes. Plus, most of the so called home defense shootings you bring up weren't necessary. Cocking or sliding the action and then saying, "I think you should leave" would have worked just as well in almost all cases. I have been on receiving end of an action being locked ready and trust me, there is NOTHING scarier. Unless that person is also armed with a gun, there is almost no reason to just start shooting.

Kleck took the data and included Military and Police along with Civilian as well. And his so called poll questions were squewed. Let's see if I can prove if there really is Flying UFO Saucers.

Question 1: Is it possible that there might be UFOs?
Question 2: Have you ever heard of someone else that claims to have seen an UFO
Question 3: Have you ever seen an UFO

Question 1 and 2 are counted as yes by a very large margin while question 3 is counted as no by a very large margin. Therefore, the conclusion is that more than 2 out of 3 people believe in UFOs. The way that Kleck performed his poll was asking those types of leading questions.

If you accept Kleck's output then the Victim is 4 times as likely to be armed with a firearm than the criminal trying to accost them. Cue in the theme from the Twilight Zone at this time

Kleck is a fake and his output data may have some semblance of actual data in the beginning but the way he presents it is that of a charlatan. I already showed that. You are just using bad data to make up more shit again.

You are just trying to bury these facts with tons of background noise. Here is your ass.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

These cops were glad they got help from a responsible gun owner....
Cicero's top cop praises concealed gun holder who fired at suspect after officer shot

I started a thread on this very story.....great story...

After seeing numerous examples of people saving themselves and others from certain harm, I’ll never understand why many democrats still talk about abolishing the 2nd amendment.

The average Democrat doesn't want to abolish the 2nd amendment. That's a BS story made by ultra right wing nutters. What most of us want is common sense gun regulations and slowly, they are being adopted throughout the United States State by State like they are supposed to. Not at the Federal Level.

 

[miketx]

At least as many lives are lost due to having so many guns on the streets as are saved. No credible report has ever been presented saying what you claim. Stop making shit up.

No liar, the only reason we have so much crime is liberals are all about catch and release. It's been in the news lately and will be again. Liberals are all about letting criminals out of prison early so they can commit more violent crime and scum libs can then cry for more gun control. Nearly all violent offenders are repeat offenders. Thank you and your kind for bringing this plague on us all.