Good guy with a gun saves woman being stabbed to death...

[Brain357]

From Marvin Wolfgang......on Kleck.....and his study..

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6873&context=jclc

Let me read the first and last paragraphs of the commentary that I originally made, titled A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed.

The first paragraph reads:

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of The Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe from the police. I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.

The last paragraph of my commentary reads as follows:

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.

Ah yes the one example. And even this example knows the survey was too small to be accurate:

The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by


Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small

numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe

are common criticism of all survey research, including theirs.

 

[2aguy]

From Marvin Wolfgang......on Kleck.....and his study..

Who is Marvin Wolfgang...

Marvin Wolfgang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6873&context=jclc

Let me read the first and last paragraphs of the commentary that I originally made, titled A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed.

The first paragraph reads:

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of The Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe from the police. I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.

The last paragraph of my commentary reads as follows:

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.

 

[Brain357]

And why the National Crime Victimization Survey is crap...

National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do.

But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........

Then why were you quoting it before? Oh it's only a good survey when the results are what you want.

 

[2aguy]

From Marvin Wolfgang......on Kleck.....and his study..

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6873&context=jclc

Let me read the first and last paragraphs of the commentary that I originally made, titled A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed.

The first paragraph reads:

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of The Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe from the police. I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.

The last paragraph of my commentary reads as follows:

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.

Ah yes the one example. And even this example knows the survey was too small to be accurate:

The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by


Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small

numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe

are common criticism of all survey research, including theirs.

You are a twit brain.......Kleck isn't the only study, one of about 18, and his is the most accurate in it's techniques....but because of that you must deny it.....otherwise your fake world collapses.....

 

[Brain357]

From Marvin Wolfgang......on Kleck.....and his study..

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6873&context=jclc

Let me read the first and last paragraphs of the commentary that I originally made, titled A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed.

The first paragraph reads:

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of The Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe from the police. I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.

The last paragraph of my commentary reads as follows:

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.

Ah yes the one example. And even this example knows the survey was too small to be accurate:

The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by


Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small

numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe

are common criticism of all survey research, including theirs.

You are a twit brain.......Kleck isn't the only study, one of about 18, and his is the most accurate in it's techniques....but because of that you must deny it.....otherwise your fake world collapses.....

Fake world? In the real world it is very rare to know somebody with a lawful dgu. Even you who searches the internet constantly can only find a couple a week. Sorry but you are the one living in fantasy land.

 

[2aguy]

And why the National Crime Victimization Survey is crap...

National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do.

But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........

Then why were you quoting it before? Oh it's only a good survey when the results are what you want.

You are such a child brain....you cite research that doesn't study gun self defense, and claim it is the best work on the subject, you cite the same research that under reports the topics it is supposed to study.....

And so actual research by actual researchers, both government and private, over a 40 year period who actually study the topic of guns and self defense are wrong....but the only study that has a low number....by not being a study that researches gun self defense is the most accurate....

To be a child like you brain must be wonderful....a life full of pixie dust and unicorns.....

 

[Brain357]

And why the National Crime Victimization Survey is crap...

National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.

How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....

But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:

So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...

There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)

NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do.

But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).

NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........

Then why were you quoting it before? Oh it's only a good survey when the results are what you want.

You are such a child brain....you cite research that doesn't study gun self defense, and claim it is the best work on the subject, you cite the same research that under reports the topics it is supposed to study.....

And so actual research by actual researchers, both government and private, over a 40 year period who actually study the topic of guns and self defense are wrong....but the only study that has a low number....by not being a study that researches gun self defense is the most accurate....

To be a child like you brain must be wonderful....a life full of pixie dust and unicorns.....

And again you were just quoting it when the numbers supported you. It is the only survey of any significant size. In your little fantasy land a survey of 5,000 with only 50 positives can be extrapolated accurately out to millions of defenses a year. Like Wolfgang says, the sample is too small to be accurate.

 

[Dragonlady]

Here is a funny (kinda funny) anectodal DGU story

A buddy of mine has rental properties on a not so good side of town. He went to start an eviction and got into a verbal altercation with a couple of men who werent supposd to be living at this property.

Conversation turned into argument turned into heated argument. My friend ended up showing his gun in his shoulder holster.

One of the guys he was arguing with went back into the house and returned with an AR15. Game set match.

Who was actually using their gun for a DGU? My friend who felt threatened or the tenant who was threatened? Or neither? they were actually just trying to intimidate each other.

the AR won.

Most defenses aren't lawful.

And that is a lie brain. No research shows that to be even remotely true....yet you keep saying it....

Yeah, there is a study that shows that most people who claim to use a gun for self-defense, are actually criminally aggressive in their use of that gun. In this study, judges reviewed the stories of people who claimed to have used guns in self defense. They did not have any testimony of the other participants in the altercation, only the words of the gun owners. The judges found that in the vast majority of these cases - in excess of 75%, the gun owner behaved criminally in their use of a gun.

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

There is another Harvard study which completely debunks the NRA talking points.

New Harvard research debunks the NRA's favorite talking points

There are all kinds of studies that show having a gun in the house increases the risk to family members, especially women and children. Most people are at far greater risk of being shot by a family member, than they are from criminals. Then there are the number of gun suicides.

 

[Brain357]

Results—Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly.

INJURYPREV : Injury Prevention

A survey study as your proof?

Yeah......

Why would you think they are? There are many in jail who thought they were lawfully defending themselves.

really? How often is self defense used as a defense and proved wrong?

You failed to answer my question. What would make you believe they are? I have provided a study, you have nothing.

I have also provided 40 years of research........that trumps one anti gun study you post...

I love how you exaggerate and call it 40 years of research. You have many small and often poorly done surveys, many that weren't even national. The largest was only 5,000 people with 50 positives and has been debunked many times over. Everyone knows how inaccurate surveys can be. This is why your "research" can't decide if it is 500k or 3.5 million, they are not accurate. And your newest surveys are over 20 years old when crime was much higher.

 

[martybegan]

Actually I don;t own one yet, however I refuse to give up my right to own one without a lot of bullshit (which is the case in NYC, 6 month wait and $1000 just to get a freaking revolver for home use).

Are you not afraid to go out and about without a gun? You know there is a lot of crime out there.

1.5 millions defensive guns uses a year is a lot of defensive uses. You better get a gun before its to late.

I go out without one, however I refuse to accept that the government can ignore any amendment in the name of safety or anything else.

 

[Wilbur Right]

I go out without one, however I refuse to accept that the government can ignore any amendment in the name of safety or anything else.

I have and have had guns for many years. I never go out with one. I could get pissed off and shoot someone. So I dont take the chance.
to keep myself from getting shot, I tend to rely on what they call situational awareness.
And what amendment is it that you think is being ignored? If you cant get a gun, and live in NYC, I do believe your problem lies with your city government. Or maybe state? But not Federal. Move out of NYC and you can fill entire gun safes up with guns and you can go packing with 2, 3, or even more different guns. With a CCW permit you are not limited to carrying just one gun. Its like gunner heaven west of the Hudson. And yes I lived in NY just north of the city and there is land west of the Hudson River before you get to CA. New Yorkers are always so surprised to find that out.

 

[martybegan]

I go out without one, however I refuse to accept that the government can ignore any amendment in the name of safety or anything else.

I have and have had guns for many years. I never go out with one. I could get pissed off and shoot someone. So I dont take the chance.
to keep myself from getting shot, I tend to rely on what they call situational awareness.
And what amendment is it that you think is being ignored? If you cant get a gun, and live in NYC, I do believe your problem lies with your city government. Or maybe state? But not Federal. Move out of NYC and you can fill entire gun safes up with guns and you can go packing with 2, 3, or even more different guns. With a CCW permit you are not limited to carrying just one gun. Its like gunner heaven west of the Hudson. And yes I lived in NY just north of the city and there is land west of the Hudson River before you get to CA. New Yorkers are always so surprised to find that out.

I don't want to fill entire gun safes with guns, I want a lousy revolver for home use, or more accurately, I want to be able to get one when i choose to, not wait 6 months and pay $1000 for the "privilege" of having one.

I know its a local government issue, but the local government is trampling one of my federal rights, and has been doing so with the blessing of local courts for decades.

And I can't move, I have family commitments, nor should I have to move to exercise a Right.

 

[Wilbur Right]

s, I want a lousy revolver for home use, or more accurately, I want to be able to get one when i choose to, not wait 6 months and pay $1000 for the "privilege" of having one.

You ever hear the old saying that Freedom Aint Free? Implying that there is a cost to be born for the freedoms you hold so dear.

In your city the cost of being free to own a gun is 1000 dollars and 6 months wait.

Whats the problem? Freedom aint free.

 

[Brain357]

A survey study as your proof?

Yeah......

Why would you think they are? There are many in jail who thought they were lawfully defending themselves.

really? How often is self defense used as a defense and proved wrong?

You failed to answer my question. What would make you believe they are? I have provided a study, you have nothing.

I have also provided 40 years of research........that trumps one anti gun study you post...

I love how you exaggerate and call it 40 years of research. You have many small and often poorly done surveys, many that weren't even national. The largest was only 5,000 people with 50 positives and has been debunked many times over. Everyone knows how inaccurate surveys can be. This is why your "research" can't decide if it is 500k or 3.5 million, they are not accurate. And your newest surveys are over 20 years old when crime was much higher.

And how do several independant surveys done starting in 76 with the most recent one done in 94 equal 40 years of research? There has not been 40 years of ongoing research. Stop lying.

 

[martybegan]

s, I want a lousy revolver for home use, or more accurately, I want to be able to get one when i choose to, not wait 6 months and pay $1000 for the "privilege" of having one.

You ever hear the old saying that Freedom Aint Free? Implying that there is a cost to be born for the freedoms you hold so dear.

In your city the cost of being free to own a gun is 1000 dollars and 6 months wait.

Whats the problem? Freedom aint free.

That whole concept is quite frankly, bullshit. The whole idea of the 2nd amendment is that government can't say who can be armed and who can't be without due process, i.e. you are convicted of something and lose that right along with several others.

The whole reason most gun owners don't trust gun control people is EXACTLY what is going on in NYC, which they know the gun grabbers would impose on everyone if they had the choice.

 

[Wilbur Right]

That whole concept is quite frankly, bullshit.

If you say so.
I got to tell you though. If I was as concerned about not having a gun as you are, I would have already and long ago traveled out of state and bought a gun and taken it back home.

If you have to shoot someone, well as the gunners state; would you rather be judged by 12 or carried by 6?

Why havent you done that? Or have you and just cant say?

Just dont let a kid get hold of the gun and shoot themselves or someone else. You would have really big problems then.

Freedom to have guns isnt free and it doesnt say it is free in the COtUS. You still have to buy the gun. SO hows that FREE gun ownership?

 

[martybegan]

That whole concept is quite frankly, bullshit.

If you say so.
I got to tell you though. If I was as concerned about not having a gun as you are, I would have already and long ago traveled out of state and bought a gun and taken it back home.

If you have to shoot someone, well as the gunners state; would you rather be judged by 12 or carried by 6?

Why havent you done that? Or have you and just cant say?

Just dont let a kid get hold of the gun and shoot themselves or someone else. You would have really big problems then.

Freedom to have guns isnt free and it doesnt say it is free in the COtUS. You still have to buy the gun. SO hows that FREE gun ownership?

I believe in the rule of law. I shouldn't have to break one to exercise my rights. Also I am not at the point where I feel the need to break said law to protect myself. My point is I shouldn't have to go through all this crap just to get a revolver for my own house.

The funny thing is that my case proves everything gun rights activists say about oppressive gun laws, that they only stop the law abiding from owning guns. I could go out right now and find someone who could get me a handgun for around $200 illegally, and unless I got really unlucky, the police would never know. Yet they set up their laws to make it as inconvenient as possible for me to get one legally, soley to discourage me from going through the motions to get one.

 

[Brain357]

That whole concept is quite frankly, bullshit.

If you say so.
I got to tell you though. If I was as concerned about not having a gun as you are, I would have already and long ago traveled out of state and bought a gun and taken it back home.

If you have to shoot someone, well as the gunners state; would you rather be judged by 12 or carried by 6?

Why havent you done that? Or have you and just cant say?

Just dont let a kid get hold of the gun and shoot themselves or someone else. You would have really big problems then.

Freedom to have guns isnt free and it doesnt say it is free in the COtUS. You still have to buy the gun. SO hows that FREE gun ownership?

I believe in the rule of law. I shouldn't have to break one to exercise my rights. Also I am not at the point where I feel the need to break said law to protect myself. My point is I shouldn't have to go through all this crap just to get a revolver for my own house.

The funny thing is that my case proves everything gun rights activists say about oppressive gun laws, that they only stop the law abiding from owning guns. I could go out right now and find someone who could get me a handgun for around $200 illegally, and unless I got really unlucky, the police would never know. Yet they set up their laws to make it as inconvenient as possible for me to get one legally, soley to discourage me from going through the motions to get one.

It also proves most people don't need one.

 

[martybegan]

That whole concept is quite frankly, bullshit.

If you say so.
I got to tell you though. If I was as concerned about not having a gun as you are, I would have already and long ago traveled out of state and bought a gun and taken it back home.

If you have to shoot someone, well as the gunners state; would you rather be judged by 12 or carried by 6?

Why havent you done that? Or have you and just cant say?

Just dont let a kid get hold of the gun and shoot themselves or someone else. You would have really big problems then.

Freedom to have guns isnt free and it doesnt say it is free in the COtUS. You still have to buy the gun. SO hows that FREE gun ownership?

I believe in the rule of law. I shouldn't have to break one to exercise my rights. Also I am not at the point where I feel the need to break said law to protect myself. My point is I shouldn't have to go through all this crap just to get a revolver for my own house.

The funny thing is that my case proves everything gun rights activists say about oppressive gun laws, that they only stop the law abiding from owning guns. I could go out right now and find someone who could get me a handgun for around $200 illegally, and unless I got really unlucky, the police would never know. Yet they set up their laws to make it as inconvenient as possible for me to get one legally, soley to discourage me from going through the motions to get one.

It also proves most people don't need one.

That is not up to you, or government to decide (unless I have been convicted of a felony or adjudicated for mental defect).

 

[Brain357]

That whole concept is quite frankly, bullshit.

If you say so.
I got to tell you though. If I was as concerned about not having a gun as you are, I would have already and long ago traveled out of state and bought a gun and taken it back home.

If you have to shoot someone, well as the gunners state; would you rather be judged by 12 or carried by 6?

Why havent you done that? Or have you and just cant say?

Just dont let a kid get hold of the gun and shoot themselves or someone else. You would have really big problems then.

Freedom to have guns isnt free and it doesnt say it is free in the COtUS. You still have to buy the gun. SO hows that FREE gun ownership?

I believe in the rule of law. I shouldn't have to break one to exercise my rights. Also I am not at the point where I feel the need to break said law to protect myself. My point is I shouldn't have to go through all this crap just to get a revolver for my own house.

The funny thing is that my case proves everything gun rights activists say about oppressive gun laws, that they only stop the law abiding from owning guns. I could go out right now and find someone who could get me a handgun for around $200 illegally, and unless I got really unlucky, the police would never know. Yet they set up their laws to make it as inconvenient as possible for me to get one legally, soley to discourage me from going through the motions to get one.

It also proves most people don't need one.

That is not up to you, or government to decide (unless I have been convicted of a felony or adjudicated for mental defect).

You have said that you haven't needed one. Maybe you want one, but you have not yet had a need. Which is strange given the wild claims of 2a guy. You should probably be dead for not having one according to him.