Mass shooters target gun-free zones

[2aguy]

You can post all the pictures that you want so that you can stuff your fingers in your ears and ignore the truth.

There have been many studies on the subject and the CDC has taken them as a whole to estimate the number of defensive uses with guns a year. That number is somewhere between .5 and 1.5 million. So his number is larger - the fact that there is around a million defensive uses a year is just as damning to most gun control arguments. The hard data on homicide rates vs gun control law seals the deal - such laws do not have any effect at all.

These are real studies and no one without a preconceived notion is going to reject them because you post a nonsensical picture here. You seem to forget what 300 million as the population we are talking about really means. Even at 2 million, that means less than 1. Do you know a 100 people well enough that you are sure they would have told you if they used a gun in self defense for sure? No, you don't.

I do know someone that has used a weapon in self defense before. He, as the vast majority as well, did not have to fire it. These are stories that are never heard and therefore you assume, incorrectly, that they do not exist.

Please link where the CDC ever made this estimate.

Ncvs estimates about 108k.

the NCVS never studied gun self defense so they can't make an estimate...nice lie though....

They do estimate DGUs as you know. You need a crime for a lawful dgu.

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

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

For the purpose of estimating DGUs, the advantages of this study design are
1) the study is publicly funded;
2) the study is done by a government agency with extensive experience in conducting representative national surveys;
3) the large representative sample size;
4) the “representativeness” of the sample is maintained by making personal contact with households that do not respond to telephone contact;
4) the reliability of the responses is maintained by repeating interviews with the households every six months;
5) because interviews are conducted every 6 months, episodes of “telescoping*” can be identified and controlled;
6) a DGU is only counted in the setting of a criminal attack.
*"Telescoping" is the term given by researchers to a phenomenon whereby survey respondents mistakenly recall and include events that are outside of the period of time under investigation.

It can be publicly funded, have the largest sample size and reinterview all day long....it isn't a defensive gun use study....

Like doing a study on cars, and then getting a response of someone going to Mcdonalds and claiming your car survey is the definitive study on fast food in the country....

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

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

 

[Brain357]

They do estimate DGUs as you know. You need a crime for a lawful dgu.

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

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

From the guy who uses surveys he can't prove exist and aren't even national....

Fuck you brain....lie again of course.

Give the details of you la times survey then.

Email Dr. Gary Kleck, he has all the information on all of the research he has done.....

So you don't have any details. I can see why you value the results so much....

 

[2aguy]

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

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

From the guy who uses surveys he can't prove exist and aren't even national....

Fuck you brain....lie again of course.

Give the details of you la times survey then.

Email Dr. Gary Kleck, he has all the information on all of the research he has done.....

So you don't have any details. I can see why you value the results so much....

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

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. http://www.springerlink.com/content/rngn3274255v6j67/


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[Brain357]

Please link where the CDC ever made this estimate.

Ncvs estimates about 108k.

the NCVS never studied gun self defense so they can't make an estimate...nice lie though....

They do estimate DGUs as you know. You need a crime for a lawful dgu.

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

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

For the purpose of estimating DGUs, the advantages of this study design are
1) the study is publicly funded;
2) the study is done by a government agency with extensive experience in conducting representative national surveys;
3) the large representative sample size;
4) the “representativeness” of the sample is maintained by making personal contact with households that do not respond to telephone contact;
4) the reliability of the responses is maintained by repeating interviews with the households every six months;
5) because interviews are conducted every 6 months, episodes of “telescoping*” can be identified and controlled;
6) a DGU is only counted in the setting of a criminal attack.
*"Telescoping" is the term given by researchers to a phenomenon whereby survey respondents mistakenly recall and include events that are outside of the period of time under investigation.

It can be publicly funded, have the largest sample size and reinterview all day long....it isn't a defensive gun use study....

Like doing a study on cars, and then getting a response of someone going to Mcdonalds and claiming your car survey is the definitive study on fast food in the country....

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

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

It asks:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”

So yes it would get REAL DGUs.

 

[MaryL]

I am looking at the history of the Texas University Tower shooter, Chas. Whitman. No gun laws then or NOW would have kept firearms out of his hands. He developed a brain tumor that affected his behavior that lead to him using a gun to murder his wife, mom, and go on to use a scoped hunting rifle to snipe on 32 people 14 of which he killed. And we are getting used to mass murders by gunners, which are preventable by banning guns period. These skells get guns because we can't prevent them, and good gun owners aren't doing jack shit to protect the public, they just protect their rights. And so it goes.

 

[candycorn]

I'll put it this way.

When you turned on the Super Bowl this year, you saw about 80,000 people in the stadium. Take that stadium and imagine 12 other stadiums that are filled too; same size. That will be 960,000 people.

Now take those 13 stadiums and DOUBLE IT.


When you do that; you STILL WOULD NOT imagine enough people to fulfill the claim of 2aguy that over 2,000,000 people stopped violent crime last year (and every year before that in recent memory) using guns.

Here is yet another way to put it:

Giant's Stadium: holds about 80,000 folks. Here is a visual of how many people I referenced above....(sort of)

(removed for brevity)

Forum rules will only allow me to publish 15 pictures....80,000 x 15 is 1.2 million folks. Still 800,000 short of the AVERAGE number 2aguy says used guns to stop a violent crime last year alone

This doesn't account for all of the previous years.

Nor does it account for the inherent lie that if the crime was prevented; how does one know if it were going to be a violent crime???

Anyway, it would take 25 Giants Stadiums to seat everyone who used a gun last year to stop a crime according to that moron. Didn't happen. Didn't happen in any of our lifetimes.

You can post all the pictures that you want so that you can stuff your fingers in your ears and ignore the truth.

There have been many studies on the subject and the CDC has taken them as a whole to estimate the number of defensive uses with guns a year. That number is somewhere between .5 and 1.5 million. So his number is larger - the fact that there is around a million defensive uses a year is just as damning to most gun control arguments. The hard data on homicide rates vs gun control law seals the deal - such laws do not have any effect at all.

These are real studies and no one without a preconceived notion is going to reject them because you post a nonsensical picture here. You seem to forget what 300 million as the population we are talking about really means. Even at 2 million, that means less than 1. Do you know a 100 people well enough that you are sure they would have told you if they used a gun in self defense for sure? No, you don't.

I do know someone that has used a weapon in self defense before. He, as the vast majority as well, did not have to fire it. These are stories that are never heard and therefore you assume, incorrectly, that they do not exist.

Well, there is one; only 1,999,999 to go. LOL.

Remember folks, for the stat that "over" 2,000,000 times a year Americans use guns to prevent violent crime to be true, you'd have to get enough people to fill up Giants Stadium 25 times....for every year this fradulent stat is being floated.

Back when they were trying to claim that MLK was a republican, they just sounded stupid. Now that they are asking you to believe it, they are assuming YOU are stupid as well.

 

[FA_Q2]

You can post all the pictures that you want so that you can stuff your fingers in your ears and ignore the truth.

There have been many studies on the subject and the CDC has taken them as a whole to estimate the number of defensive uses with guns a year. That number is somewhere between .5 and 1.5 million. So his number is larger - the fact that there is around a million defensive uses a year is just as damning to most gun control arguments. The hard data on homicide rates vs gun control law seals the deal - such laws do not have any effect at all.

These are real studies and no one without a preconceived notion is going to reject them because you post a nonsensical picture here. You seem to forget what 300 million as the population we are talking about really means. Even at 2 million, that means less than 1. Do you know a 100 people well enough that you are sure they would have told you if they used a gun in self defense for sure? No, you don't.

I do know someone that has used a weapon in self defense before. He, as the vast majority as well, did not have to fire it. These are stories that are never heard and therefore you assume, incorrectly, that they do not exist.

Please link where the CDC ever made this estimate.

Ncvs estimates about 108k.

the NCVS never studied gun self defense so they can't make an estimate...nice lie though....

They do estimate DGUs as you know. You need a crime for a lawful dgu.

No they don't...they never ask about guns and they don't use the word gun in their survey.....the National Crime Victimization survey is known for not even measuring the crimes it is supposed to be researching accurately.

They confirm a crime, then ask what happened. That would obviously include a gun defense.

And would only encompass a very small amount of DGU incidents as there is usually no report and no crime that occur. That is the point of a DGU - it STOPS the crime from occurring.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'll put it this way.

When you turned on the Super Bowl this year, you saw about 80,000 people in the stadium. Take that stadium and imagine 12 other stadiums that are filled too; same size. That will be 960,000 people.

Now take those 13 stadiums and DOUBLE IT.


When you do that; you STILL WOULD NOT imagine enough people to fulfill the claim of 2aguy that over 2,000,000 people stopped violent crime last year (and every year before that in recent memory) using guns.

Here is yet another way to put it:

Giant's Stadium: holds about 80,000 folks. Here is a visual of how many people I referenced above....(sort of)

(removed for brevity)

Forum rules will only allow me to publish 15 pictures....80,000 x 15 is 1.2 million folks. Still 800,000 short of the AVERAGE number 2aguy says used guns to stop a violent crime last year alone

This doesn't account for all of the previous years.

Nor does it account for the inherent lie that if the crime was prevented; how does one know if it were going to be a violent crime???

Anyway, it would take 25 Giants Stadiums to seat everyone who used a gun last year to stop a crime according to that moron. Didn't happen. Didn't happen in any of our lifetimes.

You can post all the pictures that you want so that you can stuff your fingers in your ears and ignore the truth.

There have been many studies on the subject and the CDC has taken them as a whole to estimate the number of defensive uses with guns a year. That number is somewhere between .5 and 1.5 million. So his number is larger - the fact that there is around a million defensive uses a year is just as damning to most gun control arguments. The hard data on homicide rates vs gun control law seals the deal - such laws do not have any effect at all.

These are real studies and no one without a preconceived notion is going to reject them because you post a nonsensical picture here. You seem to forget what 300 million as the population we are talking about really means. Even at 2 million, that means less than 1. Do you know a 100 people well enough that you are sure they would have told you if they used a gun in self defense for sure? No, you don't.

I do know someone that has used a weapon in self defense before. He, as the vast majority as well, did not have to fire it. These are stories that are never heard and therefore you assume, incorrectly, that they do not exist.

Please link where the CDC ever made this estimate.

Ncvs estimates about 108k.

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/2#10

Interesting and relevant points:
"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004)."

Having and using a weapon DECREASES the likelihood of an injury. Something that is consistently ignored with asinine statements about bullets flying everywhere.

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."

In the aggregate, there is somewhere between .5 and 1.5 million DGU. The CDC essentially rejects the obvious outliers, 108K and 3 million.

All over the report there is one thing repeated over and over again: more studies are needed to investigate gun and violent crime. If you and others were arguing that studies needed to be expanded to find solutions you would get a whole hearted agreement from me (and congress seems to be actively blocking this) but that is not what is being called for. To me this represents a very clear message: they don't care one whit about actual results o the data - the conclusion is already been reached. The second amendment needs to be ignored.

An honest look at the data shows that gun control is almost universally pointless.

 

[2aguy]

the NCVS never studied gun self defense so they can't make an estimate...nice lie though....

They do estimate DGUs as you know. You need a crime for a lawful dgu.

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

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

For the purpose of estimating DGUs, the advantages of this study design are
1) the study is publicly funded;
2) the study is done by a government agency with extensive experience in conducting representative national surveys;
3) the large representative sample size;
4) the “representativeness” of the sample is maintained by making personal contact with households that do not respond to telephone contact;
4) the reliability of the responses is maintained by repeating interviews with the households every six months;
5) because interviews are conducted every 6 months, episodes of “telescoping*” can be identified and controlled;
6) a DGU is only counted in the setting of a criminal attack.
*"Telescoping" is the term given by researchers to a phenomenon whereby survey respondents mistakenly recall and include events that are outside of the period of time under investigation.

It can be publicly funded, have the largest sample size and reinterview all day long....it isn't a defensive gun use study....

Like doing a study on cars, and then getting a response of someone going to Mcdonalds and claiming your car survey is the definitive study on fast food in the country....

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

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

It asks:
“Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?”

So yes it would get REAL DGUs.

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employee

 

[Vandalshandle]

I take an aspirin every day, because it wards off embolisms and heart attacks. A side benefit is that in the last 30 years, it has prevented 10,950 migraine headaches!

 

[Brain357]

Please link where the CDC ever made this estimate.

Ncvs estimates about 108k.

the NCVS never studied gun self defense so they can't make an estimate...nice lie though....

They do estimate DGUs as you know. You need a crime for a lawful dgu.

No they don't...they never ask about guns and they don't use the word gun in their survey.....the National Crime Victimization survey is known for not even measuring the crimes it is supposed to be researching accurately.

They confirm a crime, then ask what happened. That would obviously include a gun defense.

And would only encompass a very small amount of DGU incidents as there is usually no report and no crime that occur. That is the point of a DGU - it STOPS the crime from occurring.

It includes attempted crimes.

 

[2aguy]

the NCVS never studied gun self defense so they can't make an estimate...nice lie though....

They do estimate DGUs as you know. You need a crime for a lawful dgu.

No they don't...they never ask about guns and they don't use the word gun in their survey.....the National Crime Victimization survey is known for not even measuring the crimes it is supposed to be researching accurately.

They confirm a crime, then ask what happened. That would obviously include a gun defense.

And would only encompass a very small amount of DGU incidents as there is usually no report and no crime that occur. That is the point of a DGU - it STOPS the crime from occurring.

It includes attempted crimes.

Wrong...if the crime is stopped, there is no reason to report it to the police...and if there will be a hassle, most people won't report something that never got past the displaying of the pistol.....

 

[Brain357]

I'll put it this way.

When you turned on the Super Bowl this year, you saw about 80,000 people in the stadium. Take that stadium and imagine 12 other stadiums that are filled too; same size. That will be 960,000 people.

Now take those 13 stadiums and DOUBLE IT.


When you do that; you STILL WOULD NOT imagine enough people to fulfill the claim of 2aguy that over 2,000,000 people stopped violent crime last year (and every year before that in recent memory) using guns.

Here is yet another way to put it:

Giant's Stadium: holds about 80,000 folks. Here is a visual of how many people I referenced above....(sort of)

(removed for brevity)

Forum rules will only allow me to publish 15 pictures....80,000 x 15 is 1.2 million folks. Still 800,000 short of the AVERAGE number 2aguy says used guns to stop a violent crime last year alone

This doesn't account for all of the previous years.

Nor does it account for the inherent lie that if the crime was prevented; how does one know if it were going to be a violent crime???

Anyway, it would take 25 Giants Stadiums to seat everyone who used a gun last year to stop a crime according to that moron. Didn't happen. Didn't happen in any of our lifetimes.

You can post all the pictures that you want so that you can stuff your fingers in your ears and ignore the truth.

There have been many studies on the subject and the CDC has taken them as a whole to estimate the number of defensive uses with guns a year. That number is somewhere between .5 and 1.5 million. So his number is larger - the fact that there is around a million defensive uses a year is just as damning to most gun control arguments. The hard data on homicide rates vs gun control law seals the deal - such laws do not have any effect at all.

These are real studies and no one without a preconceived notion is going to reject them because you post a nonsensical picture here. You seem to forget what 300 million as the population we are talking about really means. Even at 2 million, that means less than 1. Do you know a 100 people well enough that you are sure they would have told you if they used a gun in self defense for sure? No, you don't.

I do know someone that has used a weapon in self defense before. He, as the vast majority as well, did not have to fire it. These are stories that are never heard and therefore you assume, incorrectly, that they do not exist.

Please link where the CDC ever made this estimate.

Ncvs estimates about 108k.

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/2#10

Interesting and relevant points:
"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004)."

Having and using a weapon DECREASES the likelihood of an injury. Something that is consistently ignored with asinine statements about bullets flying everywhere.

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."

In the aggregate, there is somewhere between .5 and 1.5 million DGU. The CDC essentially rejects the obvious outliers, 108K and 3 million.

All over the report there is one thing repeated over and over again: more studies are needed to investigate gun and violent crime. If you and others were arguing that studies needed to be expanded to find solutions you would get a whole hearted agreement from me (and congress seems to be actively blocking this) but that is not what is being called for. To me this represents a very clear message: they don't care one whit about actual results o the data - the conclusion is already been reached. The second amendment needs to be ignored.

An honest look at the data shows that gun control is almost universally pointless.

So they didn't really do a study. Just looked at previous studies and threw out the low and high and said maybe it's in this broad range.

 

[Brain357]

They do estimate DGUs as you know. You need a crime for a lawful dgu.

No they don't...they never ask about guns and they don't use the word gun in their survey.....the National Crime Victimization survey is known for not even measuring the crimes it is supposed to be researching accurately.

They confirm a crime, then ask what happened. That would obviously include a gun defense.

And would only encompass a very small amount of DGU incidents as there is usually no report and no crime that occur. That is the point of a DGU - it STOPS the crime from occurring.

It includes attempted crimes.

Wrong...if the crime is stopped, there is no reason to report it to the police...and if there will be a hassle, most people won't report something that never got past the displaying of the pistol.....

The NCVS study includes attempted crime, you are wrong again. But you do clearly show why guns don't lower crime. The criminal is free to go committ another crime.

 

[2aguy]

No they don't...they never ask about guns and they don't use the word gun in their survey.....the National Crime Victimization survey is known for not even measuring the crimes it is supposed to be researching accurately.

They confirm a crime, then ask what happened. That would obviously include a gun defense.

And would only encompass a very small amount of DGU incidents as there is usually no report and no crime that occur. That is the point of a DGU - it STOPS the crime from occurring.

It includes attempted crimes.

Wrong...if the crime is stopped, there is no reason to report it to the police...and if there will be a hassle, most people won't report something that never got past the displaying of the pistol.....

The NCVS study includes attempted crime, you are wrong again. But you do clearly show why guns don't lower crime. The criminal is free to go committ another crime.

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

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

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


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[2aguy]

No they don't...they never ask about guns and they don't use the word gun in their survey.....the National Crime Victimization survey is known for not even measuring the crimes it is supposed to be researching accurately.

They confirm a crime, then ask what happened. That would obviously include a gun defense.

And would only encompass a very small amount of DGU incidents as there is usually no report and no crime that occur. That is the point of a DGU - it STOPS the crime from occurring.

It includes attempted crimes.

Wrong...if the crime is stopped, there is no reason to report it to the police...and if there will be a hassle, most people won't report something that never got past the displaying of the pistol.....

The NCVS study includes attempted crime, you are wrong again. But you do clearly show why guns don't lower crime. The criminal is free to go committ another crime.

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

The Daily Kos on why the NCVS is wrong...
Defensive Gun Use Part III - The National Crime Victimization Study

The disadvantages of this study design are:
1) the study is not specifically designed to measure DGUs;

2) the study does not track every type of crime;

3) the study does not ask every interviewee about episodes of DGU;

4) interviewees are not specifically asked about defending themselves with a gun;

5) follow-up studies have demonstrated that the incidence of assault (and especially assaults by relatives and non-strangers) in the NCVS is under-reported, and if crime is under-reported then so too will DGUs be under-reported;

6) respondents’ anonymity is not preserved, and some interviewees may therefore feel wary or unwilling to discuss gun use with federal government employees.

 

[Rustic]

Tell us something we don't already know. And America is not alone in being affected by this phenomenon.

Of course, it's just..to use a term the gun grabbers like to use..."common sense". Of COURSE people who want to kill as many people as quickly as possible are going to target groups of people who have advertised their utter vulnerability:

"Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. In Europe, there have been no exceptions. Every mass public shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone. And Europe is no stranger to mass shootings. It has been host to three of the six worst K-12 school shootings and by far the worst mass public shooting perpetrated by a single individual."


Read more at Would-be killers target gun-free zones

Progressives are the antithesis of common sense so, their arguments are lost from the start.

Hashtag embrace the suck

 

[FA_Q2]

I'll put it this way.

When you turned on the Super Bowl this year, you saw about 80,000 people in the stadium. Take that stadium and imagine 12 other stadiums that are filled too; same size. That will be 960,000 people.

Now take those 13 stadiums and DOUBLE IT.


When you do that; you STILL WOULD NOT imagine enough people to fulfill the claim of 2aguy that over 2,000,000 people stopped violent crime last year (and every year before that in recent memory) using guns.

Here is yet another way to put it:

Giant's Stadium: holds about 80,000 folks. Here is a visual of how many people I referenced above....(sort of)

(removed for brevity)

Forum rules will only allow me to publish 15 pictures....80,000 x 15 is 1.2 million folks. Still 800,000 short of the AVERAGE number 2aguy says used guns to stop a violent crime last year alone

This doesn't account for all of the previous years.

Nor does it account for the inherent lie that if the crime was prevented; how does one know if it were going to be a violent crime???

Anyway, it would take 25 Giants Stadiums to seat everyone who used a gun last year to stop a crime according to that moron. Didn't happen. Didn't happen in any of our lifetimes.

You can post all the pictures that you want so that you can stuff your fingers in your ears and ignore the truth.

There have been many studies on the subject and the CDC has taken them as a whole to estimate the number of defensive uses with guns a year. That number is somewhere between .5 and 1.5 million. So his number is larger - the fact that there is around a million defensive uses a year is just as damning to most gun control arguments. The hard data on homicide rates vs gun control law seals the deal - such laws do not have any effect at all.

These are real studies and no one without a preconceived notion is going to reject them because you post a nonsensical picture here. You seem to forget what 300 million as the population we are talking about really means. Even at 2 million, that means less than 1. Do you know a 100 people well enough that you are sure they would have told you if they used a gun in self defense for sure? No, you don't.

I do know someone that has used a weapon in self defense before. He, as the vast majority as well, did not have to fire it. These are stories that are never heard and therefore you assume, incorrectly, that they do not exist.

Please link where the CDC ever made this estimate.

Ncvs estimates about 108k.

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/2#10

Interesting and relevant points:
"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004)."

Having and using a weapon DECREASES the likelihood of an injury. Something that is consistently ignored with asinine statements about bullets flying everywhere.

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."

In the aggregate, there is somewhere between .5 and 1.5 million DGU. The CDC essentially rejects the obvious outliers, 108K and 3 million.

All over the report there is one thing repeated over and over again: more studies are needed to investigate gun and violent crime. If you and others were arguing that studies needed to be expanded to find solutions you would get a whole hearted agreement from me (and congress seems to be actively blocking this) but that is not what is being called for. To me this represents a very clear message: they don't care one whit about actual results o the data - the conclusion is already been reached. The second amendment needs to be ignored.

An honest look at the data shows that gun control is almost universally pointless.

So they didn't really do a study. Just looked at previous studies and threw out the low and high and said maybe it's in this broad range.

Which is exactly what I claimed. They were essentially gathering data from the various sources on gun violence and DGUs.

Read the link - it is very extensive.

 

[Brain357]

I'll put it this way.

When you turned on the Super Bowl this year, you saw about 80,000 people in the stadium. Take that stadium and imagine 12 other stadiums that are filled too; same size. That will be 960,000 people.

Now take those 13 stadiums and DOUBLE IT.


When you do that; you STILL WOULD NOT imagine enough people to fulfill the claim of 2aguy that over 2,000,000 people stopped violent crime last year (and every year before that in recent memory) using guns.

Here is yet another way to put it:

Giant's Stadium: holds about 80,000 folks. Here is a visual of how many people I referenced above....(sort of)

(removed for brevity)

Forum rules will only allow me to publish 15 pictures....80,000 x 15 is 1.2 million folks. Still 800,000 short of the AVERAGE number 2aguy says used guns to stop a violent crime last year alone

This doesn't account for all of the previous years.

Nor does it account for the inherent lie that if the crime was prevented; how does one know if it were going to be a violent crime???

Anyway, it would take 25 Giants Stadiums to seat everyone who used a gun last year to stop a crime according to that moron. Didn't happen. Didn't happen in any of our lifetimes.

You can post all the pictures that you want so that you can stuff your fingers in your ears and ignore the truth.

There have been many studies on the subject and the CDC has taken them as a whole to estimate the number of defensive uses with guns a year. That number is somewhere between .5 and 1.5 million. So his number is larger - the fact that there is around a million defensive uses a year is just as damning to most gun control arguments. The hard data on homicide rates vs gun control law seals the deal - such laws do not have any effect at all.

These are real studies and no one without a preconceived notion is going to reject them because you post a nonsensical picture here. You seem to forget what 300 million as the population we are talking about really means. Even at 2 million, that means less than 1. Do you know a 100 people well enough that you are sure they would have told you if they used a gun in self defense for sure? No, you don't.

I do know someone that has used a weapon in self defense before. He, as the vast majority as well, did not have to fire it. These are stories that are never heard and therefore you assume, incorrectly, that they do not exist.

Please link where the CDC ever made this estimate.

Ncvs estimates about 108k.

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/2#10

Interesting and relevant points:
"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004)."

Having and using a weapon DECREASES the likelihood of an injury. Something that is consistently ignored with asinine statements about bullets flying everywhere.

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."

In the aggregate, there is somewhere between .5 and 1.5 million DGU. The CDC essentially rejects the obvious outliers, 108K and 3 million.

All over the report there is one thing repeated over and over again: more studies are needed to investigate gun and violent crime. If you and others were arguing that studies needed to be expanded to find solutions you would get a whole hearted agreement from me (and congress seems to be actively blocking this) but that is not what is being called for. To me this represents a very clear message: they don't care one whit about actual results o the data - the conclusion is already been reached. The second amendment needs to be ignored.

An honest look at the data shows that gun control is almost universally pointless.

So they didn't really do a study. Just looked at previous studies and threw out the low and high and said maybe it's in this broad range.

Which is exactly what I claimed. They were essentially gathering data from the various sources on gun violence and DGUs.

Read the link - it is very extensive.

Well good then.

 

[Brain357]

They confirm a crime, then ask what happened. That would obviously include a gun defense.

And would only encompass a very small amount of DGU incidents as there is usually no report and no crime that occur. That is the point of a DGU - it STOPS the crime from occurring.

It includes attempted crimes.

Wrong...if the crime is stopped, there is no reason to report it to the police...and if there will be a hassle, most people won't report something that never got past the displaying of the pistol.....

The NCVS study includes attempted crime, you are wrong again. But you do clearly show why guns don't lower crime. The criminal is free to go committ another crime.

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

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

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


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

And as you say the criminal walks free to attempt another crime.