Mass shooters target gun-free zones

[2aguy]

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.

Except for the ones captured or injured....that lowers the crime rate....and then as more of that happens, they target people less and property more....

 

[Brain357]

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.

Except for the ones captured or injured....that lowers the crime rate....and then as more of that happens, they target people less and property more....

You have made it very clear that almost never happens. So no it does not.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Except for the ones captured or injured....that lowers the crime rate....and then as more of that happens, they target people less and property more....

I love how one side of your mouth argues that the vast majority of gun defenses involve no shooting and don't even get reported. Then the other side of your mouth argues that it lowers crime because of all the criminals who are captured and injured... Seriously? Wow dishonesty at its best. Bravo!

 

[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.

I am curious. Do you agree that more or less guns probably does not effect crime rates?

 

[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.

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.

I am curious. Do you agree that more or less guns probably does not effect crime rates?

That is a complex question. Having looked into it rather extensively (for your average joe) I am almost positive that the gun laws (and subsequent gun proliferation) have almost zero impact on homicide rates. However, I have not examined other crimes in this light. Intellectually, I would think that criminals that want to focus on more petty crimes would be less likely to commit such crimes in the light that they may be killed. This is less likely for homicides because one that is willing and able to kill is rarely focused on what might happen to them. I would think then that this would naturally lower the crimes committed against people (such as robbing someone) yet increase property crimes where no one is present. in general I would think that is a positive thing - I don't care that someone broke into my car a few years ago and stole a few electronic items - they left my house and family alone. Didn't even report it.

OTOH, I know that they do not effect the homicide rates so I am not sure if it effects the remaining crime rates as much as I would think it would. There is a discussion to be had there. I don't know if that discussion should have any bearing on second amendment rights though.

 

[Brain357]

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.

I am curious. Do you agree that more or less guns probably does not effect crime rates?

That is a complex question. Having looked into it rather extensively (for your average joe) I am almost positive that the gun laws (and subsequent gun proliferation) have almost zero impact on homicide rates. However, I have not examined other crimes in this light. Intellectually, I would think that criminals that want to focus on more petty crimes would be less likely to commit such crimes in the light that they may be killed. This is less likely for homicides because one that is willing and able to kill is rarely focused on what might happen to them. I would think then that this would naturally lower the crimes committed against people (such as robbing someone) yet increase property crimes where no one is present. in general I would think that is a positive thing - I don't care that someone broke into my car a few years ago and stole a few electronic items - they left my house and family alone. Didn't even report it.

OTOH, I know that they do not effect the homicide rates so I am not sure if it effects the remaining crime rates as much as I would think it would. There is a discussion to be had there. I don't know if that discussion should have any bearing on second amendment rights though.

I think we are pretty well in agreement then. I really don't believe it changes crime at all for this reason. While we have more armed defenders, we also have more armed criminals. The gun empowers the criminal probably as equally as it might deter. For instance an unarmed, skinny little criminal isn't going to rob a big linebacker type if he is unarmed. But arm the criminal and now he can rob essentially anyone.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Guns are not usually used in crimes of property, except to intimidate. Guns are much more likely to be used in crimes of passion, and crime among criminals, such as gangs. I suspect that more deaths result from shootings in domestic violence than occur in shooting the 7/11 clerks in robberies. This is the reason that police fear domestic violence calls more than any other call. A person who has completely gone off the handle in a dispute with his wife or girlfriend is much more likely to resort to deadly force if he has a firearm. In fact, this is the only time in my life that I have been threatened by someone with a gun, and he was drunk, as well.

 

[Brain357]

Guns are not usually used in crimes of property, except to intimidate. Guns are much more likely to be used in crimes of passion, and crime among criminals, such as gangs.Ii suspect that more deaths result from shootings in domestic violence than they occur in shooting the 7/11 clerks in robberies. This is the reason that police fear domestic violence calls more than any other call. A person who has completely gone off the handle in a dispute with his wife or girlfriend is much more likely to resort to deadly force if he has a firearm. In fact, this is the only time in my life that I have been threatened by someone with a gun, and he was drunk, as well.

Yes police are most likely to be shot in domestic dispute call.