3 people shot, man with concealed carry license steps in, shoots gunman

[2aguy]

I don't believe there were 100,000 defenses uses of a firearm.

Here is the research.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

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

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

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

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

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

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


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey

 

[Otis Mayfield]

And you're correct. There's > 100,000

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

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

I'd like to see you address this whole study.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Even if true, this does not in any way mean firearms are not used self-defense more than 100,000 times per year.

 

[2aguy]

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

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

I'd like to see you address this whole study.

I will.....

It was a study conducted by David Hemenway.....rabid, anti-gun extremist, whose research has been some of the shoddiest in the business.....

The one study he uses to count defensive gun uses....the National Crime Victimization Survey....doesn't even have the word gun in it....it doesn't ask any questions about defensive gun use.....

That is the study he uses for his defensive gun use numbers.....vs the other 18 studies....

So right there, his work is compromised.....

A look at Hemenway's previous work...

Likewise, an article by David Hemenway (1997a) was brazenly titled “The Myth of Millions of Annual Self-Defense Gun Uses.” In another article by Hemenway (1997b), his title implicitly took it as given that DGUs are rare, and that surveys indicating the opposite grossly overstate DGU frequency. For Hemenway, the only scholarly task that remained was to explain why surveys did this: “Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimation.”
----
This conclusion was based entirely on a single survey, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which did not even directly ask respondents about defensive gun use.

These critics do not mainly support the low-DGU thesis by affirmatively presenting relevant empirical evidence indicating few DGUs. The only empirical evidence affirmatively cited in support of the low-DGU thesis is the uniquely low estimates derived from the NCVS. The critics appear in no way embarrassed by the fact that the only national estimate they can cite in support of their theory is a survey that does not even ask respondents the key question––whether they have used a gun for self-protection. Instead, the critics get around the large volume of contrary survey evidence by pronouncing all of it invalid and
insisting that all surveys (excepting the NCVS?) grossly overstate the frequency of DGU.
-----
Indeed, in Hemenway’s case, his style of critique perverts the truth-seeking process by selectively attacking the best available research, in hopes of undercutting its credibility,
without applying the same standards to more flawed research yielding contrary findings.
For example, it is a useful exercise to contrast Hemenway’s assessment of the NSDS results with his uncritical citation (Hemenway 1997b, p. 1442) of findings from a bizarre study (Kellermann et al. 1995) in which the authors assessed the frequency of DGUs linked with home invasion crimes entirely on the basis of the number of times victims volunteered information about such DGUs to Atlanta police. According to the Atlanta Police Department, the offense report forms that their officers fill out do not include a box or other place calling for information about victim weapon use, nor are officers trained or required to ask crime victims about such things. Thus, information about victim weapon use, no matter how common it might in fact be, would almost never appear in police offense reports (a fact reported in the journal that published the Kellermann article––see Fotis 1996; confirmed by Kooi 1997). Nevertheless, solely on the basis of Atlanta Police Department offense reports, Kellermann and his colleagues concluded that DGUs almost never occurred in connection with home invasion crimes, because they were almost never mentioned in the offense reports!
Having made no effort to uncover any DGUs in a way likely to locate any, Kellermann et al. saw nothing wrong with concluding that they almost never occur. Hemenway likewise treated the results of this study as if they indicate something about how often DGUs actually occur in connection with this sort of crime (“in only 3 cases [1.5%] was a victim able to use a firearm in self-defense”––p. 1442). He evidently either could not see any flaws in Kellermann’s reasoning, or did not feel obliged to point them out to readers, if uncritically citing these obviously non sequitur conclusions could be used to advance his arguments. Apparently no study could be too transparently and fatally flawed, if it supported the rare DGU thesis.
While this kind of scholarship is to be deplored, it might be less destructive if there were equally numerous and influential.
advocates on both sides of the debate. At least then, all relevant evidence would eventually get a fair hearing somewhere, and the truth would have some chance of emerging from this adversary process. The reality, however, is that academic gun control believers greatly outnumber skeptics. Consider, for example, the members of the Criminology Advisory Board of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, which published Hemenway’s attack on the NSDS. The Board includes such pro-control luminaries as Richard Block, Alfred Blumstein, Roland Chilton, Philip Cook, Jeffrey Fagan, Rosemary Gartner, John Hagan, Richard McCleary, Steven Messner, Daniel S. Nagin, Lawrence Sherman, Wesley Skogan, and Marvin Wolfgang, but does not include even one scholar who has publicly expressed skepticism about gun control (see p. vii of the Summer 1997 issue).
If scholars are allowed to indulge in one-sided speculation that inevitably leads to conclusions preordained by their biases, impressions about the evidence will be determined largely by the numbers of advocates publishing articles, rather than the strength of the evidence. And if compatibility with prevailing ideological positions is allowed to determine the outcome of the debate, it will become impossible to overturn false established ideas and difficult in general to change scholars’ minds about anything. This article presents an analysis of this method of assessing evidence, and a rebuttal of the criticisms of large estimates of DGU freque ncy.

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/journals/JFPP11.pdf

 

[2aguy]

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

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

I'd like to see you address this whole study.

Moron...that isn't a study, it is a collection of his dumb research.....

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Moron...that isn't a study, it is a collection of his dumb research.....

Taint sniffer!


lol

 

[2aguy]

Taint sniffer!


lol

And that is the level of debate expected from anti-gun extremists...........

 

[Man of Ethics]

I don't believe there were 100,000 defenses uses of a firearm.

Indeed, given the very low number of justifiable homicides, the number seems fishy.

 

[2aguy]

Indeed, given the very low number of justifiable homicides, the number seems fishy.

Not really, normal people don’t shoot criminals unless they have no other option, and even when shot, most of the time they are wounded not killed.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Even if true, this does not in any way mean firearms are not used self-defense more than 100,000 times per year.

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

If you have time, give it a read. I'd like to hear your opinion.

It's based on a study, or a few studies.

 

[2aguy]

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

If you have time, give it a read. I'd like to hear your opinion.

It's based on a study, or a few studies.

I gave you the reasons Hemingway is not a serious researcher on that particular research……..try reading what I posted and the link I gave.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Indeed, given the very low number of justifiable homicides, the number seems fishy.

The number came from one of YOUR sources.
Since its YOUR source, it must be legit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

If you have time, give it a read. I'd like to hear your opinion.
It's based on a study, or a few studies.

Millions?
I said >100,000
As such, your post does nothing to diminish my claim.
Again.

 

[Woodznutz]

To purchase a CCW license/permit, depends upon what state you are in. Some states require safety classes, while others don't. Some require range time, some don't. It boils down to the determination of the states, which it should be, not the federal government.

In Wisconsin only a couple hours of instruction by a licensed instructor are required, fee was less than $100 which includes the $40 state CC license fee. Extra firearm training is recommended but not required. License is valid in 32 states.

 

[woodwork201]

Would you have stepped in?

Even the worst shot in the world can occasionally shoot someone right between the eyes. There's always a risk in a gun fight.

One can never say in advance if they'd step in. My hope is that I will step in where I can but who knows. It takes just the right set of circumstances: are you absolutely sure you're shooting the bad guy and not a good guy defending himself from three attackers? If you shoot, do you stop the one you think is the bad guy or does he turn and shoot you and continue his rampage? Things like this happen in seconds. Hopefully, put in a similar situation, one can make the correct analysis and intervene.

History shows that in almost all cases, the permit holder intervening gets it right. I'm sure it's happened but I don't remember a case ever where permit holder intervened and got it wrong. In fact, the police shoot the wrong guy over 5 times more often than a a non-cop shooting a bad guy.

This is old so the supporting link has been removed but this was widely discussed online years ago when the stats were still there to back it up:

Fact: Police are Much More Likely to Shoot the Wrong Person than Armed Citizens - LearnAboutGuns.com

One of the recurring anti gun arguments that I hear centers on the mistaken belief...

learnaboutguns.com

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The gunman who shot three people standing in a South Austin alley on the Fourth of July may have gotten away with the brazen attack that left a woman dead — had a witness with a concealed carry license not stepped in, a Chicago police statement suggests.

Officers were called to the first block of North Menard Avenue around 10:45 p.m. Sunday and found a total of four people shot, a police notification said. But one of the injured men was alleged to be the gunman who had shot the other three people before an uninvolved witness pulled his own gun and shot the attacker, officials said.

Nearby, a second, uninvolved 49-year-old man witnessed the attack, police said. He had a concealed carry license, which allowed him to legally possess a weapon. That man drew his weapon and shot at the gunman who had allegedly killed the woman and wounded the two men, officials said.

3 people shot, man with concealed carry license steps in, shoots gunman, Chicago police say

A concealed carry holder thwarted the escape of an alleged gunman who shot three people, one of them fatally, Chicago police said.

www.chicagotribune.com

It's the Wild West!

Would you have stepped in?

Even the worst shot in the world can occasionally shoot someone right between the eyes. There's always a risk in a gun fight.

Guns don’t kill people. Alec Baldwin kills people

 

[Leo123]

The gunman who shot three people standing in a South Austin alley on the Fourth of July may have gotten away with the brazen attack that left a woman dead — had a witness with a concealed carry license not stepped in, a Chicago police statement suggests.

Officers were called to the first block of North Menard Avenue around 10:45 p.m. Sunday and found a total of four people shot, a police notification said. But one of the injured men was alleged to be the gunman who had shot the other three people before an uninvolved witness pulled his own gun and shot the attacker, officials said.

Nearby, a second, uninvolved 49-year-old man witnessed the attack, police said. He had a concealed carry license, which allowed him to legally possess a weapon. That man drew his weapon and shot at the gunman who had allegedly killed the woman and wounded the two men, officials said.

3 people shot, man with concealed carry license steps in, shoots gunman, Chicago police say

A concealed carry holder thwarted the escape of an alleged gunman who shot three people, one of them fatally, Chicago police said.

www.chicagotribune.com

It's the Wild West!

Would you have stepped in?

Even the worst shot in the world can occasionally shoot someone right between the eyes. There's always a risk in a gun fight.

The 'Wild West" is an entertainment creation from Buffalo Bill's 'Wild West Show' to Hollywood. It is a fantasy that never really existed as they show it.